Ram Jeth’s vehement plea falls on deaf ears: SC dismisses first review heard in open court in Surinder Koli’s case

In what turned out to be a very eventful hearing, the Supreme Court today dismissed the first death penalty review petition heard in open court –  that of the accused in the Nithari serial killings, Surinder koli.

Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani’s vehement arguments that grave injustice would be done if the death sentence is carried out was turned down by a three judge Bench comprising Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justices Anil R Dave and SA Bobde.

Jethmalani, appearing on a pro bono basis for the accused, submitted that Koli was innocent and the offence was committed by someone with medical expertise. He also expressed shock at the fact that the “autopsy report [of the victim] was concealed” from the trial court. Jethmalani also sought to rely on the fact that Koli’s confession was extracted by torture and could not be relied upon.

Instead, the court said,

“Are you asking us to direct a fresh trial Mr. Jethmalani? It is not possible. The review is limited to an “error apparent on the face of record” in our earlier judgement. Please show us that”

To which the senior counsel replied,

“I am appearing pro bono in this matter because my conscience is shocked that such a thing could happen in India. Please hear me out so that I am able to move my lordships’ conscience”.

Jethmalani then submitted that the accused had not got a fair trial as the lawyer provided to him through legal aid had missed out vital points.

“There are many other trials in the same matter which are progressing and not yet concluded. I request that the execution be stayed till at least one of those be concluded. I will appear for him in it; if he is convicted in that, then you can hang him”, said Jethmalani.

“You should have pointed out all these deficiencies during the trial. The scope of review is very limited”, the Court replied.

The Court then proceeded to dismiss the petition stating that there was no error apparent on the face of record in its earlier judgement. However, taking into account Jethmalani’s submissions that the trial lawyer provided to the accused under the legal aid scheme was inexperienced, the Court noted in its order that experienced advocates be provided to accused persons under the legal aid scheme so that they stand a fair chance during the trial to make out their case.