MUKESH & ANR

V.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

Citation: (2017) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1: (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 673: 2017 SCC
Online SC 533

By – Aman Kumar

Law Student

Facts of the case

Jyoti Singh, 23, and her 24-year-old male friend were returning home on December 16, 2012,
after watching the movie “Life of Pi” in Saket in South Delhi. They got on the bus at 9:30 pm,
which was headed to Dwarka. There were only six other passengers on board, including the bus
driver. One of the men, identified as a minor, called for passengers to let them know the bus was
on its way. Jyoti’s friend got suspicious when the bus took a detour from its route and the doors
were closed. When the friend objected, the group, which included the bus driver, heckled the
couple, asking them why they were alone at such an ungodly hour.

During the argument, Jyoti's friend was hit by an iron rod. The friend tried to protect Jyoti and
was beaten. He was gagged and knocked unconscious. The men dragged Jyoti and dragged her to
the back of the bus, where they beat her with an iron rod and raped her. The bus driver kept
driving.

Nirbhaya's body was mutilated beyond imagination. According to a medical report, she sustained
severe abdominal, intestinal, and genital injuries. Doctors said that the damage indicates that a
blunt object was used for penetration (potentially the iron rod). Police later described the bar as a
corroded, L-shaped tool of the type used for wheel jack handle. On December 29, Nirbhaya died
of multiple organ failures, internal hemorrhaging, and cardiac arrest.
Arguments

Petitioners

The criminals' learned attorney filed a Review Petition under Article 137 with the Supreme
Court. When one of the parties feels wronged by a decision made by the court due to a factual
error, they may file a review petition with the Supreme Court. A Curative Petition was then
moved for by the attorney. The purpose of filing a curative petition is to ask for any kind of relief
for the harmed party, even after the verdict has been rendered. However, the Supreme Court
dismissed the plea, taking into account the welfare of the nation, the need to prevent similar
crimes in the future, and the need to stop the judiciary from continuing down an unjust path
when handling cases of this nature in the future.

Respondents

The defense team argued that there was sufficient evidence to punish every convict. This
particular crime was pre-mediated and is classified as one of the "rarest of the rare cases." The
prosecutrix and her friend were duped by the prisoners into entering the empty bus with
malicious intent. The prosecution stated that "no mercy should be shown to these merciless" and
demanded the death penalty for all guilty parties. The death penalty would serve as a deterrent
just as steadily rising rates of crime against women do. The victim received no mercy from the
prisoners, and they ought to receive the same treatment. Since the crime committed ultimately
targets the public at large, the death penalty is requested.

Issues

 Whether Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code covers the crime of rape entirely or not?

 Whether the convicts of such crimes should be given the death penalty or not?

 Whether a juvenile committing such heinous crimes should be given punishment

 Whether public outrage on any gruesome occurrence can become a criterion for
determining punishment in a case?
Decision

A three-judge seat concurred that the demonstration done by the denounced merited no
compassion.

In a solid message, that the barbarous wrongdoing had staggered the common mentality of the
general public, and that the court can see it as a most uncommon of interesting situations where
capital punishments can be conceded. DNA ID, fingerprints, witness statements, and odontology
demonstrated the presence of the denounced on the transport and their commitment to the
wrongdoing, as said by the High Court.

The easygoing way with which she was dealt with and the wicked way where they played with
her body, her personality, and her pride is humanly unbelievable, said the seat.

The High Court controlled equity to the group of the person in question and every one of the
ladies in the nation by affirming the discipline of the death penalty to the four convicts in the
Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case, naming it as the most uncommon of intriguing, generally
brutal, and crude attack on the 23-year-old paramedic understudy, Jyoti Singh. The convicts
regarded the casualty as an object of delight and taken advantage of her physically to the most
awful level. A three-judge seat, through a consistent decision, maintained the Delhi High Court
judgment that had concurred with the preliminary court choice of the case. Mukesh, Pawan,
Vinay Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh were hanged to death for the mercilessness they had
shown against a woman of the country. The seat granted them capital punishment on the grounds
that their wrongdoing met the most extraordinary of-uncommon limit. After the episode, the fifth
blamed was not attempted and he was shipped off a rectification home for quite a long time since
he was a minor around then.

Reasoning

In the current case, irritating conditions dwarfed relieving factors. In 'most extraordinary of
uncommon cases,' where any elective sentence is 'obviously abandoned', the death penalty ought
to be proclaimed. Here, horrendous maltreatments of human respect have surfaced, and a
verifiable sensation of disquiet had grasped the general public. Human craving was never
allowed to take such an underhanded design and subsequently the death penalty is
unquestionably yielded.
High Court maintained Delhi HC and Preliminary Court's choice to allow passing to the excess
four convicts. slam Singh, the fifth blamed ended it all while the sixth one being a minor was
conceded a drawn out in-remedy office by Adolescent Equity Board. He was delivered in 2015.
The Zenith court in judgment set out that the goal to run the transport over the prosecutrix
subsequent to perpetrating such a terrible wrongdoing showed that each conceivable endeavor
was made to delete the proof.

The court relied upon the instance of Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. versus Territory of
Maharashtra, where it was held that the age of the denounced and his family foundation can't be
considered as relieving conditions.

Analysis of the objective in this case study

Reforms in rape laws after Nirbhaya case

 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013

 The Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 is also popularly referred to as the Anti-rape Act.

 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.

 The character of the victim was totally irrelevant to rape cases and it doesn’t make any
difference in granting punishment for the crime.

 Since one of the accused in this situation was a juvenile, one more defect in the system
was distinguished after this case. In this way, the age for being tried as a grown-up for
 vicious 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 that 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.