Delhi gangrape verdict: How the legal battle unfolded

The verdict in the Delhi gangrape case comes close to nine months after the 16 December incident which caused such massive outrage. Here is a quick look at how the trial played out: A long list of 85 prosecution witnesses that included doctors, forensic experts, police officers and telecom company officials, and 17 defence witnesses, most of them alibis, testified during the 127 days of effective hearing before a fast-track court during the last seven months. [caption id=“attachment_1097545” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Reuters[/caption] The victim’s dying declaration (recorded by a magistrate at the Safdarjung hospital where the victim was admitted) and the eyewitness account of the victim’s friend represent strong prosecution evidence against the accused. The victim’s friend, who is also the complainant in the case, during his cross-examination, had denied suggestions by the defence that the accused had been framed. The prosecution has relied heavily on scientific evidence to back their case against the accused. It has argued that DNA samples lifted from the crime scene, iron rod used to attack the victims and clothes of the accused, corroborates their case. According to the prosecution, this is the first time in a rape case that dental records to match the bite marks on the victim with that of the accused have been submitted as evidence. Three of the accused – Akshay Thakur, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta – barring Mukesh, who is the brother of accused Ram Singh, have argued that they were not present on the bus on the night the crime was committed. Each produced alibis as witnesses who told the court that the accused where at a different place. Akshay Thakur argued that he was not in Delhi, while Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta’s defence was that they were attending a music programme that night. Mukesh, on the other hand, has admitted to being on the bus but denied raping and attacking the girl and her friend. Challenging the defence’s case, the prosecution argued that the “inconsistencies in the facts related by the defence witnesses” and the “absence of credible alibis,” had shown their claim that they were not on the bus to be false. Defence lawyer AP Singh, in his final arguments, accused the Delhi Police of framing the accused and planting evidence on them. The victim’s statement to the magistrate, Singh argued, was a police fabrication. The victim, he claimed, had died much before she had been officially declared to be dead.