Mukesh Singh & Ors. V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 Criminal Appeal No. 607-608 of 2017 (Rarest of Rare Crime)

Abstract 

India saw one of the most heinous gang rapes, of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi on 16th December 2012, which sparked off angry protests not only across the country but around the  world. The brutality of the rape incident shook the conscience of the nation. Since the victim resisted, fearlessly for her life till the end, she was called Nirbhaya, the ‘fearless one’ in Hindi. The In turn,  protests sparked a global media frenzy, drawing attention to sexual violence in India and exposing  patriarchal attitudes prevalent in its culture. The Nirbhaya case is still being addressed in the  mainstream press a decade later, underlining the importance of the case in the discussion. Sexual  violence and women’s safety. In this thesis, I examine violence against women in India through the  perspective of the Nirbhaya rape case. The reviewed literature exposes India’s patriarchal structures  and stigmatization of rape and its victims, and also how its victims are treated. Further, I explore  whether Nirbhaya’s case brought about significant change in Indian society, through a media content  analysis of two renowned English newspapers using three time periods: before, immediately after, and  five years after the rape case. The findings show that Nirbhaya’s turmoil brought about positive changes  in the media. Narrative of sexual violence to an extent. This is then followed by a critical analysis of  the Criminal Law Amendment (2013) is a legal reform outcome of the case. The analysis helps find  that a trend of continued rise in violent crimes against women right up to the present day can be attributed to state negligence, along with the lack of proper implementation of the amendment and  similar laws.

1.Preliminary Details of the Case 

2.Facts of the case 

l)Parties to the Case 

Appellants: Mukesh Singh and Akshay Thakur (the two among the six accused persons in the  Nirbhaya gang rape case). 

Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi) — the prosecution and the Government of Delhi’s representative. 

Other Accused: Ram Singh (bus driver), Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and one minor (tried separately  under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000). 

1. Factual Background 

The crime took place on December 16, 2012, at night. A 23-year-old physiotherapy intern and her male  friend took a private bus near Munirka in South Delhi, thinking it was a public bus going to Dwarka.  The bus was occupied by six men including the driver, who for several nights before the incident were  using the bus to deceive and rob passengers.

 The door was shut as soon as the bus went faster. The male friend fought back but was  hit with an iron rod. The men raped the woman and tortured her by ramming an iron rod into her vagina  that resulted in severe internal injuries and organ damage. 

 After roughly an hour of the ordeal, the victims were unclothed and tossed out of the  moving bus near Mahipalpur. A bystander noticed them and alerted the police. The woman was taken  to Safdarjung Hospital where she underwent multiple surgeries but her condition deteriorated. On  December 29, 2012, she was transported to Singapore where she died due to multi-organ failure. The  incident caused a huge uproar across the nation, where the public demanded justice and stricter laws  against sexual violence. 

3.Issues involved in the case 

1. Was the death penalty necessary for the four adult convicts, considering the gravity of the crime? 2. Did the crime of gang rape and assault amount to “rarest of rare” cases under the IPC and judicial  law? 
2. Whether the accused had committed murder under Section 302 IPC, along with rape under Section  376(2)(g) IPC? 
3. Whether the accused’s acts also constituted other crimes like attempt to murder, kidnapping, and  robbery? 
4. Whether the evidence and statements made under confession were admissible according to the  Indian Evidence Act? 
5. Whether mitigating factors or the juvenile age of one of the convicts had the possibility of  lowering the sentence from death to imprisonment for life? 
6. Whether the convicts’ appeals had any substance to reverse the conviction or modify the sentence? 8. Whether the social outcry and public effect of the offense were material in ascertaining the  penalty? 
7. Arguments of the Parties  

Petitioner 

Nature of the Crime: 

The petitioner, the State, argued that the accused committed a terrible act of gang rape and murder.  This act violated basic human rights, especially the right to life, which is protected in Article 21 of the  Constitution of India. The crime involved extreme physical and sexual violence, showing a complete  lack of respect for human dignity. More specifically, the prosecution sought to communicate to the  court the appalling nature of the crime that shook the nation’s conscience. 

Applicability of Criminal Law: 

The State argued that the accused’s actions clearly violated the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sections  that applied were: 

Section 302 (Murder): This charge was for murdering the victim. The focus was on the intentional  taking of a life, supported by evidence of the planning and execution of the crime. 

Section 376(2)(g) (Rape with aggravating circumstances): This charge was for gang rape and using  objects that caused serious harm. The prosecution detailed how the sexual assault was committed by  multiple individuals and the severe physical damage inflicted on the woman. 

Section 201 (Destruction of Evidence): This related to the attempts made to hide the crime. The  presence of efforts to erase or hide incriminating material was an important aspect. 

Section 34 (Common Intention): This stated that the accused committed the crime together. The  prosecution showed that the accused shared a common goal and planned to commit the crime. 

III. Aggravating Circumstances: 

The petitioner emphasized how brutal the crime was. The insertion of foreign objects and the assault  inside a moving vehicle were factors that made the case unusually cruel and deserving of the death  penalty. The intensity of the violence and the dehumanizing nature of the assault were key points. 

Precedent Support: 

The State referred to the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 case. This case established  that the death penalty should only be given in the rarest of rare cases. The petitioner argued that the  cruelty and public anger in this case met that standard. This part of the argument acted as a legal  foundation, connecting the current case to established legal principles. 

Deterrence and Public Interest:

The petitioner argued that giving the death penalty would provide justice and discourage others from  committing sexual assault. A legal sentence, is important for keeping order in society and reinforcing  legal values. 

Respondent  

1. I) The accused, Mukesh Singh and others, put forth several pleas against their conviction and death  sentence. First, they put forward a plea of alibi by alleging that they were not present at the crime  scene. Under Section 101 IPC, the defence attempted to create a reasonable doubt regarding their  presence. The court rejected this plea in view of overpowering evidence, such as CCTV footage and  eyewitness testimonies, placing them at the scene. 
2. II) Second, the defence objected to the victim’s dying declaration on the basis that she was not in the  right state of mind for making a statement according to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act,  1872. They also objected to the declaration being admitted. The court, however, held that the victim  was conscious, knew where she was, and was capable of making a clear statement and thus it was  good evidence. 

III) The defence also questioned the forensic and DNA evidence, raising concerns regarding  contamination. The provisions involved were Section 53 CrPC (Medical Examination) and Section  45 of the Evidence Act (Expert Opinion). The court held that the forensic evidence was reliable and  in favour of the prosecution case. 

IV)In addition, the accused argued that solitary confinement denied them their rights under Article 21  of the Constitution. The court held that solitary confinement was in accord with the rules of the  prison and was necessary for security reasons. 

V)For mitigation, the defence submitted a mercy petition on the basis of family history and economic  circumstances, under Articles 72 (President’s mercy power) and Article 161 (Governor’s mercy power).  The petition was rejected, and the Supreme Court upheld the sentence, citing the “rarest of rare”  doctrine (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR 898). 

5.Judgement 

RATIO DECIDENDI 

The ratio decidendi is that in case an offence is accompanied by extreme brutality, absolute moral  depravity, and total contempt for human dignity, and there are no factors to reduce the penalty, the  death penalty is considered constitutional under “rarest of rare” doctrine in Articles 21. 

OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that sexual violence is not merely a crime against an individual but an assault on  constitutional values and societal morality. It stressed the need for speedy trials, victim-centric justice,  and institutional sensitivity in cases of sexual offences. 

FINAL DECISION  

The Supreme Court in a landmark ruling dismissed the appeals, confirmed the conviction of all the  four accused, and the death penalty given by the Trial Court and approved by the Delhi High Court  was verified. 

Changes and Inclusions in legal provisions Post Nirbhaya Case 

Following the tragic Nirbhaya case, India made changes to its legal system to address sexual offenses  more seriously. These changes came about because of widespread public anger and a for a demand for  stricter laws. 

I) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: 

This act was passed because people were very upset about the Nirbhaya case. It made the punishments  for sexual crimes much harsher and broadened what is to be considered rape under the law. 

II) Key Changes to the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 

• Section 376 IPC: The punishment for rape was made tougher. The minimum sentence was set  at 7 years, and the maximum could be life in prison. 
• Section 376A IPC: This section says that if someone commits rape and the victim dies or goes  into a permanent vegetative state, the rapist can be sentenced to death. 
• Section 376D IPC: Gang rape was made a separate crime, and those who commit it face  increased punishment. 
• Section 376E IPC: If someone is a repeat offender of rape, they could face life in prison or the  death penalty, depending on how serious the case is.
• Section 376C IPC: This deals with situations where a woman faces sexual against her from  someone in a position of trust or authority. 

III) New Sections Introduced: 

• Section 354A IPC: This covers sexual harassment, including things like verbal harassment, and  sets out punishments for it. 
• Section 354B IPC: It is against the law to attack a woman or use force against her in an attempt  to remove her clothes. 
• Section 354C IPC: It is illegal to watch a woman when she expects privacy. • Section 354D IPC: It is illegal to follow someone. 

IV)Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ,2015:- 

After the Nirbhaya case, the law was changed so that juveniles between 16 and 18 years old could be  tried as adults if they commit serious crimes, like rape and murder. 

V) Nirbhaya Fund :- 

Nirbhaya Fund is a government initiative funding projects to enhance women’s safety, security, and  empowerment across India. 

8. Conclusion 

The Nirbhaya decision is a reference point for reading the Indian judiciary’s reaction to sexual  violence. It divides the difference between retributive justice, deterrence, and legalism, and animates  social awareness and legislation reform. Its observation resonates in legal scholarship and civic  discourse as a norm for tackling crimes against society’s conscience.