Author: Tanishka Singh, 3rd Year, B.A. LL.B., Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) New Law College, Pune
To the Point
The gruesome 2012 Delhi gangrape case, commonly called the “Nirbhaya Case,” triggered widespread national anger and compelled a thorough self-reflection of India’s laws, judicial sensitivity, and social mindsets regarding women’s crimes. The case was that of a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern who was brutally gangraped and fatally beaten by six people in a moving private bus. The Supreme Court, by its judgment in Mukesh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi), confirmed the lower courts’ death sentence, invoking the “rarest of rare” doctrine. Apart from being a test of individual culpability, this case marked the country’s wider legal and moral consciousness. It spurred criminal law reforms, asserted victim dignity, and underscored the importance of speedy justice in serious cases.
Abstract
The case of Mukesh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) emerged as a landmark in the annals of Indian criminal jurisprudence due to the brutality of the crime and the consequent overhaul it triggered in laws relating to sexual offences. On the night of 16th December 2012, a young woman was gangraped and grievously assaulted by six men, including a juvenile, in a moving bus in Delhi. She died from multiple internal injuries and organ failure as a result of the incident. The Delhi High Court fast-tracked the case, and all the accused (with one juvenile and one who died in custody) were given the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld this sentence in 2017.
The case saw several key provisions of the Indian Penal Code that were involved, such as Sections 302 (murder), 376(2)(g) (gangrape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395/397 (dacoity with violence), 366 (kidnapping), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). The ruling, which was written by Justice Dipak Misra, focused on the fact that the offense was preplanned and showed unusual depravity, meeting the criteria of the “rarest of rare” category. It also sustained the admissibility of several dying declarations, reaffirmed the probative value of forensic evidence, and accorded priority to victim dignity and public conscience. Significantly, this case set the stage for the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and subsequent legal debates concerning capital punishment in rape cases.
Legal Jargon
The case of Mukesh & Ors. v. State extensively invoked a spectrum of legal provisions from both substantive and procedural criminal law, reflecting the gravity and multifaceted nature of the offence. The prosecution relied upon numerous key sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and critical evidentiary doctrines, which are summarized below:
Section 302 IPC – Punishment for Murder:
This section was invoked as the victim succumbed to the grievous injuries inflicted during the assault. The prosecution successfully established both mens rea (intention to kill) and actus reus (the guilty act), fulfilling the essential constituents for a charge of murder.
Section 376(2)(g) IPC – Gang Rape:
The provision deals with rape committed by a group of persons acting in furtherance of a common intention. The brutal nature of the sexual assault, committed by multiple accused, squarely attracted this aggravated form of the rape charge.
Section 377 IPC – Unnatural Offences:
This section was applied due to acts of forcible anal and other non-consensual sexual penetration, categorized as unnatural sexual offences under Indian criminal jurisprudence.
Sections 365 & 366 IPC – Kidnapping and Abduction:
Section 365 relates to abduction with intent to wrongfully confine, while Section 366 covers abduction with intent to compel a woman to marry or have illicit intercourse. In this case, the victim was deceitfully abducted, satisfying the elements of both provisions.
Sections 395 & 397 IPC – Dacoity with Grievous Hurt or Deadly Weapons:
These provisions were invoked as the crime involved robbery by multiple individuals, accompanied by grievous assault using iron rods and other deadly weapons.
Section 120B IPC – Criminal Conspiracy:
This section was cited to highlight the premeditated and planned nature of the crime. The accused had conspired to abduct, assault, rape, and murder the victim, establishing a clear agreement to commit illegal acts.
Section 34 IPC – Common Intention:
The doctrine of common intention was used to impute equal criminal liability to all accused for the collective actions carried out during the course of the offence.
“RAREST OF RARE”
The Supreme Court invoked the “rarest of rare” doctrine to uphold the death penalty for the convicts. The Court reasoned that:
The brutality of the act was beyond comprehension: the victim was gang-raped, mutilated with an iron rod, and thrown out of a moving vehicle.
The crime reflected extreme mental perversion and inhumanity.
The collective conscience of society was shaken, and a strong message was needed.
The crime exhibited gross violation of bodily integrity, dignity, and humanity.
The accused acted in a pre-planned and cold-blooded manner, showing no remorse.
The judgment firmly placed the crime within the “rarest of rare” framework, emphasizing not only the gravity of the offence but also its devastating societal impact.
Evidentiary Considerations
The court also clarified a few important evidentiary principles, in particular:
Dying Declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Admissibility of the victim’s multiple dying declarations, recorded from her before different authorities, was upheld. Her consistency and voluntary nature of the statements were found credible and were instrumental in supporting the prosecution story.
Forensic Evidence and DNA Profiling:
The prosecution placed strong emphasis on scientific evidence, such as DNA profiling, which compared the biological samples of the accused with the samples taken from the crime scene. The chain of custody of physical evidence was properly followed and ensured, and it was admissible and reliable under the Evidence Act.
Medical and Post-Mortem Reports:
The medical evidence supported the extent of internal injuries and rape, as reported by the victim, and aligning with the charges defined.
The Proof
The event took place on the evening of 16 December 2012, when the victim and her male friend got onto an illegally running private bus at Munirka , South Delhi. The bus had six men inside, including the driver. The accused assaulted the male friend and pulled the woman to the back of the bus, where they raped her in turns and gave her serious injuries using a rusty iron rod. After almost 45 minutes of brutality, the couple was stripped and left on the road.
Key evidentiary aspects are:
1.Dying Declarations: Made to:
SDM Usha Chaturvedi
Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC
Treating doctors at Safdarjung Hospital
The court observed consistency and reliability in all declarations. The victim had identified all accused and had explained the sequence of events with clarity.
2. Forensic and Medical Evidence:
DNA samples matched those of all accused.
Vaginal swabs and blood samples corroborated rape.
The iron rod used for penetration was recovered with the victim’s blood and tissue.
3. Eyewitness Testimony:
The male friend of the victim was the main eyewitness and survived the attack. His testimony supported the timeline and involvement of the accused.
4. CCTV Footage:
Followed the movement of the bus through Delhi.
Verified the path taken and time of the crime.
5. Confessions and Recoveries:
Police videographed voluntary statements that led to the recovery of garments, weapons, and even the bus.
The Court carefully examined more than 85 witnesses, including expert evidences, and held that the crime was intentional, brutal, and aimed at inflicting maximum physical and psychological injuries.
Case Laws
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
This case set the law of constitutionality of the death penalty in India. The Court held that capital punishment is constitutional but only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases when the other alternative is irrefutably excluded. In the case of Nirbhaya, this doctrine was the basis of the sentencing where the court opined that the high degree of brutality and public impact justified death penalty.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
Expanding on Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court in this case laid down specific guidelines on how to ascertain what is ‘rarest of rare.’ These include the circumstances of commission, motive, anti-social nature, and shock caused to collective conscience. The Nirbhaya judgment used these yardsticks while holding that the crime fulfilled all the parameters of rarest of rare category.
• State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269
This is a referred case, on the basis of which courts usually discuss the evidentiary worth of dying declarations. Here, it was held by the court that a reliable and documented dying declaration may be the only ground for conviction. In Nirbhaya’s case, the court largely depended upon several consistent dying declarations from the victim to different authorities as strong and reliable evidence.
Conclusion
The Nirbhaya case was a paradigm shift in the criminal justice system, rather more in the manner in which crimes against women were dealt with by the legislature and judiciary. The Supreme Court delivered a robust and compassionate judgment, aware of the societal collective sorrow and reacting with legal power. The judgment did not only administer justice to the victim and her family but also reacted to an appeal made by a nation for change.
Then there was the Justice Verma Committee Report of 2013, which proposed sweeping changes, many of which were brought into effect by way of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. These included:
Expansion of the definition of rape
•Creation of new criminal offenses like stalking, voyeurism, and stripping
•Creation of fast-track courts
•Harsher punishment, including the death penalty for repeat offenders
The case continues to be remembered as a symbol of resilience, change, and the changing women’s rights discourse in India.
FAQs
1. What were the serious charges against the accused?
The accused were accused under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 377, 365, 366, 395, 397, 120B, and 34 of the IPC.
2. What made the case ‘rarest of rare’?
The intentional, deliberate cruelty, use of weapons, harsh physical and mental tortures, and public uproar resulted in this crime falling under the rarest of rare doctrine calling for capital punishment.
3. What were legislative changes post-Nirbhaya case?
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was introduced. It provided broader definitions of sexual violence, stricter punishments, and provisions for speedy trials.
4. Why is dying declaration important in this case?
A number of confirmatory dying declarations given by judicial and medical authorities were deemed credible and significant to support the case of the prosecution.
5. On what date were the convicts executed?
The four adult convicts—Mukesh, Akshay, Pawan, and Vinay—were executed on 20 March 2020 in Tihar Jail, New Delhi, after all lawful remedies like curative petitions and mercy pleas were exhausted.
