Killers of Rajiv Gandhi cannot seek ‘rays of hope’: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected contention of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case seeking “rays of hope”, observing that such concept was much for the victims and their dependents who have to suffer the aftermath of the incident without any solace.

“… It must be stated that such ray of hope was much more for the victims who were done to death and whose dependents were to suffer the aftermath with no solace left,” the five- judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu said.

“Therefore, when the dreams of such victims in whatever manner and extent it was planned, with reference to oneself, his or her dependents and everyone surrounding him was demolished in an unmindful and in some cases in a diabolic manner in total violation of the Rule of Law which is prevailing in an organised society, they (convicts) cannot be heard to say only their rays of hope should prevail and kept intact,” the bench said.

It also said there was no scope for concept of ray of hope for such hardened criminals as any favour will only result in “misplaced sympathy”.

“Therefore, we find no scope to apply the concept of ray of hope to come for the rescue of such hardened, heartless offenders, which if considered in their favour will only result in misplaced sympathy and again will be not in the interest of the society. Therefore, we reject the said argument outright,” the bench said.

The bench, while delivering the judgement on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, also took a strong note of those who “indulge in propagation of rescuing the convicts”.

It said that “all the hope of the entire people of this country was shattered by a planned murder” of Rajiv Gandhi, “in whom people of this country reposed great faith and confidence when he was entrusted with such great responsible office in the fond hope that he will do his best to develop this country in all trusts”.

Taking a note of the people seeking leniency for convicts, the bench said, “Even those who propagate for lessening the gravity of imposition of severe punishment are unmindful of such consequences and are only keen to indulge in propagation of rescuing the convicts from being meted out with appropriate punishments.”

“We are at a loss to understand as to for what reason or purpose such propagation is carried on and what benefit the society at large is going to derive,” it said.