Author Details:-

Boomika Selvan

ISSUES:

1.Whether the accused convicted under sections 34,120,365,376,307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?

2.Whether a minor would be guilty of the same offenses as an adult?

3.Whether the accused given the death penalty or life sentence?

RULE:

Laws applicable in this case include

Indian Penal Code 1860

Section 34 – Common intention

Section 120 – Criminal conspiracy

Section 365 – kidnapping or abducts

Section 376D – Gang rape

Section 307 – Punishment to attempt murder

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

section 154, 161,164, 273,357C.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 53A, 114A, 146, 119

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013:

After this case in India, many amendments were introduced relating to sexual offenses and included a broader definition of Rape and so strict punishment were also made by the Law.

• Another name for this is Anti-Rape Act
• When it comes to Rape victim personality was completely unimportant, and it has no bearing on how the crime is punished
• The minimum sentence was changed from seven years to ten years by considering the number of rape cases.
• The committee gave extensive recommendations regarding avoiding marital rape as well as rape committed by void marriage.
• The threat of rape is now a crime and the person who threatens will be punished.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

One of the accused was a Juvenile in this case. A person who has not completed 18 years of age is called a minor. There were questions about the legal approach of the minor.

Juvenile Act, 2015^[1]

Changes in Juvenile law after the Nirbhaya case was that the age at which violent offenses such as Rape may be tried as adults was lowered from 18 to 16.

APPLICATION

Facts

On 16^th December 2012, a 23 years old woman called Nirbhaya was doing intern in physiotherapy. On that night she and her male friend went to see a movie in south Delhi, while they were returning from the movie to home on that night. They boarded a private bus at Munirka for Dwarka at about 9:30 PM. There were already six individuals inside the bus when the light abruptly went out. In the six individuals one person was a minor, had called for passenger telling them that the bus was going towards their destination. Her friend became suspicious when the bus deviated from its normal route and the door were shut. The six individuals including the driver taunted the coupe asking they were doing alone at such a late night. The friend tried to protect Nirbhaya was beaten by the perpetrators. He was severely beaten and knocked unconscious with the iron rod. The dragged Jyoti to the rear of the bus, beating her with the rod and raping her while the bus driver continued to drive. Nirbhaya was not only sexually violated, her body was mutilated beyond human imagination. She was brutally raped by the six individuals. The minor is the person who inserted iron rod in the vagina of the women. She was viciously raped by them again and again. After that, she and her friend was throughout off the bus in half nude they thought that Nirbhaya and her friend wouldn’t survive.

The accused wanted to destroy the evidence inter alia by washing the bus and burning the deceased clothes after performing the gruesome act they divided the loot among themselves.

The victim was taken to a Singapore hospital but unfortunately, she was died on 29^th December after a long struggle.

Petitioner arguments (accused side)

The council argues that the judges shouldn’t rely solely on the victim’s blood report and DNA because the woman lost a significant amount of blood during the transfusion which could affect the DNA profile.

Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar, two convicted men, continue to argue that they were not aboard the bus their family members backed them.

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 introduce it into her vaginal. An iron rod was not used for penetration if it occurred then it will be first injure in the uterus and subsequently the intestine.

Respondent arguments

The council said that since this case fall under the category of “rarest of the rarest cases”, the optimum course of action is capital punishment.

The minor accused should be prosecuted alongside the other four accused parties because

The offense was serious and the minor should not be granted any leniency.

The council stated that there is sufficient evidence to punish the accused.

Evidence

Evidence Act ,1872

Section 32(1) Dying declaration/Statement before Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC ^[2]Admissibility/Reliability – Overwriting in date mentioned by Magistrate When not material

During recording of second dying declaration, Magistrate correctly mentioned date beneath signature of deceased prosecutrix- However, made some overwriting in forwarding letter, which she satisfactorily explained to be human error Thus overwriting not material.

During recording of third dying declaration, has overwritten date beneath signature of deceased, but date on forwarding letter is correctly written – Further was not examined on this aspect- Further entire statement was recorded in supervision of doctor who had certified about fitness of prosecutrix to give said statement in third dying declaration not relevant admissible and can be relied on for conviction 1973, Section 164 Thus overwriting Thus all 3 dying declarations section 164^[3].

Held, per Banumathi, J. (concurring), dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence provided it is not tainted with malice and not made in an unfit mental state Court must ensure that dying declaration is not result of tutoring, prompting or imagination However, it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Legal reforms

In this case reminds significant legal reforms to address the rising concerns about women’s safety there are numerous were regarding rape. The Criminal Law(amendment) Act, 2013^[4] was enacted introducing amendment to the Indian Penal Code, Code of criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. These changes included the introduction of new offenses and punishments.

Rarest of rare

The landmark judgement on September 13, 2013 the trial court sentenced four of the accused were accused to death by hanging this was cited as a “rarest of rare” doctrine. This doctrine allows for the death penalty in exceptional cases where the crime is heinous in nature. One accused a juvenile, received a three-year sentence in reform facility.

Legal proceedings

In the Nirbhaya case unfolded with urgency, reflecting the gravity of the crime and public outcry for justice. The trial commenced swiftly, and the accused faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rape, murder and criminal conspiracy.

Impact on Juvenile Justice

The question raised about juvenile offenders’ accountability in heinous crimes. In response the juvenile justice amendment Act, 2015 was enacted allowing for the trial of juveniles aged 16-18 years as adults for heinous offences.

In this case had a big impact on juvenile justice, leading to significant changes in the legal framework about the accountability and punishment of juvenile offenders involved in heinous crimes, sparking a revaluation of existing laws. This approach, which mandated a separate justice system for juveniles, emphasizing their rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.

DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT

The session judge, in a judgment dated 10^th 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 the course of trial, accused Ram Singh committed suicide and the proceedings him stood abated vide order dated 12.10.2013.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The SC held that, “the death penalty and there is no reason to differ with the same”. According to the three-judge bench, the severe nature of the crime, involving crimes like gang rape, unnatural sex, etc., fall under the bracket of the “rarest of rare” principle. Also, one accused was a minor at the time of the offence so, he was sent to a Juvenile court where he was held guilty and sent to correction home for three years as he was a minor.

Landmark cases related to Nirbhaya case

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997)^[5]

This case laid the foundation for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. The Supreme Court issued guidelines, known as Vishakha guidelines, to ensure the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at workplaces.

Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986)^[6]

This contributed to women’s rights in the context of inheritance. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women, challenging the discriminatory Christian Succession Act^[7].

CONCLUSION

Judgment

Nirbhaya case judge names were NV Ramana, Arun Mistra, RF Nairman, R. Banumathi, and Ashok Bhushan.

It was 3:2 of five Bench deciding the case. On March 19, 2020, the supreme court upheld the Delhi high court’s sentence verdict in the Nirbhaya rape case, stating the crime was a “rarest of the rare” and that it had shaken the nation’s conscience.

On March 20, 2020 at 6.am the Supreme Court rejected the four convicts’ mercy plea and upheld their death sentences.

All six men, including a juvenile, were convicted in the Nirbhaya case. Ram Singh, a bus driver, committed suicide during the trial. Mukesh, Akshay, pawan and vinay were sentenced to 3years in a reform facility.

The 4 convicts who received the death penalty for the gang rape and murder of a medical student, were hanged on 3 March 2020.

JUVENILE OF THE ACCUSED

On December 20, 2015, the juvenile was released from the correction home after completion of 3 years. A day before he was released he was sent to secret location due to security reasons. The release of juvenile the Aravind Kejriwal- led Delhi government had a rehabilitation plan for the juvenile under which the government had decided to give him a one time financial grant for Rs.10000 and arrange for a sewing machine so that he can rent a tailoring shop. The move had provoked obligation from the civil society and the government, who remained apprehensive about his mental condition and wanted his detention extended.

After his release, the juvenile was taken to the NGO which rehabilitation him in south India. A Hindustan Times report from 2017 states that he was working as a cook in South India at that point in time.

In this case, made a huge impact in India and made many changes in the law in the country.

1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015 ↑
2. Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 ↑
3. ibid ↑
4. Indian Penal Code,1860; Indian Evidence Act ,1873; Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973↑
5. Vishaka & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & ors (1997) 6 SCC 241 ↑
6. Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986) AIR 10111 SCR (1) ↑
7. Indian Succession Act, 1925↑