Authored By: A.R.Muhammed Raquib
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, SRM School of Law
Name of the case – Mukesh and anr vs State for NCT of Delhi and Ors (2017) AIR SC 2161. COURT NAME AND BENCH :-
Court Name – Supreme Court
Name of the Judges – Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan .
DATE OF JUDGEMENT :-
5th May, 2017 .
PARTIES INVOLVED :-
Mukesh and anr , State for NCT of Delhi .
NATURE OF THE CASE:-
Criminal case (Criminal appellate jurisdiction)
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
On the tragic night of December 16, 2012, a young woman of 23 years old and her companion were returning home after watching a movie. Unable to find public transport, they boarded an off-duty charter bus at the Munirka Bus Stand, headed for Dwarka in which six other men including the bus driver were already inside. Soon after, the men began to harass and abuse the victim’s companion. A dispute arose, and the male friend was brutally assaulted by the group.
What followed was an unimaginable nightmare; the 23 year old woman was dragged to the back of the bus, where the men took turns heinously raping her. The most horrifying aspect of this assault was their use of an iron rod, which they violently thrust into her, severely damaging her internal organs. The women and her friend were thrown out of the bus after the assault have taken place. The attacker even attempted to kill her, hoping to erase any evidence of their crime. By some small mercy, they were found by a passer-by, and the authorities were informed. Despite receiving medical treatment, the injuries and trauma were too severe. On December 29, 2012 after a courageous fight for survival, the young woman tragically succumbed to her injuries.
Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, Mukesh Singh, Ram Singh, and the Juvenile in Conflict with Law (Identity protected) were the six accused in this case.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:-
1) Charges filed under IPC Section (120(B) (Criminal conspiracy), 365 (Kidnapping or abduction), 366 , 307 (Attempt to murder), 376(2)(g) (Gang rape), 396 (Dacoity with murder), 302 (Murder), 395 (Punishment for dacoity), 397 (Robbery or dacoity causing death or grievous hurt), and 412 (Offenses against property)) valid against the convicted individuals?
2) Can a juvenile be held accountable for the same offenses as an adult and found guilty of those charges?
3) Should the convicted individual be subjected to capital punishment or granted life imprisonment?
DOCTRINE INVOLVED IN THE CASE:-
The principle of the rarest of the rarer cases has been strike down and the punishment of the death penalty was been given in this case.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:-
- CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER:-
The learned counsel contends that the judges should not place undue reliance on the victim’s blood report and DNA evidence, as the substantial blood loss incurred during the transfusion may have compromised the integrity of the DNA profile. Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the victim’s dire circumstances prevented her from providing a dying declaration. Convicted individuals Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar maintain their innocence, claiming they were not on the bus at the time of the incident, a position supported by their family members. In light of the severity of the crime, the learned counsel argues that the death penalty should be imposed in exceptional cases, while life imprisonment should be the preferred sentence in less severe circumstances. Additionally, the counsel points out that the absence of injury to the victim’suterus suggests that an iron rod was not employed for penetration. If such a weapon had been used, it would have likely caused injury to the uterus before impacting the intestines, which was not evidenced in this case.
- CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS:-
The counsel argued that this case qualifies as one of the “rarest of the rare” instances, warranting the imposition of capital punishment as the most appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it was asserted that the minor accused should be prosecuted alongside the other four defendants, as the severity of the offense merits no leniency for the minor. The counsel emphasized that there exists substantial evidence to justify the conviction and punishment of all accused parties.
JUDGEMENT:-
The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and all six men involved in the Nirbhaya Rape Case, including a juvenile, were found guilty of their crime. The bus driver did suicide tragically when the trial was taking place. Mukesh, Akshay, Pawan, and Vinay were sentenced to three years in a reform facility. The review petition submitted by Akshay Singh was been rejected by Supreme Court on December 18, 2019. The four convicts, who had received the death penalty for the gang rape and murder of a medical student, were executed on March 3, 2020. The death warrant was issued after the authorities at Tihar Jail informed the trial court that three of the convicts had exhausted all legal avenues available to them. Notably, Akshay Singh has neither filed a curative petition nor submitted a mercy plea to the President, which was ultimately declined. The case remains a poignant reminder of the complexities and challenges in the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes.
RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE:-
The ratio decidendi of the Nirbhaya case, officially titled Mukesh & Anr. V. State for NCT of Delhi, it provides for the rarest of rare case. The Supreme Court upheld the capital punishment for the four convicted individuals involved in this brutal crime. In its judgment, the court extensively examined forensic and medical evidence, reaffirming the applicability of Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to sexual assault and murder, respectively. The court determined that this case unequivocally fell within the “rarest of rare” category, as previously defined in the landmark ruling of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. This categorization underscores the gravity of the offenses committed and the court’s commitment to ensuring that justice is served in the most severe cases of violence against individuals.
RAISING FUTURE STANDARDS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:-
The Nirbhaya rape case exposed numerous irregularities within the legal system, prompting significant reforms aimed at improving the handling of sexual offenses. One of the most notable outcomes was the enactment of the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013, also known as the Anti Rape Act, which broadened the definition of rape to encompass additional offenses, including stalking, acid attacks, and voyeurism. The amendment also increased the minimum punishment for rape, particularly in cases where the victim was left in a vegetative state or died as a result of the assault. Importantly, the reforms established that the characteristics of the victim should not influence the charges or proceedings related to rape cases. Furthermore, the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 addressed the challenges posed by juvenile offenders by allowing those aged 16 and above who commit violent crimes, including rape, to be tried as adults. In addition to these legislative changes, the establishment of fast-track courts has enhanced the judicial process, ensuring swift justice for victims. Strengthened law enforcement measures and heightened public awareness campaigns have also played a crucial role in combating sexual violence and fostering activism around these issues. Collectively, these reforms represent a significant step forward in raising standards within the legal framework for addressing sexual offenses in India.
SUPPORTED CASE LAWS BASED ON THE NIRBHAYA CASE:-
1) Though there were significant amendments made after the Nirbhaya casa, many rape offenses remain as brutal as that incident. One such case is the Shakti Mills gang rape, where a 22 year old photo journalist was raped by five men including a minor at Mumbai Shakti Mills compound. Similar incident occurred weeks later at the same location where an 18 year old telephone reporter was also raped. The Mumbai High court in March 2014 held that 5 men were found guilty in those 2 rape cases and awarded death penalty to three repeat offenders but the same judgement was over tuned in 2021 by the Bombay High Court and awarded them life imprisonment.
2) The Jisha rape and murder case refers to the brutal killing of Jisha, a 29-year-old Dalit law student, in Kerala, India, in 2016. Jisha was found dead on April 28 in Perumbavoor.
She had been raped, stabbed approximately 30 times, and her body showed signs of severe mutilation, indicating extreme violence and possible torture. It also noted the presence of alcohol .The case garnered widespread media attention and public outrage, highlighting issues of caste-based violence and women’s safety in India. An Assamese labourer named Raju was arrested as the sole accused in the case. After a lengthy trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to death in 2019. The Jisha case became emblematic of the broader societal issues surrounding sexual violence against women, particularly from marginalized communities, and sparked debates on the need for stronger laws and protection for women in India.
REFERENCE(S):-
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68696327/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-nirbhayacase/articleshow/72868430.cms
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51969961
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/12-years-after-nirbhaya-case-her-mother-says-women still-unsafe-in-india-7263020
- https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/tagsearch.aspx?tag=Nirbhaya
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/nirbhaya-case/
