Delhi Gang rape case, Mukesh & Anr v.
State for Nct of
Delhi & Ors(2017)
Introduction:
The 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, commonly known as the Nirbhaya
case, involved a rape and fatal assault that occurred on 16 December 2012
in Munirka, a neighbourhood in South Delhi. The incident took place when
Jyoti Singh, a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern, was beaten, gang-raped, and
tortured in a private bus in which she was travelling with her male friend,
Avnindra Pratap Pandey. There were six others in the bus, including the
driver, all of whom raped the woman and beat her friend. She was rushed to
Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi for treatment and transferred to Singapore
eleven days after the assault, where she succumbed to her injuries 2 days
later.The incident generated widespread national and international
coverage and was widely condemned, both in India and abroad.
Subsequently, public protests against the state and central governments for
failing to provide adequate security for women took place in New Delhi,
where thousands of protesters clashed with security forces. Similar protests
took place in major cities throughout the country. Since Indian law does not
allow the press to publish a rape victim’s name, the victim was widely
known as Nirbhaya, meaning “fearless”, and her struggle and death became
a symbol of women’s resistance to rape around the world.
Citation:
(2017) 6 SCC 1
Court:
Supreme court
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.
Bench:
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan
Facts:
1)An act of gang rape was committed by six men in a running bus in Delhi on
16th December, 2012 while she was going back to her home with a male
friend accompanying her.
2)The original name of the victim is unpublished and mentioned as Nirbhaya
in all discussions. Nirbhaya a 23 year old lady was waiting at the bus stop
with her male friend at night.
3) Soon the bus arrived which was empty had only six men and a teenage
boy was convincing her to enter the bus as they were heading to the
direction of her house. She was convinced and entered into that bus.
4)The driver along with five other members including a minor of age 17
engaged in the act of forceful sexual assault. The friend who tried to protect
Nirbhaya from such forceful acts was beaten up brutally by all those six men.
That running bus was made a place that day for the brutal rape and various
other harsh injuries. Some of those men were drunk and one was nearly a
psychopath. She was not only raped but also beaten up badly as if she was a
non living object. An iron rod was inserted into her private parts and to her
internal organs. Her intestine was pulled out.
Issues:
Whether the offenders should be punished with life imprisonment or death
penalty?
Whether the minor should also be punished for this heinous act or should
be sent to juvenile home?
Whether the scope of Section 375 should be expanded?
2
Whether the rape laws present in the IPC should amended for good?
Petitioner argument:
As the case was made very strong from its trial from the level of subordinate
court, the appeal made by the respondent against the judgment of the
subordinate court at the High Court also gave the same judgment. The High
Court confirmed the order passed before.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the criminals applied for a
review petition in Supreme Court under Article 137. Such a review petition
can be filed in Supreme Court when either of the parties is aggrieved by an
order passed by the court due to some error of facts of the case.
In the review petition, the petitioner tried to raise a defence that the
offenders were absent in the place and there lies no link between the crime
and the offenders. But the documents and proofs submitted by the state
made the court reject this petition.
The counsel then moved to Curative Petition. The concept of raising a
curative petition is for requesting any relief for the aggrieved person even
after the final judgment has been passed. But the Supreme Court
considering the welfare of the nation, to stop such crime in the future and to
stop the flow of judiciary through a wrong path of injustice while
administering such cases in the future, rejected the plea.
The final move made by them was the Mercy Petition. A mercy petition can
be filed before the President of India. The president has the power to
reprieve, respite or remit a punishment given by the Apex Court but such a
decision requires consultation with the Council of Ministers. The President
in view of the welfare of the nation upheld the death sentence given by the
Supreme Court.
Respondents argument :
3
The state, acting as the petitioner, convicted the six men involved in this
inhuman act. The defence attempted to argue that the six accused were not
present at the scene, but the evidence, including DNA tests and blood
traces, supported the petitioner’s case, proving the accused’s involvement
Judgement:
A three judge bench agreed that the act done by the accused did not
deserve any sympathy. In a strong message, that the diabolic crime had
shocked the collective conscience of the society and that the court can treat
it as a rarest of rare cases where death sentences can be awarded. DNA
identification, fingertips, witness testimonies and odontology proved the
presence of the accused in the bus and their involvement in the crime, as
said by the Supreme Court.
The casual manner with which she was treated and the devilish manner in
which they played with her body, her identity and her identity and her
dignity is humanly unthinkable – said the bench. The Supreme Court
administered justice to the family of the victim and all the women in the
country by confirming the punishment of death sentence to the four
convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case terming it as the rarest
of rape most brutal and barbaric attack on a 23 year old paramedic student,
Jyoti Singh. The convicts treated the victim as an object of enjoyment and
exploited her sexually to the worst level.
Relevant legislation:
The incident occurred on December 16, 2012, and the verdict was delivered
on September 15, 2017, resulting in a lengthy legal process of five years.
Referred case laws:
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.
