<p> Two convicts in the 2009 Jigisha Ghosh murder case were on Monday awarded the death penalty, while one convict got away with a life term. <br /><br /></p>.<p>A Delhi court held that the 28-year-old techie was killed in a “cold-blooded, inhuman and cruel manner” and “brutally mauled to death”.<br /><br />The court said the magnitude and brutality exhibited by the convicts made the case ‘rarest of rare’, warranting capital punishment for Ravi Kapoor and Amit Shukla. The third offender, Baljeet Malik, was given reprieve from the gallows for his good conduct in jail.<br /><br />The court also imposed varying fines on the convicts, with Kapoor being slapped with a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh due to his incapacity to pay, while Shukla and Malik were directed to pay Rs 2.8 lakh and Rs 5.8 lakh, respectively, as the pre-sentencing report suggested they were financially strong.<br /><br />The convicts are also facing trial for the murder of TV journalist Soumya Viswanathan, who was killed a year before Jigisha.<br /><br />While awarding the capital punishment to Kapoor and Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav said: “They are a threat to society. An innocent, helpless and vulnerable victim remained in the captivity of the convicts for hours. She pleaded not to take her life, she handed over her debit card and other belongings. The victim also disclosed the pin number.”<br /><br />“However, they were satisfied only by brutally mauling her to death. In other words, the convicts behaved in an uncivilised and barbaric manner against a helpless girl,” the judge said, while pronouncing the order in a packed courtroom.<br /><br />‘Cannot show leniency’<br /><br />The court said leniency cannot be shown to these convicts as there was a rise of gruesome crimes against women, which needed to be dealt with an appropriate sentence.<br /><br />The court also directed that out of the total fine of Rs 9.8 lakh, Rs 6 lakh be paid to the victim’s parents, and an adequate compensation amount be decided by the District Legal Service Authority (South).<br /><br />While awarding the compensation, the court noted that Jigisha was the sole bread winner of her family, earning Rs 45,000.<br />“No amount of compensation can alleviate the agony, pain and trauma of the parents of the victim, resulting from the crime committed in the case. However, monetary compensation would provide some solace,” the court stated.<br /><br />The court, while awarding compensation, also took into consideration the health condition of the victim’s mother, who is suffering from diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, thalessimia and serious neurological ailments.<br /><br />Jigisha’s father is a retired deputy director of the Ministry of Health, the court noted.<br /><br />The court also appreciated the probation officer for filing the detailed pre-sentencing report. The court had on July 14 convicted the three men.<br /><br />Malik and Shukla’s counsel, however, said the death sentence was not warranted in a case based on circumstantial evidence and he would appeal in the high court against the verdict.<br /><br /></p>
<p> Two convicts in the 2009 Jigisha Ghosh murder case were on Monday awarded the death penalty, while one convict got away with a life term. <br /><br /></p>.<p>A Delhi court held that the 28-year-old techie was killed in a “cold-blooded, inhuman and cruel manner” and “brutally mauled to death”.<br /><br />The court said the magnitude and brutality exhibited by the convicts made the case ‘rarest of rare’, warranting capital punishment for Ravi Kapoor and Amit Shukla. The third offender, Baljeet Malik, was given reprieve from the gallows for his good conduct in jail.<br /><br />The court also imposed varying fines on the convicts, with Kapoor being slapped with a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh due to his incapacity to pay, while Shukla and Malik were directed to pay Rs 2.8 lakh and Rs 5.8 lakh, respectively, as the pre-sentencing report suggested they were financially strong.<br /><br />The convicts are also facing trial for the murder of TV journalist Soumya Viswanathan, who was killed a year before Jigisha.<br /><br />While awarding the capital punishment to Kapoor and Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav said: “They are a threat to society. An innocent, helpless and vulnerable victim remained in the captivity of the convicts for hours. She pleaded not to take her life, she handed over her debit card and other belongings. The victim also disclosed the pin number.”<br /><br />“However, they were satisfied only by brutally mauling her to death. In other words, the convicts behaved in an uncivilised and barbaric manner against a helpless girl,” the judge said, while pronouncing the order in a packed courtroom.<br /><br />‘Cannot show leniency’<br /><br />The court said leniency cannot be shown to these convicts as there was a rise of gruesome crimes against women, which needed to be dealt with an appropriate sentence.<br /><br />The court also directed that out of the total fine of Rs 9.8 lakh, Rs 6 lakh be paid to the victim’s parents, and an adequate compensation amount be decided by the District Legal Service Authority (South).<br /><br />While awarding the compensation, the court noted that Jigisha was the sole bread winner of her family, earning Rs 45,000.<br />“No amount of compensation can alleviate the agony, pain and trauma of the parents of the victim, resulting from the crime committed in the case. However, monetary compensation would provide some solace,” the court stated.<br /><br />The court, while awarding compensation, also took into consideration the health condition of the victim’s mother, who is suffering from diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, thalessimia and serious neurological ailments.<br /><br />Jigisha’s father is a retired deputy director of the Ministry of Health, the court noted.<br /><br />The court also appreciated the probation officer for filing the detailed pre-sentencing report. The court had on July 14 convicted the three men.<br /><br />Malik and Shukla’s counsel, however, said the death sentence was not warranted in a case based on circumstantial evidence and he would appeal in the high court against the verdict.<br /><br /></p>