CITATION – AIR 2017 SCC (CRIMINAL) 899
BENCH – Justice Deepak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan
JUDGEMENT – 10 September 2013.
INTRODUCTION:
One of the most important criminal cases in the history of Indian criminal jurisdiction, 2012 Delhi Gang Rape case, known as “Nirbhaya Case” among the people, led onto many changes in the laws of the nation. The night of 16th December 2012 turned out to be the most destructive and life altering day for Jyoti Singh, a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern and her male friend who could not protect their hopes in their lives. On that day, the 23-year-old physiotherapy intern and her male friend took the bus from Munirka Bus Stand in Delhi. While aboard, the two were subjected to brutal violence, where the male friend was subjected to severe physical beating with the use of iron rod. Meanwhile, the female victim was brutally tortured in such a manner that she was continuously gang-raped for 2 hours by 6 accused men, one of whom was even a juvenile. The attitude, perception, the beastial proclivity, inconceivable self-obsession and individual centralism of the six made the young lady to suffer immense trauma and, ultimately, the life-spark that moves the bodily frame got extinguished as she succumbed to her injuries on 29 December, 2012 in a hospital in Singapore.
The Mukesh ANR & State of NCT of Delhi ORS [1] incident triggered nation-wide protests and even reached the international stage, where the masses demanded justice, stricter criminal laws and better protection of women. It also promoted one of the most comprehensive reforms in Indian criminal law through the Criminal Law (Amendment) act[2], 2013. The Supreme court’s judgement upheld death penalty for the 4 adult convicts (one of them died by suicide during trial and another, a juvenile convicted under the Juvenile justice act), making it a “rarest of the rare” landmark judgement in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
“Nirbhaya” is a pseudonym used for the victim by the masses (translating to Fearless) to describe the 2012 Delhi rape case. The prosecution (victim), on 16.12.2012, with her male friend was walking towards a bus stand after watching a film at a PVR under the Select City walk mall, Saket. Around 8:30, they boarded a bus with yellow and green stripes, inscribed with the word “Yadav”, from the Munirka bus stand. After boarding, both the victims noticed 6 men (1 younger than the others and likely a minor) already present inside the bus. The duo sat on the left side of the bus in two seats and as the bus departed, soon enough the victims felt a sense of danger as the bus conductor closed the door and refused to board any other passengers, also switched off the lights in the bus. Suddenly, 3 of the accused (Ram Singh, Akshay and the Juvenile) started assaulting the male friend who, upon raising opposition, was heinously beaten up by the accused, seriously injuring his body and head. Soon after, as two of the accused (Vinay and Pawan) pinned down the male victim while stealing his belongings, the other 3 accused (Ram Singh, Akshay and the Juvenile) took the female victim to the rear end of the bus and raped her one by one. Upon their completion of the end, two of the accused went to hold the male Friend down as the other three accused, driver Mukesh, Vinay and Pawan came forward to repeat the same disgusting act again on the victim.
Later, the bunch of accused inserted an iron rod inside the female victim’s body, up her vagina, causing a tag of her vagina hanging out the introitus and a vaginal wall tear along with forcefully inserting their hands up the rectal region, causing an additional rectal wall tear. Also, the rod was later described by police as being a rusted, L-shaped implement of the type used as a wheel jack handle, which was the main reason for the victim’s death as she developed sepsis inside her vagina along with multiple organ failures. Apart from that, numerous bite marks were found throughout the victim’s body. Victim remembers 2 times abdominal and rectal intercourse and was also forced into unnatural oral sex but refused. After this act, both the victims – looted, assaulted and were thrown outside the moving bus, naked and bloodied up, at National Highway No. 8, Hotel Delhi 37, Mahipalpur flyover. On the left side of the road, a hotel worker heard the cries of a female, screaming for help and he reached the spot to find the victims bloodied up and nearly in a death like situation. Immediately thereafter, Raj Kumar (the worker), informed Ram Pal, who was in the Control Room (patrolling at night), requesting him to call PCR. Ram Pal, of EGIS Infra Management India (P) Limited, dialled 100 No. And even asked his other patrolling staff to reach the spot. After this, the victims were shifted to the Safdarjung hospital to receive treatment but due to worsening condition, Jyoti was shifted to a hospital in Singapore where she sadly, took her last breath on the December of that same year.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
The Supreme court considered several important legal issues –
- Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence, including forensic reports and dying declarations, was reliable.
- Whether procedural safeguards during investigation and trial were followed.
- Whether the death sentence satisfied the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
- Whether mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating circumstances.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION:
The prosecution argued that:
- DNA evidence conclusively connected the accused with the crime.
- Medical reports established brutal sexual assault and fatal injuries.
- The victim’s dying declarations were consistent and trustworthy.
- Recovery of stolen articles and the bus corroborated the prosecution case.
- The crime displayed exceptional brutality deserving the maximum punishment.
- The prosecution maintained that the case clearly fell within the “rarest of rare” category
ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENCE:
The defence contended that:
- Investigation suffered from procedural irregularities.
- Identification of the accused was doubtful as the informant (male victim) might have confused facial features in the absence of light. That informant’s description of usage of iron rod does not seem reliable as he “only” succumbed to simple injuries.
- Circumstantial evidence was insufficient.
- The accused belonged to poor socio-economic backgrounds, hence, not literate enough to have proper conduct.
- Death penalty violated the constitutional right to life.
- Possibility of reform should have been considered.
- The defence sought commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.
JUDGEMENTS BY THE TRIAL COURT:
Learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 10.09.2013, соnviсted all the ассused persоns, namely, Аkshаy Kumаr Singh Thаkur, Vinаy Shаrmа, Mukesh and Раwаn Guрtа @ Kааlu under –
- Section 120B IРС[3] fоr the оffenсe оf сriminаl соnsрirасy
- Under Seсtiоn 365/366 IРС[4] reаd with Seсtiоn 120B IРС fоr аbduсting the viсtims with аn intentiоn tо fоrсe the рrоseсutrix tо illiсit interсоurse;
- Under Seсtiоn 307 IРС[5] reаd with Seсtiоn 120B IРС fоr attempting tо kill РW-1, the infоrmаnt;
- Under Seсtiоn 376(2)(g) IРC[6] fоr соmmitting gаng rape with the рrоseсutrix in рursuаnсe оf their соnsрirасy;
- Under Seсtiоn 377 IРС[7] reаd with section 120B IРC fоr соmmitting unnаturаl оffenсe with the рrоseсutrix;
- Under Seсtiоn 302 IРС[8] reаd with Seсtiоn 120B IРС fоr соmmitting murder оf the helрless рrоseсutrix;
- Under Section 395 IРС[9] fоr соnjоintly соmmitting dасоity in рursuаnсe оf the аfоresаid соnsрirасy;
- Under Seсtiоn 397 IРС[10] reаd with Seсtiоn 120B IРС fоr the use оf irоn rоds аnd fоr аttemрting to kill РW-1 аt the time оf соmmitting rоbbery
JUDGEMENT BY SUPREME COURT:
In a simple mandate, the court stated that the diabolic act had shaken the common Consciousness of the nation and that the court should regard it as the rarest of rare cases in Which death sentences could be awarded.
• The bench said that the way they played with the identity, body, dignity & privacy of a women is Unforgivable and their evil deeds has no mercy to be given. [11]
• The Supreme Court delivered justice to the victim’s family and all women in the country by Upholding the death penalty for the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case, Describing it as the rarest of rare, most violent and barbaric assault on Jyoti Singh, a 23-year-Old paramedic student. The convicts treated the victim as if she were a doll and abused Her/his friend at an unforgivable extent.
• A three-judge bench unanimously affirmed the Delhi High Court’s ruling, which complied with the trial court’s decision in the matter. Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh were hanged to death for their violence against a countrywoman. The bench Sentenced them to death because their crime matched the rarest-of-rare requirements.
Following the incident, since he was a minor at the time, the fifth accused was not charged and was returned to a correctional institution for three years.
• The last accused Ram Singh of this case did a suicide in Tihar jail while his trail which Proves his guilty mind.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
The Mukesh ANR. V. State of NCT of Delhi ORS changes the complete trajectory of Indian Criminal jurisprudence. Not just that, but also it sent a nationwide shockwave of fear and disappointment, especially amongst female gender. To think they need to reside in a so-called “humane” society which also takes pride in its prevailing goddess worshipping culture yet failed to protect its women so miserably.
Now, although the judgment was widely welcomed by the society, legal scholars continued to debate several issues.
Positive aspects – There was a strong reliance on scientific evidence rather than words spoken during the investigation. More so, there was the court-maintained scrutiny in its evaluation of the medical testimony as well as the victim’s dying declaration with all due respect, especially since her condition was so painful. Court considered all the CCTV footages, fingerprints and all the witnesses with emaculate care which helped in the detailed application of sentencing principles. Further, the bench in this case gave their verdict based on the principles laid down in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[12] and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab[13] where court considered the aggravating circumstances of exceptional brutality, planned criminal conduct, extreme torture, inhumane treatment, complete disregard of human dignity etc; of the case and held that no mitigating factors outweighed these aggravating circumstances, hence, considering this as the “rarest of the rare” case and giving death penalty as the only viable punishment for this monstrous act.
Negative aspect – Even though the case was handled with much care from the judge’s side, yet the delays which occurred because of multiple appeals by the respondents were not at all appreciated by the public. Due to this, masses started losing mutual trust over the court’s responsibility to protect the people of this nation.
Even though the popularly known Nirbhaya case broke something inside all the women of India whether coming from upper or lower class, from differing religion or caste or other varying aspects of life, yet it also united the women and gave them enough strength to demand justice for their Right to life, dignity and bodily integrity (as guaranteed by Article 21[14]).
AFTERMATH OF THE CASE:
It would be pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., 201729, also known as the Nirbhaya case, several significant cases followed that both reaffirmed the principles laid down by Supreme Court in this verdict and future legal and sociological discourse related to sexual assault, capital punishment and women’s right. Here are some of the famous ones that came into existence a few years back:
- Kathua Rape Case (2018)[15]:
An 8 year old girl was raped and killed by a group of men in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. This case brought a lot of attention to the nation especially because the crime was of social and Political nature as some people defended the perpetrators. Earlier in June 2019, six men were Convicted and in relation to that the court passed out a life sentence to three of the involved Men. Even though the death penalty could not be carried out on the perpetrators of the crime, The case highlighted this as the reason why rigorous and prompt justice had to be meted on Anyone found guilty of the heinous crime of rape or any form of sexual assault on the vulnerable Section of the society especially the children. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 201831 was enacted to provide for the death penalty for persons convicted of raping a girl under the age of twelve years more stringent in the laws protecting children from sexual violence.
- Unnao Rape Case (2017)[16]:
In this case the MLA of the ruling party in Uttar Pradesh, Kuldeep Singh Sengar, raped a minor Girl when she was 12 years of age and was told to keep shut else her whole family will be murdered. It further received immense coverage when the survivor’s father was reportedly killed as the victim refused to stay silent and the survivor herself was badly threatened The case was further intensified when in 2019 through A suspected staged accident where the survivor also barely survived but the rest of her remaining family members were killed, even her mother. Sengar was convicted to life Imprisonment in 2019 for the rape and for the other crimes related to the case other Investigations were launched. This case rose concerns on the trends of political compulsiveness and rape survivor injustice system in the country.
- The enhancement of Criminal Law Amendment of 2013[17] also referred to as the Anti-rape Act made significant change on the laws governing rape. This legislative reform also widened the definition of rape by including other offences including stalking, battery involving use of Acid and voyeurism. Even a threat to rape her was considered criminal and therefore the Perpetrator was to face legal consequences of his actions. In addition, the minimum years for Rape was increased from seven to ten years noting the increase in the cases of rape.
- Apart from these, many sections in the Indian Penal code were also added such as section 326 A&B (acid cases), 354A,B,C&D[18] etc; to ensure women safety as a priority as maintained by the law.
CONCLUSION:
The Nirbhaya case represents a turning point in India’s criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh & Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) affirmed that exceptionally brutal crimes against women warrant the strictest legal response when they fall within the “rarest of rare” category. Beyond upholding the convictions and death sentences, the case catalysed significant reforms in criminal law, policing, and public discourse on women’s safety. The Nirbhaya case represents a turning point in India’s criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh & Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) affirmed that exceptionally brutal crimes against women warrant the strictest legal response when they fall within the “rarest of rare” category. As a landmark judgment, the Nirbhaya case remains a defining example of the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional values of dignity, equality, and justice.
Author: Priyani Dey
Year of Study: First Year
College: University of Allahabad
REFERENCES
[1] Mukesh ANR V. State of NCT of Delhi ORS, AIR 2017 SCC 899 on 5 May, 2017 https://share.google/7CNSQkmHf7eVYlaMW
[2] Criminal_law_ammend_act_2013.pdf https://share.google/kaJFEIAhHqnt1E7FH
[4] Section 365/366 India Code: Section Details https://share.google/AIZhyhryvglROW5Fw
[5] Section 307 https://share.google/ji9TDHDOqDJwmiRRD
[6] Section 376 Source: Indian Kanoon https://share.google/VSR0uVxGfcJMdanVA
[7] Section 377 Source: India Code https://share.google/4wfqbxCkmarn6vG4A
[8] Section 302 Source: Indian Kanoon https://share.google/HHkZQFFBR66iwmviT
[10] Section 397 https://share.google/SkOcHOudKpnMdtywy
[11] Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
https://share.google/Jl7PS8Pbao4oipItd
[12] Bachan Singh v state of Punjab; Source: Indian Kanoon https://share.google/rnZtV7ooeqprl30R3
[13] Macchi Singh v state of Punjab; Source: Indian Kanoon https://share.google/TLwpYyV7Pdgt1QS5X
[14] Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
[15] Kathua Rape case; Source: The Hindu https://share.google/UHvhcgRZUIFyKKkz2
[16] Unnao Rape case; Source: The Hindu https://share.google/xfJPOANvCEpi6v01X
[17] Criminal Law Amendment act, 2013; Source: India Code https://share.google/SKvK1wnxIUYAf2Nc3
[18] IPC section- 326A, 326B, 354 A, 354B, 354C, 354D; Source: India Code https://share.google/y2E92gH3H3alUDfSL
