Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 13 SCC 375



Author: Dibya Lipsa Maharana, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.), KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dibya-lipsa-maharana-35807a339?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app


To the Point

This case is widely known as Nirbhaya gang rape case. It is also considered one of the ‘rarest of the rare case’. On 16th December, 2012, a twenty- three years old paramedical student went to watch a movie with her friend in the evening. While returning both of them boarded a bus where they were assaulted by six men named Ram Singh (driver of the bus), Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, Akshay Thakur and a juvenile. They commented, passed obscene remarks, assaulted Nirbhaya and robbed them of their personal belongings. The six men tore their clothes and brutally gang-raped Nirbhaya one by one. They also inserted rod in her private parts, removed her intestines and caused severe injuries to her internal parts of the body. Lastly, both of them were thrown out from the moving bus and the attackers tried to run the bus over them. This case shook the whole nation and is one of the most brutal gang-rape cases in India.

Abstract

Rape is a forced sexual intercourse or sexual act committed against the consent or will of a person. A sexual intercourse or sexual act can be considered as rape when it is committed against the person under coercion, fraud, fear or incapability (when the person is not in conscious mind, intoxicated, suffers from some type of mental or physical disability, being a minor). This case gained widespread public outrage and sparked controversy for justice. It also raised questions about the role of the judiciary system in such types of gruesome incidents. It also highlighted the struggles of women against gender-based violence. A national movement calling for justice for the victim and more stringent regulations to shield women from sexual assault was sparked by the case, which resulted to important legal changes.

Use of Legal Jargon

The Indian judiciary used a variety of legal terms in the Nirbhaya case, which strengthened its seriousness and influenced the nation’s legal system. By stating that the crime was “diabolical, demoniac, and malicious” and that its severity justified the death penalty, the Delhi High Court cited the “rarest of rare” theory, a doctrine used when sentencing warrants the harshest punishment. In order to maintain procedural discipline and prevent an infringement of justice, the case involved several levels of judicial inspection, including the trial court, a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, and subsequently a curative petition. The last legal barrier before the President approved their execution was reached when the convicts submitted a mercy plea under Article 72 after the Supreme Court denied these remedies. This petition was also denied. The deathbed statement, which was the victim’s final known statements and had significant evidence-based importance under Indian criminal law, also gave the case terminological value. The Justice Verma Committee went beyond judicial jargon by adding statutory terms like ‘heinous offences’ and extended definitions under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC, which are supported by ideas like unlawful sexual harassment, gang rape, and non-consensual assault.

The Proof

The prosecution developed a strong forensic base in the Nirbhaya case through the use of interviews with witnesses, scientific forensics, the recovery of tangible evidence, and the victim’s three final statements. Medical evidence, witness testimony, DNA profiles from the accused’s blood-stained clothing, an iron rod found at an inquiry of deceased accused Ram Singh, and other items found in the bus that matched the victim’s DNA profile were used to support the dying declarations in evidence information. In her final declaration, the rape victim wrote the names of the offenders in her own handwriting. It is not necessary for a deathbed declaration to be expressed verbally or in writing. A nod or a gesture can be used. But the court has to make sure that the individual who was recording the dying declaration was able to accurately observe and understand the complainant’s nods and gestures. In the Nirbhaya case, the victim’s signs and gestures in answer to the multiple-choice questions were considered acceptable in evidence during the recording of the third dying declaration.

Case Laws

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The issue in this case was whether Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that murder carries the death penalty, was natural in light of the introductory right to life and liberty defended by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also examined whether judges were given an extreme measure of authority under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which requires that courts give specific apologies before assessing the death penalty. The case was about Bachan Singh, a man with a felonious record, killing three children in a horrible manner. After being set up guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and given the capital punishment, the case progressed through several courts before the nation’s top court made a decision about the death penalty’s validity.  

Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994): In Indian legal history, Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal is a milestone case that impacted the use of the” rarest of rare” doctrine in relation to the death penalty. The case started when Dhananjoy, a 24- year-old security guard, raped and killed 18- year-old Hetal Parekh in Kolkata. IPC Sections 302(murder), 376 (rape), and 380(robbery) were the charges against him. He was given the death penalty for murder after the Sessions Court found him guilty on every allegation. Using the sole evidence that was considered harmonious and binding, the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction and penalty. Since Dhananjoy’s prosecution on August 14, 2004, was the first in India in the twenty-first century, the case established a pivotal precedent for judicial logic and evidentiary conditions.  



Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In her village, Rajasthani social worker Bhanwari Devi tried to stop a child marriage. Members of the community severely gang- raped her in vengeance. The accused were acquitted despite reporting the crime because there was inadequate evidence, exposing institutional gaps in women’s protection. A Public Interest Action (PIL) was brought in response by a number of women’s associations, including Vishaka, who claimed that the lack of legal remedy for workplace harassment violated upon women’s elemental rights as defended by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. In the absence of particular laws, the Supreme Court published the Vishaka Guidelines to give a frame for helping and addressing workplace harassment after ruling that sexual harassment violates the right to coordinateness and state.  

Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012):  In Mohammed Ajmal Kasab versus State of Maharashtra, the court ruled that the appropriation to legal aid extends beyond the trial phase to include pre-trial and imprisonment processes. The accused must be made conscious of their rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) by the justice. A limited understanding of the right to legal help ignores the nation’s socioeconomic reality. Indeed if the accused doesn’t specifically ask for legal aid, the court is still needed by the constitution to give it. The Court decided that Kasab’s confession was respectable since it didn’t find any suggestion of pressure. The death penalty was justified under the rarest of rare doctrines because the attacks amounted to waging war against the country.

Conclusion 

India’s approach to sexual violence saw an immense change with the Nirbhaya case. Beyond the courtroom, the case has sparked wide demonstrations and increased mindfulness of the need for structural change. A clear communication about the soberness of the act was conveyed by the Supreme Court’s decision to sustain the accused’s death penalty. The case emphasized the significance of aiding victims of sexual violence and redounded in significant legal changes, similar as more severe penalties for rape and sexual assault. In the end, the Nirbhaya case serves as a memorial of India’s nonstop fight for equity and justice.   

FAQS

What are the crucial sections included in this case? 

Section 120B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy), 201(Causing exposure of  substantiation of offence, or giving false information, to screen lawbreaker), 302(Murder), 307(Attempt to murder), 365( hijacking or kidnapping  with intent  intimately and wrongfully to confine person), 375(Rape), 376(2)(g) (Punishment for rape), 377 (Unnatural Offences), 395(Punishment for Dacoity), 396( Dacoity with Murder), 397( Robbery, or Dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 412( Dishonestly  entering property stolen in the commission of a dacoity), 420( infidelity and dishonestly  converting delivery of property) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What changes were made in the legal system during this case?  

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015(The age for trying kids as grown-ups in heinous crimes was reduced from 18 to 16 times), Amendment in the Rape Laws (The Criminal Act Amendment), 2013, also popularly known as Anti-Rape Act, expanded the former description of rape handed under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and gave wider meaning to the term rape. Section 375 of IPC defines rape as any involuntary and forceful penetration without the woman’s concurrence into the woman’s body corridor like the vagina, urethra, mouth or anus) and invalidation of Two- Cutlet Test (A physical examination to test the tautness of vagina muscles was banned by the Supreme Court after the 3013 amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *