Author: Suktika Bhattacharyya, Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College, University of Calcutta
Introduction
The case is one of the grimmest chapters in India’s legal history. Nirbhaya is the pseudonym of a 23-year-old victim of the infamous 16th December 2012 Delhi, gang rape incident on a moving bus. The barbaric aggression on the girl named Jyoti Singh (Nirbhaya) ignited a flame of demanding justice among the hearts of Indians, highlighting seriousness of sexual abuse and the vulnerability faced by Indian women.
Facts of the Case
The prosecutrix a physiotherapy intern at St Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi with her male friend Awindra Pratap Pandey(the male victim and the complainant) ,a software engineer from Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh were returning home on the night of 16 December 2012 after watching the film Life of Pie at PVR Select City Walk, Saket They took an an auto rickshaw to Munrika bus stand, then boarded the bus at Munirka for Dwarka at about 9:30 pm (IST). The innocent girl possibly could not have imagined that she would be a prey to the savage lust of a gang of six, face brutal assault and become a playful thing that could be tossed around at their wild whim and her private parts would be ruptured to give vent to their pervert sexual appetite, unthinkable and sadistic pleasure.
They saw four boys in the driver’s cabin and two boys sitting behind the driver’s cabin while they both sat on the left side second seat in the bus and paid the fare of Rs.20/- As the bus reached near Airport Flyover, three boys came out of the driver’s cabin. Two of them started abusing the complainant while he was taking prosecutrix in the Right. One of them hit the complainant. As the complainant resisted, two other boys joined beating with it on rods lying on the bus. As the prosecutor came forward to save the complainant was caught and being beaten. The other assailants took their turn to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. They brutally ravished her by raping her; Doing unnatural sex and damaged her internal organs and genitals by inserting iron rods. The assailants robbed the complainant of his mobile phone and his wallet containing Rs 1000/-; his bank cards also similarly robbed the mobile phone of the prosecutrix, her ATM card, which were all robbed. According to police reports, Jyoti attempted to fight off her assailants, biting three of the attackers and leaving bite marks on the accused men. The assailants brought them to the front door and threw them out of the moving bus at National Highway No.8 near Mahipal flyover by the side of the road. They both were noticed by passersby. Police were informed and they were brought to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi for their Medical examination. Two blood-stained metal rods were retrieved from the bus and medical staff confirmed that “it was penetration by this that caused massive damage to her genitals, uterus and intestines. But later, due to several medical complications, the prosecutrix died on 29/12/2012. Six men including 30-year-old Ram Singh, the bus driver, and his 26-year-old brother, Mukesh Singh, in Rajasthan, 20-year-old Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym instructor, 19-year-old Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller, in UP and Bihar, 17-year-old juvenile named Mohammed Afroz, from Badayun, Uttar Pradesh were arrested at the Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi. 28-year-old Akshay Thakur, who had come to Delhi seeking employment, was the final suspect to be arrested in Aurangabad, Bihar.
Legal Issues
Whether convicts are guilty of charges of Section 120(B), section 365, section 366, section 307, section 376(2)(g), section 396, section 302 IPC, 395IPC, 397IPC, section 201 IPC, section 412 IPC.
Whether a juvenile can be convicted with charges as same as adult.
Death penalty or Life imprisonment.
Arguments
Whether convicts are guilty of charges of Section 120(B), section 365, section 366, section 307, section 376(2)(g), section 396, section 302 IPC, 395IPC, 397IPC, section 201 IPC, section 412 IPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Against the charges of Section 120(B)of IPC; Criminal conspiracy they argued that there was no premeditated conspiracy as the was spontaneous and not pre-planned. Against the charges of Section 365 of IPC; Kidnapping with intent to secretly/confine petitioner claimed that boarding the bus was a voluntary action hence the grounds of the aforesaid aren’t valid. Against the charge under Section 366 of IPC; kidnapping to compel woman to marry or for sexual intercourse, counsel claimed that there was no intention of force marriage or prostitution. Additionally, against the charges of Section 307 IPC; attempt to murder and Section 396 of IPC; Dacoity and murder, Petitioner side argued that in the initial assault the intention of murder wasn’t clear and secondly as one of the accused robbed the victims it’s not dacoity and the primary intention was to rape it’s neither murder nor robbery. Against the charges of Sections 302, 395, 397of IPC; Murder, dacoity, and robbery with deadly weapon petitioner argued that the death was accidental or due to medical negligence and not all of them were armed. Along with these against the charges of Section 201 and 412 of IPC i.e. causing disappearance of evidence and dishonestly receiving stolen property from dacoity respectively the petitioner argued that cleaning bus was a part of their routine, and they did not knowingly receive stolen items.
Contention of the Respondents
With raising the charges of the prosecution held that there is evidence to penalize all these convicts under the aforesaid charges. Raising the charges of Criminal Conspiracy the prosecution pleaded that evidence indicated that the convicts planned and executed the abduction, assault, and murder of the victim, demonstrating a clear criminal conspiracy. Counsels added that the victim and her friend were persuaded into private bus under false pretences. The prosecution highlighted that accused wrongfully confined and abducted the victims with the intent to force the woman into illicit intercourse.and guilt under the section of 365 & 366 of IPC. Presenting the evidence the prosecution argued that the victim’s male companion was beaten with an iron rod which led to the life-threatening injuries and as this attack was intended to cause grievous harm the accused is guilty under section 307 of IPC. The victim was subjected to brutal gang rape by the accused. The prosecution emphasized the collective and violent nature of the assault, leading to the conviction under section 376(2)(g) of IPC. The prosecution presented evidence of unnatural sexual acts (section 377 of IPC) committed by the accused. The trial court convicted the accused under this section, sentencing them to ten years of imprisonment, which was affirmed by the High Court.The accused committed robbery during the assault by stealing victim’s belongings (section 395 of IPC). The prosecution held that the accused attempted to destroy the evidence to conceal the crime scene leading to the conviction under the section of 201 of IPC. Counsel also added that as the possession of the victims has been found stolen to the accused, they are guilty under section 412 of IPC.
Arguments
Whether a juvenile can be convicted with charges as same as adult.
‘The juvenile defendant Mohammed Afroz, whose name was later changed to Raju in the media due to his age, was declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which relied on his birth and school documents. The JJB rejected a police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age. On 28 January 2013, the JJB determined that Afroz he would not be tried as an adult. At the time of the Nirbhaya incident in December 2012, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, governed the treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law. Under this Act, a juvenile was defined as a person who had not completed 18 years of age. The Act provided for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of juveniles, rather than punitive measures. As a result, the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya case was tried in a Juvenile Justice Board and sentenced to three years in a reform facility, the maximum term allowed under the law at that time.’
Prosecution’s Arguments:
Emphasizing on the brutality of the accused role, the prosecution claimed that he was the most violent among all the accused, even using an iron rod to cause fatal internal injuries. Hence, they stated that a juvenile capable of understanding the nature of such actions should be held equally accountable, especially in crimes involving rape and murder and age shouldn’t be the sole determinant factor here. The prosecution did not contest the legal position under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which protected juveniles from adult punishment, but they urged the need to amend the law. This argument gained wide public and judicial support and eventually contributed to legislative reform.
Arguments
Death penalty or Life imprisonment
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The counsel argued that in exceptional circumstances, death should always be granted while in other cases, life in prison should be preferred. ‘The council argues that victim’s uterus was uninjured, the iron rod was not utilized to introduce it into uninjured, the iron rod was not utilized to introduced it into uninjured, the iron rod was not utilized to introduce in her vagina. An iron rod wasn’t used for penetration if it occurred then it will be first injured in the uterus and subsequently the intestine.’ The counsel also argued that the convicts have a clean history, they were intoxicated during the incident, and upper mostly they have a family who is dependent on them.
Prosecution’s Arguments
‘It’s to be mentioned here that while on death row, Mukesh Singh blamed Jyoti for being raped, saying “You can’t clap with one hand – it takes two hands. A decent girl won’t roam around at 9 o’clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy. Boy and girl are not equal. Housework and housekeeping are for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20 percent of girls are good.” Singh also blamed Jyoti for her death, saying “When being raped, she shouldn’t fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they’d have dropped her off after ‘doing her’ and only hit the boy.”’
The prosecution held that the intensity and savagery of the assault, including the use of an iron rod, internal injuries, and the degree of torture, were presented as going beyond normal brutality and so it’s fit into the square of ‘rarest of rare category’(Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab) The prosecution exclusively highlighted the unprecedented and bizarre nature of the injuries, making it not just rape or murder, but extreme torture. After the assault, efforts were made to destroy evidence, including cleaning the bus and burning clothes and this indicates that the crime was pre planned. A sentence lesser than death would undermine public confidence in the rule of law.
Judgement
The court relied upon the following judgments in the case:
Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra
Ramsingh vs Sonia and ORS
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Devender Pal Singh vs State
Convicts are penalized with the charges of Section 120(B), section 365 IPC, section 366 IPC, section 307 IPC, section 376(2)(g), section 396 IPC and section 302 IPC, 395IPC, 397IPC, section 201 IPC, section 412 IPC.
Decision of the Trial Court & the High Court
‘The session judge, in a judgement dated 10th September 2013, convicted all the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death penalty. The High Court, in a judgement on 13th March ,2014 affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death penalty, leading to the dismissal of appeals filed by the accused.
During trail accused Ram Singh committed suicide and the proceedings him stood abated vide order dated 12.10.2013.’
Decision of the Supreme Court
The convicts appealed the verdict, leading to a prolonged legal battle.The SC held that “The death penalty and there is no reason to differ with the same.”According to the three judge bench the incident serving various heinous crimes falls under the shade of “rarest of rare” principle and the minor accused was sent to a juvenile court where he was found guilty and then to the correctional home for 3 years.
Critical Analysis
This case is a turning point in the Indian legal System and the Justice Verma Committee was suggested to enlarge the meaning of rape.
‘The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was enacted, introducing amendments to Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. These changes included the introduction of new offences, enhanced punishment for certain crimes, and procedural improvements.’
This case had a profound impact on Juvenile Justice. The Amendment of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 i.e. 2015 amendment bought crucial modification. Limitation Act was passed stating that minors between 16-18 years of age. If involved in any crime, shall be tried as an adult in cases of heinous offense. This amendment also emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society for juvenile offenders mandating a detailed assessment of the physical and mental capacity of the juvenile.
The case highlighted glaring flaws in urban safety, policing, and public transport regulation. Delhi Police and transport officials were heavily criticized. More CCTV cameras, women’s helplines, and women’s police units were introduced.
Media played a dual role over here. Positively it kept public pressure on authorities, amplified voices. But on the other hand, by over sensationalizing the case it neglected the fact of rape culture and patriarchal structure in high profile cases.
Delayed execution of showed systematic inefficiency in Indian Judicial system.
Conclusion
All 4 convicts (except Ram Singh as he committed suicide and the juvenile) who received the death penalty for the gang rape and the murder of a medical student, were hanged on 3rd March 2020. Despite the eventual execution of perpetrators, the case underscored that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ and more must be done to ensure swift fair trials. Ultimately the legacy of Nirbhaya should not just be in the punishment of the guilty but in a transformed society where women can a live a life of dignity.
FAQs
1.What charges were brought against the accused?
Ans. The accused were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including: Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 365 & 366 (kidnapping and abduction), 307 (attempt to murder), 376(2)(g) (gang rape), 302 (murder), 395, 396, 397 (dacoity and robbery with weapon), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 412 (receiving stolen property)of IPC.
2. What were the key legal issues decided by the court?
Ans: Whether the crime constituted criminal conspiracy, murder, rape, and dacoity, whether the juvenile accused could be tried as an adult, whether the case qualified for the death penalty under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
3.How did the Nirbhaya case impact Indian laws?
Ans: It led to sweeping legal reforms, including:
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: Broadened the definition of rape, increased punishment, and added new offenses like stalking and voyeurism.
Juvenile Justice Act (Amended in 2015): Allowed juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
Improvements in evidence handling, victim rights, and fast-track courts for sexual offenses.
4. What is the significance of this case in Indian legal history?
Ans: The Nirbhaya case became a landmark for strengthening rape and sexual assault laws, addressing juvenile justice loopholes, raising awareness on violence against women, Exposing inefficiencies in urban safety and law enforcement.
5. What was the role of DNA or forensic evidence used in the investigation?
Ans. Forensic and DNA evidence played a crucial role identifying the accused as DNA samples matched with those of the accused, blood-stained metal rods and bite marks on the accused provided clear forensic linkage, medical evidence confirmed brutal injuries consistent with rape and physical torture
Reference
1 Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017.
2 Nirbhaya Case Summary: State Vs Ram Singh & Ors [AIR SC 2595] – Legal Thirst Associates
3 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder – Wikipedia.
4 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder – Wikipedia.
5 Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017 – SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation.
6 Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (India) – Legal Vidhiya.
7 Mukesh and Others V/S State for NCT of Delhi and Others. on 05 May 2017 Judgement LexTechSuite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_%2 8Care_and_Protection_of_Children%29_Act%2C_ 2015.
9 Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCLT Of Delhi )& ors (2017) 6 SCC [NIRBAYA CASE] BarErudite. The
10 Nirbhaya Case Summary: State Vs Ram Singh & Ors [AIR SC 2595, India) – Legal Thirst Associates.
11 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder – Wikipedia.
12 AIR 1980 SC 898
13 Sessions Case No.284 of 2008
14 2007 Latest Caselaw 146 SC
15 AIR 1980 SC 898
16 Sessions Case No.4 of 2000
17 Nirbhaya Case Summary: State Vs Ram Singh & Ors [AIR SC 2595] – Legal Thirst Associates.
18 Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCLT Of Delhi )& ors (2017) 6 SCC [NIRBAYA CASE] BarErudite. The
19 THE NIRBHAYA CASE: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF A LANDMARK VERDICT THE LEX TIMES.
20 Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCLT Of Delhi )& ors (2017) 6 SCC [NIRBAYA CASE] The BarErudite.
21 THE NIRBHAYA CASE: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF A LANDMARK VERDICT THE LEX TIMES.
22 THE NIRBHAYA CASE: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF A LANDMARK VERDICT TIMES.
