Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May 2017

CASE –  Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017

Bench: Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan

PARTIES 

PETITIONER – The name of the victim is protected  here, and can be addressed as Nirbhaya 

RESPONDENTS -Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and Akshay Thakur, Ram Singh, Mohammed Afroz

FACTS 

On Delhi on 16th December, 2012 an twenty-three year old lady, a para- medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket,  while they were returning they boarded an private bus at Munirka nus stand along with her male friend it was almost late night while they were returning, There were a gang of 6 people in bus expect them all were men. The deceased and the informant sat on the left side in the row of two-seaters and paid the fare of twenty rupees as demanded. Before they could get the feeling of a safe journey (though not a time-consuming journey), a feeling of lonely suffocation and a sense of danger barged in, for the accused persons did not allow anyone else to board, and the bus moved, and the lights inside the bus were put off. With the lights being put off, the darkness and the fear of the unexpected darkness ruled. One of the accused hit them both the vitcm and her friend with iron rod and robbed a few items such as debit cards, gold ring etc later they stated to rape her one after other in an really brutal way they inserted hand and rods into her vagina, rectum and even pulled of her intestines out of her body after words they threw both the friend and victim out side the moving bus National Highway No. 8, Hotel Delhi 37, Mahipalpur flyover by the side of the road.

Dr Rashmi Ahuja recorded the history and stated that. the victim was slapped on her face, kicked on her abdomen and bitten on her lips, cheek, breast and vulval region. On the same night, 16/17.12.2012, the victim underwent the first surgery around 4:00 a.m. The victim was operated on by Dr Raj Kumar Chejara, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and his surgery team comprised of Dr Gaurav and Dr Piyush. The second and third surgeries were performed on 19.12.2012 and 23.12.2012, respectively. During the period, the prosecutrix was undergoing surgeries one after the other, and when all were concerned about her progress of recovery, the prosecution was carrying out its investigation in a manner that it thought systematic. The first and foremost responsibility of the prosecution was to find out, based on the information given, about the accused persons.

After some information, the police started to arrest the accused one by one. After being arrested, all the accused were medically examined. The MLCs of all the accused persons show various injuries on their persons. On 21.12.2012, on being declared fit, the second dying declaration was recorded by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This dying declaration is an elaborate one where the prosecutrix has described the incident in detail, including the insertion of rods in her private parts. She also stated that the accused were addressing each other with names like “Ram Singh, Thakur, Raju, Mukesh, Pawan and Vinay”. The health condition was examined on 26th December 2012 by a team of doctors comprising of Dr. Sandeep Bansal, Cardiologist, Dr. Raj Kumar Chejara, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Dr. Arun Batra and Dr. P.K. Verma and since the condition of the prosecutrix was critical, it was decided that she be shifted abroad for further treatment and fostering oasis of hope on 27th December, 2012, she was shifted to Mt. Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore, for her further treatment.  The hope and expectation became a visible mirage as the prosecutrix died on 29th December, 2012, at Mt. Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore. Dr Paul Chui, Forensic Pathologist, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, deposed that her exact time of death was 4:45 a.m. on 29th December, 2012. The death occurred at Mt. Elizabeth Hospital, and the cause of her death was sepsis with multiple organ failure following multiple injuries. 

After the case was committed to the Court of Session, all the accused were charged for the following offences:

1. u/s 120-B IPC;
2. u/s. 365 / 366 / 307 / 376 (2)(g) IPC/ 377 IPCread with Section 120-B IPC;
3. u/s. 396 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and /or;
4. u/s. 302 IPCread with Section 120-BIPC;
5. u/s. 395 IPCread with Section 397IPC read with 120-B IPC;
6. u/s. 201 IPCread with Section 120-BIPC and;
7. u/s. 412 IPC.

Learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 10.09.2013, convicted all the accused persons, namely, Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur, Vinay Sharma, Mukesh and Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu under Section 120B IPC for the offence of criminal conspiracy; under Section 365/366 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for abducting the victims with an intention to force the prosecutrix to illicit intercourse; under Section 307 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for attempting to kill PW-1, the informant; under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for committing gang rape with the prosecutrix in pursuance of their conspiracy; under Section 377 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for committing unnatural offence with the prosecutrix; under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for committing murder of the helpless prosecutrix; under Section 395 IPC for conjointly committing dacoity in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy; under Section 397 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for the use of iron rods and for attempting to kill PW-1 at the time of committing robbery; under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for destroying of evidence and under Section 412 IPC for the offence of being individually found in possession of the stolen property which they all knew was a stolen booty of dacoity committed by them.

fter recording the conviction, as aforesaid, the learned trial Judge imposed the sentence, which we reproduce:

“(a) The convicts, namely, convict Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur, convict Mukesh, convict Vinay Sharma and convict Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu are sentenced to death for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the convicts to be hanged by neck till they are dead. Fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the convict is also imposed and in default of payment of fine such convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(b) for the offence under Section 120-B IPC I award the punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(c) for the offence under Section 365 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(d) for the offence under Section 366 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them.

In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(e) for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC I award the punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict person with fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(f) for the offence under Section 377 IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(g) for the offence under Section 307 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(h) for the offence under Section 201 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(i) for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;

(j) for the offence under Section 412 IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict.”

The High Court, vide judgment dated 13.03.2014, affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death penalty imposed upon the accused by expressing the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of the death penalty awarded by the trial court deserved to be confirmed in respect of all four convicts. As the death penalty was confirmed, the appeals preferred by the accused faced the inevitable result, that is, dismissal.

Commencement of hearing and delineation of contentions

RATIO DECIDENDI 

• In September 2013, the court found the four adult defendants (Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and Akshay Thakur) guilty of 13 offences, including murder and gang rape, and sentenced all four to death by hanging.
• Delhi High Court: In March 2014, the High Court confirmed the death sentences, agreeing with the trial court’s assessment of the crime’s extreme nature.
• Supreme Court: In May 2017, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the death penalty, ruling that the “brutality” and “depravity” of the act shook the conscience of the nation and there were no sufficient mitigating factors for a lesser sentence. The Court dismissed subsequent review and curative petitions filed by the convicts. 

After exhausting all legal remedies, including mercy petitions to the President of India, the four adult convicts were hanged at Tihar Jail in Delhi on March 20, 2020, at 5:30 a.m.. 

Of the other two accused:

• One adult accused, Ram Singh, the bus driver, died by apparent suicide in Tihar Jail during the trial in March 2013.
• A juvenile accused was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board and sentenced to a maximum of three years in a reform facility, the maximum punishment under the then-existing law. He was released in December 2015 after serving his term

CONCLUSION 

The Nirbhaya case was not merely a criminal trial but a catalyst for far-reaching reforms in India’s criminal law, particularly concerning sexual offences. One of its most significant outcomes was the expansion of the definition of rape under. Before this case, rape was narrowly understood as penile–vaginal penetration, failing to acknowledge the varied and severe forms of sexual violence inflicted on women. Post-Nirbhaya, the law adopted a more comprehensive and victim-centric approach by including non-penile penetration, oral sex, insertion of objects, and other coercive sexual acts within the ambit of rape. This marked a decisive shift from a patriarchal and outdated understanding of sexual assault to one that recognises bodily autonomy and dignity.

However, while the legal expansion represents progressive intent, its impact remains limited by uneven implementation and deep-seated social attitudes. The focus on harsher punishments, including the death penalty in certain rape cases, risks prioritising retribution over prevention and survivor rehabilitation. Moreover, despite broader legal definitions, low conviction rates, victim shaming, and procedural delays continue to obstruct access to justice. Thus, the Nirbhaya case highlights that legislative reform, though necessary, is insufficient on its own; meaningful change requires effective enforcement, gender-sensitive policing, judicial training, and societal transformation alongside legal advancement.

A highly controversial dimension of the Nirbhaya case was the treatment of one of the main perpetrators as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Although the accused was just six months short of adulthood, he committed some of the most brutal and heinous acts during the crime. Nevertheless, because the law at the time defined a juvenile as a person below 18 years, he was tried separately by the Juvenile Justice Board and awarded the maximum punishment of only three years in a reform home. This outcome generated widespread public outrage and exposed a serious disconnect between the gravity of the offence and the punishment imposed.

Critically, the case highlighted the limitations of a rigid age-based approach to criminal responsibility. Treating a perpetrator of extreme violence purely as a child, without considering mental maturity, intent, and brutality, undermined public faith in the justice system and the principle of proportionality in punishment. While juvenile justice is founded on reformative ideals, the application of these principles to heinous crimes raised legitimate concerns about victim justice and societal deterrence.

The controversy directly influenced legislative reform. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was enacted, allowing juveniles aged 16–18 involved in heinous offences to be tried as adults after a preliminary assessment of their mental and physical capacity. Thus, the Nirbhaya case exposed a critical gap in juvenile justice law and prompted a recalibration of the balance between child reform and accountability for grave crimes.

In conclusion, while the protection of children’s rights remains essential, the Nirbhaya case demonstrates that juvenile justice must evolve to address extreme criminality. A justice system that ignores the severity of harm risks privileging the offender’s age over the victim’s dignity and the demands of social justice.