The High Court order today followed an hour-long round of arguments kicked off by the prosecution submitting that Sharma’s act was unprovoked and reflected a total disregard for human life.

“The convict (Sharma) was intoxicated with power. Further, each step taken by him after the commission of the crime was an interference with the justice mechanism,” Delhi Police standing counsel Mukta Gupta argued. She pointed out that Sharma had shown no signs of remorse and had fled the spot instead of taking the “helpless and innocent” victim to the hospital.

“His conduct was abominable,” Gupta submitted.

In the reply to the arguments, Manu’s counsel R K Naseem said that the crime was a “single act” and Sharma was not a habitual offender or a menace to society. Emphasis ought to be given on reforming a criminal rather than ‘eliminating’ him,” said Naseem, seeking leniency for Manu.

On Yadav, the prosecution opposed the defence’s plea that he was a well-educated 28-year-old man who had “merely entered the threshold of his life” saying that the convict had allegedly committed “another act of kidnapping and murder” while he was on bail in the present case. The convict was not even fit for parole, it added.

Argument on behalf of 41-year-old Singh Gill that he had no knowledge that “removing the vehicle from the crime spot amounted to destruction of evidence” was cut short by the Prosecution, which said that “being a well-educated man neither did the convict stop Sharma from committing the crime nor did he stop to help Jessica to the hospital.”

... contd.