Acid attack: Death sought for accused

The prosecution on Wednesday demanded capital punishment for Delhi resident Ankur Panwar for causing the death of Priti Rathi by hurling acid at her in 2013 at the Bandra Terminus railway station. The special women’s court is expected to pronounce the quantum of punishment on Thursday.

“This is a fit case to award the death sentence,” said special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. He also argued that the aim and object of sentencing is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to protect society, and the court would be failing in its duty if just and appropriate punishment is not awarded.

Mr Nikam also pointed out to the court that Indian society is conscious about crimes against women and, in 2013, an amendment was carried out in the Indian Penal Code following the Nirbhaya gang-rape case in Delhi. According to the prosecution, the incident was a crime against women, who are accorded utmost respect traditionally, and hence the accused should be given exemplary punishment.

The prosecution also told the court that for awarding the death penalty, the act should fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ case, and in this matter the convict had committed a ‘glaring atrocity’ against a young girl. Mr Nikam said it was a case of unilateral love and when the victim refused to marry Panwar, he decided to give a message to society that ‘if he likes anything it would either belong to him or to no one else’. The incident was not a result of spur-of-the-moment actions; it was a pre-planned attack, he said. “If he is given lesser punishment and if he is released after completing the sentence, other girls would not be safe,” argued Mr Nikam.

On the other hand, defence lawyer Apeksha Vora argued that the lawyer provided to the accused at the initial stage wasn’t competent enough to cross-examine eyewitnesses. She argued that even she was not given sufficient time to prepare for cross-examining witnesses. She also claimed that her client was falsely implicated in the case and the ‘original culprit’, Pawankumar Gahalon, who was first arrested in this case and was let off later, had committed this crime. She also claimed that the probe was faulty and the prosecution’s claim that Rathi had come to Mumbai to join work was not proven because the original appointment letter wasn’t submitted before the court. However, when the judge asked Ms Vora to argue only on the quantum of punishment because the court had already held Panwar guilty, she requested the court to award Panwar lesser punishment considering his tender age and the fact that he is the sole breadwinner of his family.