Author Details:-

Dev Hans.

Introduction:

This case is one of the landmark judgments of India which has brought many changes in the rape laws of India as it involves extraordinarily gruesome and barbaric. The victim Jyoti Singh was a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern who along with her friend boarded a bus at Munirka to reach Dwarka, in Delhi. The victim later referred to as Nirbhaya, succumbed to her injuries, and a case became a symbol of the pervasive issue of sexual violence against women in India.

The case brought attention to several important legal issues, such as the punishment for those committing such violent crimes and the treatment of juvenile offenders involved in serious offenses. It also led to changes in India’s criminal laws, including stricter penalties for crimes against women and reforms to the juvenile justice system. While many people supported the death penalty for the perpetrators, others raised concerns about human rights and the fairness of such punishments. This case continues to be discussed as an example of India’s need for justice and legal reforms.

Facts of the Case:

• Nirbhaya is the pseudonym used for the rape victim of the infamous 16 December 2012 Delhi gang rape incident. The victims were a 23-year-old woman, Jyoti Singh, and her male friend. They were returning home on the night of 16 December 2012 after watching the film Life of Pi in Saket, South Delhi.
• They boarded the bus at Munirka for Dwarka at about 09:30 pm (IST). There were only six others on the bus, including the driver. Her friend became suspicious when the bus deviated from its normal route and its door was shut. When he objected, the group of six men, including the driver, taunted the couple, asking what they were doing alone at such a late hour.
• When the victim’s friend tried to protect her, was beaten up by the perpetrators. During the argument, a scuffle ensued between her friend and the group of men. They overpowered him, gagged him, and rendered him unconscious by an iron rod. The men then 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 just sexually violated, her body was mutilated beyond human imagination. A medical report later said that she suffered serious injuries to her abdomen, intestines, and genitals due to the assault, and doctors said that the damage indicated that a blunt object (suspected to be the iron rod) may have been used for penetration. That rod was later described by police as being a rusted, L-shaped implement of the type used as a wheel jack handle. She later died of multiple organ failure, internal bleeding, and cardiac arrest on the 29th of December.

Issues Presented:

Is the death penalty an appropriate punishment for the accused?

• The case led to discussions about the imposition of the death penalty, particularly for crimes of extreme brutality, and whether such punishment acts as a deterrent.

Should the Juvenile involved be tried as an adult?

• One of the accused was a minor, which brought into question whether he should be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act or as an adult, given the brutal nature of the crime.

Were the victim’s rights adequately represented and protected during the legal process?

• The court had to ensure that the rights of the victim (both during her lifetime and posthumously) were respected and that her statement was admissible under the law.

Could the accused be rehabilitated?

• There were discussions on whether the accused could potentially be rehabilitated and if life imprisonment would serve as a more appropriate punishment.

How should public outrage and media pressure affect the judicial process?

• The court had to consider the extent to which widespread public and media outrage over the case should influence the judicial process while maintaining fairness and impartiality.

Legal Proceeding:

• Delhi police arrested six main suspects of crime, including one Juvenile. The police quickly gathered evidence, including medical reports, the victim’s statement, DNA reports, and CCTV footage.
• A chargesheet was filed by the police on January 3, 2013. Against five adults and one Juvenile. The charges included gang rape, murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, unnatural offenses, destruction of evidence, and other criminal acts under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). One of the accused was a minor at the time of the crime and was tried separately under the Juvenile Justice Act.
• In response to public outrage, the government set up a fast-track court to ensure a speedy trial. The trial for the five adult accused began in January 2013 at the Saket District Court in Delhi.

Conviction, Sentencing, and Imprisonment:

• On 10 September 2013, in the fast-track court of Delhi, the four adult defendants were found guilty of rape, murder, unnatural offenses, and destruction of evidence. The four men faced the death penalty, and demonstrators outside the courthouse called for the hanging of the defendants. The victim’s father also called for the defendants to be hanged, stating, “We will get complete closure only if all the accused are wiped off from the face of the earth.
• The four men were sentenced on 13 September to death by hanging. Judge Yogesh Khanna rejected pleas for a lesser sentence saying the case has “shocked the collective conscience of India” and that “courts cannot turn a blind eye to such crimes.” The victim’s family was present for the sentencing and her mother expressed satisfaction over the verdict saying, “We were waiting with bated breath, now we are relieved. I thank the people of my country and the media”.
• After the verdict was delivered, the people waiting outside the courtroom applauded. Upon hearing that they would be executed, Vinay Sharma collapsed and pleaded with the judge, saying “Please sir, please sir.” As the men left the courtroom, they shouted out to the crowd “Brothers, save us!”
• After the incident, the fifth accused was not tried and he was sent to a correction home for three years because he was a minor at that time.

High Court Appeal:

• On 13 March 2014, the Delhi High Court found each of the defendants guilty of rape, murder, unnatural offenses and destruction of evidence. With the verdict, the High Court confirmed the death sentences for the four men convicted in September 2013. The court noted that the crime, which stirred widespread protests over sexual crimes against women in the country, fell into the judicial system’s “rarest of the rare category” that allows capital punishment.

Supreme Court Appeal:

• On 5 May 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the convicts’ appeal and, saying they had committed “a barbaric crime” that had “shaken society’s conscience”, the court upheld the death sentence of the four who had been charged in the murder. The verdict was well received by the family of the victim and the civil society. According to legal experts, the convicts still had the right to file a review petition to the Supreme Court. On 9 July 2018, the Supreme Court rejected a review petition by three of the convicts.
• The court invoked the doctrine of “rarest of rare” cases for awarding the death penalty, emphasizing the heinousness of the crime, the suffering of the victim, and the shock it caused to society.
• In November 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition from Akshay pleading for mercy. In doing so, the court retained the death sentence. After the verdict, Akshay’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that he would appeal to the president. For this, he should be given three weeks.
• In January 2020, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court rejected the curative petitions of convicts, Vinay Sharma and Mukesh. On 7 January 2020, a death warrant was issued for the Nirbhaya rapists by a Delhi court, setting an execution date of 22 January 2020 at 7:00 a.m. IST in Tihar Jail

Legal Reforms:

• Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013. Under this change, new offenses such as stalking, acid attacks, and voyeurism were added to the definition of rape. Even the threat of rape is now a crime and the person will be punished for the same.
• The minimum sentence was changed from seven years to ten years considering the increase in the number of rape cases. In cases that led to the death of the victim or the victim being in a vegetative state, the minimum sentence was increased to 20 years.
• Since one of the accused in this case was a juvenile, another flaw in the system was identified after this case. So, the age for being tried as an adult for violent crimes like rape was changed from 18 to 16 years, that to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• There was also the inclusion of registering complaints and medical examinations. The report categorically mentioned, Any officer, who fails to register a case of rape reported to him, or attempts to abort its investigation, commits an offense which shall be punishable as prescribed. The committee gave extensive recommendations regarding avoiding marital rape as well as rapes committed via the commission of void marriages.

Critical Analysis:

The Nirbhaya case stands as a pivotal moment in India’s legal and social history, bringing the issue of sexual violence against women to the forefront. While the case led to significant legal reforms, it also exposed the weaknesses in the judicial system, highlighted the deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes in society, and sparked debates about the effectiveness of capital punishment. Despite the eventual justice delivered, the lengthy judicial process raised concerns about delays in cases of such extreme brutality. This analysis looks at the case’s impact, the reforms introduced, and the ongoing challenges in addressing gender-based violence in India.

Conclusion:

The Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. The case remains a landmark judgment in India’s legal history, not only because of the severity of the crime but also because of its lasting impact on legal reforms and societal attitudes toward gender-based violence. The case reinforced the Supreme Court’s stance on the death penalty in cases of extreme brutality and set a strong precedent for handling crimes of a similar nature.

Endnote:

The Nirbhaya case was a tragic event that shook the entire nation and led to important changes in the laws protecting women. While the criminals were eventually punished, the case highlighted the slow justice system and the deep issues in society regarding how women are treated. This case reminds us that while legal changes are important, real progress will only happen when society’s attitudes toward women change, and when we work together to make the world a safer place for everyone.