Author: Sneh Singh, Bharati Vidyapeeth
Abstract
The brutal gang rape of Jyoti Singh( Nirbhaya) on a Bus in New Delhi came world-wide news in 2012. Extensively known as the Nirbhaya rape incident, it was a landmark case that led the Indian government to amend being felonious laws on sexual violence and rape. The rape also came to transfigure the media geography into a space of social activism. Despite that popular artistic representations of the incident have been cri- tiqued for appropriating rape myths. Through a thematic analysis of the BBC docu- mentary, India’s Son( 2015), and the Netflix series, Delhi Crime( 2019), thepaper examines the ways in which popular culture sustains and furthers rape culture.By interrogating the thematic- cum-visual converse of these textbooks, this paper exploresthe ideological and sexual homilies to understand the artistic configuration of rape andrape victims survivors. The study finds the ongoing converse centering rape in pop- ular culture to be a repetition of the patriarchal morals current in Indian society
Chapter 1 preface
“ People in Delhi took to the thoroughfares demanding nippy justice for the departed victim, and critical action to guarantee safety for women in the megacity. The rape victim is now flashed back as ‘ Nirbhaya’, meaning intrepid, for her resistance against the perpetrators and the 13- day fight for life after sustaining the injuries ”- Talwar( 2013)
Grounded on the National Crime Records Bureau,” one rape was reported every 16 twinkles
in India in 2019″( NCRB, 2020). Indian society treats crimes against women similar as gender-
grounded violence as commonplace, and through the times, some incidents have entered original as well as global scrutiny before ultimately retreating into silence. This is ironic, given that a significant part of the population idolizes womanlike divinities who emblematize frippery, influx, and strength in multitudinous Indian societies( Sarkar, 2016)
In 2012, the issue of rape was given a new meaning.
A sexual assault case sparked unequaled response amongst Indians and to some extent, the transnational media, drawing attention to India as an unsafe place for women. This led to New Delhi being ingrained as the world’s” rape capital” through demurrers and conversations( Talwar, 2013).
The expansive content of the 2012 Nirbhaya case, along with the huge response it inspired, revealed both transnational expressions of empathy as well as intimidating reincarnations of misogynistic perspectives held by numerous Indians. The Nirbhaya case was presented as a case peculiar to India in foreign reportage, rather than as part of a global issue of methodical gender- grounded violence.
The case served to portray India as a country where sexual abuse is wide and embedded in diurnal life. A decade has passed and the Nirbhaya case is still being addressed in the mainstream press, italicizing the case’s significance in the discussion of sexual assault and women’s security.
Chapter 2- Case fact
Nirbhaya Case( Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.) Citation( 2017) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 2161
Date of Incident December 16, 2012
Date of Judgment( SC) May 5, 2017
Bench Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.This case, extensively known as the
” Nirbhaya case,” refers to the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23- time-old activity pupil in Delhi. It’s a corner case in Indian felonious justice, establishing new precedents for the” rarest of rare” doctrine and leading to the Criminal Law( Amendment) Act, 2013
Factual Matrix and Timeline of Events
1. ThePre-Incident Preparation
On the evening of December 16, 2012, the six indicted — Ram Singh( motorist), Mukesh Singh( his family), Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, Akshay Thakur, and a Juvenile — gathered for a” ride” in a white duty machine( Registration DL 1PC 0149). They had been drinking alcohol and decided to pick up passengers to rob them.The Trap The machine was an off- duty contract carriage immorally plying on the roads. To bait victims, the juvenile stood at the door calling out destinations like” Dwarka” and” Palam”. First Robbery Before picking up the primary victims, they had formerly picked up a carpenter named Ram Adhar, burgled him of his plutocrat and mobile phone, and ditched him near IIT Delhi
2. The Incident( December 16, 2012)
Boarding Around 900 PM- 930 PM, the victim( Jyoti Singh, appertained to as” Nirbhaya”) and her manly friend, Awindra Pratap Pandey, boarded the machine at the Munirka machine stand after watching the movie Life of Pi at Select Citywalk, Saket. They intended to go to Dwarka.
The Assault As the machine moved towards the Mahipalpur flyover, the indicted shut the doors and switched off the lights. When the friend expostulated to the machine swinging from the route, the indicted mocked them and assaulted him with an iron rod, knocking him unconscious.
The force and Brutality The indicted dragged the victim to the reverse of the machine. She was gang- ravished by the six men while the machine continued moving. The assault involved extreme brutality; an iron rod( jack handle) was fitted into her private corridor and pulled out with force, causing massive internal injuries and pulling out her bowel.
Disposal After the assault, which lasted roughly 45 twinkles to an hour, the indicted stripped both victims and threw them out of the moving machine near the Mahipalpur flyover/ Aerocity area. The motorist tried to run the machine over the victims to exclude substantiation, but the manly friend managed to pull her away
Chapter 3 – Evidences
Medical and Forensic Evidence
The medical evidence played a critical role in establishing the “diabolical” nature of the crime required for the death penalty.Injuries: The victim suffered from cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) and cardiac arrest. Her most critical injuries were to her abdomen; almost her entire intestine had to be surgically removed due to gangrene and perforation caused by the iron rod
Odontology (Bite Marks):
Forensic analysis matched bite marks found on the victim’s body to the dental structures of the accused, specifically Ram Singh and Akshay Thakur. This was a crucial piece of corroborative evidence .
DNA Evidence:
Bloodstains matching the victims were found on the clothes of all accused and the iron rod. The victim’s DNA was found on the bus seat covers, which the accused had attempted to wash .
Dying Declarations:
The victim made three dying declarations :To the treating doctor immediately after admission.To the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on December 21.To the Metropolitan Magistrate via gestures (as she could no longer speak) shortly before her death. The SC held these to be consistent and voluntary.
Legal Jargon in Nirbhaya Case
Rarest of Rare Doctrine
This principle, laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, restricts death penalty to exceptional cases where aggravating factors (brutal manner, societal shock) outweigh mitigating ones (age, reform potential). Courts balance “crime test” (heinousness) and “criminal test” (offender’s character). In Nirbhaya, SC applied it strictly: iron rod brutality, prolonged torture (45+ mins), and public outrage made it qualify, rejecting youth/poverty pleas as irrelevant
Dying Declaration (Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
A statement by a person in extremis about cause of death, admissible as exception to hearsay rule due to presumed truthfulness (mortal fear compels honesty). Must be voluntary, consistent, and made with sound mind—no oath/corpus delicti needed. Nirbhaya’s three declarations (to doctor, SDM, Magistrate via nods/gestures) held reliable as they matched each other, PW-1 testimony, and forensics; gestures admissible per precedents like Queen Empress v. Abdullah
Gang Rape (Section 376(2)(g), IPC → Section 70, BNS 2023)
Rape by ≥2 persons acting in concert, on same woman, same time. Punishable by life/RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT (RI) minimum 20 years; death if victim <12 or extreme brutality. Pre-2013, no death clause—Nirbhaya triggered Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 widening “rape” (non-consensual penetration of vagina/mouth/urethra/anus by penis/object/body part). BNS retains/enhances: community service for minor cases, death for custodial/gang on minors .
Chapter 4 – Judgement
1. Trial Court (Fast Track Court, Saket, Delhi)
Court: Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
Judge: Shri Yogesh Khanna
Judgment Date: September 10, 2013 (Conviction) & September 13, 2013 (Sentencing)
Case No.: SC No. 114/13 and connected case FIR No. 413/2012
The trial court convicted the four adult accused—Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, and Pawan Gupta under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code after examining 85 witnesses and 600+ documents .
Sections under which convicted:
Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), Section 365 (Kidnapping), Section 366 (Abduction to compel marriage), Section 376(2)(g) (Gang Rape), Section 377 (Unnatural Offenses), Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), Section 201 (Destruction of Evidence), Section 395 (Dacoity), Section 396 (Dacoity with Murder), Section 397 (Robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), Section 412 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property), and Section 420 (Cheating) of IPC .
Evidentiary findings:
The trial judge meticulously analyzed the DNA evidence which matched bloodstains from the bus with the victims, bite marks on the victim’s body corroborated through odontology reports matching dental impressions of Ram Singh and Akshay Thakur, and three dying declarations made by the victim . The court noted that the victim’s friend (PW-1, Awindra Pratap Pandey) positively identified all accused in court and his testimony matched the victim’s statements. Medical evidence established that the victim suffered severe injuries to her intestines, liver, and other organs caused by the iron rod .
Sentencing reasoning:
The trial judge held this was the “rarest of rare” case warranting death penalty. The judgment emphasized the “extreme depravity” shown by the accused they had no previous acquaintance with the victim, the crime was pre-planned (as evidenced by their earlier robbery of Ram Adhar), the assault lasted over 45 minutes in a moving bus, and the barbaric use of the iron rod that pulled out her intestines demonstrated an “uncommon bestiality” . The court rejected mitigating factors like age (all were adults between 19-28 years) and noted the accused showed no remorse. All four were sentenced to death by hanging.
Juvenile proceedings:
The sixth accused, being 17 years and 6 months old at the time of the offense, was tried separately by the Juvenile Justice Board and sentenced to three years in a reformation home—the maximum permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act then in force
2. Delhi High CourtCourt: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Reva Khetrapal and Justice Pratibha Rani
Judgment Date: March 13, 2014
Criminal Appeal Nos.: 200-204/2013
The four convicts appealed against their conviction and death sentence. The Delhi High Court unanimously upheld both the conviction and the capital punishment
Reasoning on conviction:
The High Court examined whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It scrutinized the defense argument that the accused were not present at the crime scene, finding it completely baseless. The appellate court noted that PW-1’s testimony was consistent with the dying declarations, the DNA evidence was scientifically sound and matched samples from the accused, and the odontology report provided corroborative forensic evidence . The court observed that the defense failed to provide any credible alternative explanation for the overwhelming scientific and testimonial evidence.
On death penalty:
The High Court conducted an independent assessment of whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category as established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). It characterized the crime as “predatory” and noted the attack was not impulsive but deliberate—the accused had been cruising for victims and had already robbed one person before targeting the victim and her friend . The court emphasized the “diabolic and bestial” nature of the assault, particularly the use of the iron rod which caused injuries that no human being should ever suffer. The bench held that the crime shocked the collective conscience of society and there were no mitigating circumstances such as young age (they were adults), previous good conduct (irrelevant given the heinousness), or possibility of reformation (not demonstrated)
3. Supreme Court of IndiaCourt:
Bench: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment Date: May 5, 2017
Case Citation: Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1
Criminal Appeal Nos.: 607-608/2015
The Supreme Court heard appeals from Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, and Pawan Gupta (Akshay Thakur did not file a separate appeal but was included in the proceedings)
Questions before the Court:
Whether the trial and High Court erred in convicting the appellants based on the evidence, whether the dying declarations were reliable, whether the scientific evidence (DNA and odontology) was admissible and credible, and most critically, whether the case qualified as “rarest of rare” for imposing capital punishment .
On conviction – evidentiary assessment:
The three-judge bench conducted an exhaustive 400+ page analysis. It validated the dying declarations made by the victim, holding they were “voluntary, true and consistent” as required under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act . The court noted she made three declarations—immediately after the incident to doctors, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on December 21, 2012, and via hand gestures to the Metropolitan Magistrate when she could no longer speak due to her deteriorating condition. All three matched PW-1’s testimony and were made with full mental capacity
On the DNA evidence, the Supreme Court examined the reports by PW-45 (the forensic expert) and held they were scientifically valid—blood samples from the accused matched bloodstains recovered from the bus and the victim’s body. The court rejected defense arguments questioning the chain of custody, finding proper documentation at every stage .The odontology evidence was particularly significant. The court noted that bite mark analysis conducted by forensic odontologists matched the dental structure of Ram Singh and Akshay Thakur with marks found on the victim’s body. Though odontology was relatively new in Indian courts, the bench held it was admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act as expert opinion
On “rarest of rare” doctrine:
This was the most debated aspect. The Supreme Court applied the two-pronged test from Bachan Singh—examining aggravating versus mitigating circumstances.Aggravating factors: The court listed the brutality (insertion and violent pulling of the iron rod), the prolonged nature of the assault (45+ minutes), the complete disregard for human life (throwing victims from moving bus and attempting to run them over), the vulnerability of the victim (unarmed woman with a male companion who was beaten unconscious), the fact that this was not an isolated impulsive act (they had already committed robbery earlier that evening), and the catastrophic injuries that led to the victim’s death 13 days later despite multiple surgeries .
Mitigating factors examined: The defense argued youth (ages 19-28), lack of criminal history, socio-economic background (poor families from slums), and possibility of reformation. The court rejected each argument. It held that the ages did not qualify them as juveniles, the absence of prior convictions was irrelevant given the extreme nature of this offense, poverty cannot excuse such brutality, and the manner of the crime demonstrated such moral depravity that reformation seemed impossible
Final holding:
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the death sentence, stating: “The present case clearly falls in the category of rarest of rare cases” and “the brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of the crime” warranted no lesser punishment . The court emphasized this wasn’t just rape—it was torture, dehumanization, and murder combined with a level of cruelty rarely seen in criminal jurisprudence.
Review and Curative Petitions:
The convicts filed review petitions which were heard in open court (unusual for review proceedings) on July 9, 2018, and dismissed the same day . Subsequently, curative petitions were filed and dismissed on January 14, 2020 .
Mercy Petitions and Execution:
After legal remedies were exhausted, all four filed mercy petitions to the President of India under Article 72 and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi under Article 161. These were rejected on January 17, 2020, after consideration of all relevant materials including trial court records, appellate judgments, and Supreme Court decisions . The Supreme Court, in Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India (Writ Petition Criminal No. 3334/2020 decided on January 29, 2020), rejected challenges to the mercy petition rejection, holding there was no non-application of mind, no extraneous considerations, and all relevant materials had been placed before the President . All four convicts Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and Akshay Thakur were hanged at Tihar Jail on March 20, 2020, at 5:30 AM
Nirbhaya act
Nirbhaya Act Criminal Law( Amendment) Act 2013( Nirbhaya Act) is an Indian legislation passed by the Lok Sabha on 19 March 2013, and by the Rajya Sabha on 21 March 2013, which provides for correction of Indian Penal Code, Indian epitaphial Act, and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on laws related to sexual offences.
It was firstly an constitution announced by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, on 3 April 2013, in light of the challenges in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.
This new Act has expressly recognised certain acts as offences which were dealt under affiliated laws. These new offences like, acid attack, sexual importunity, voyeurism, stalking have been incorporated into the Indian Penal Code.
Changes in law
Certain changes has been introduced in the CrPC and confirmation Act, like the process of recording the statement of the victim has been made more victim friendly and easy but the two critical changes are
The ‘ character of the victim’ is now rendered completely inapplicable, and
There’s now a presumption of ‘ no concurrence’ in a case where sexual intercourse is proved and the victim states in the court that she did n’t assent. Nirbhaya Act Criminal Law( Amendment) Act 2013.
Criminal Law( Amendment) Act, 2013- Nirbhaya Act
It amended as well as fitted new sections in the IPC with regard to colorful sexual offences. New offences like, acid attack, sexual importunity, voyeurism, stalking have been incorporated into the IPC.
It expands the description of rape to include oral commerce as well as the insertion of an object or any other body part into a woman’s vagina, urethra or anus.
The new correction defines ‘ concurrence’, to mean an unambiguous agreement to engage in a particular sexual act; clarifying further, that the absence of resistance wo n’t indicate concurrence.
One of the most notable deletions of the Act is its failure to criminalize matrimonial rape. It’s an exception to section 375, handed that the woman
is n’t under 15 times of age.
before the offence of rape( sexual assault) was gender neutral, while now this offence is women centric. Only a man is assumed to be su
