NIRBHAYA GANG

RAPE CASE
MUKESH AND ANR.
VS.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.

NAME: DENISHA LUAGARIYA

ROLL NO.: 92201041018
STREAM: B.COM LL.B. (HONS.)
SEMESTER: IV
 INTRODUCTION
• Rape being one of the most serious crimes all over the world takes place often in all parts of the country
some of which are noticed and made news while some are unnoticed.

• One of India's landmark judgments that has resulted in many reforms in the country's rape laws because it
includes extremely grotesque and barbaric acts Jyoti Singh, a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern, boarded a
bus from Munirka to Dwarka in Delhi with a friend.

• A ravenous beast consumed several organs as well as a small town Indian girl's hopes and ambitions on the
night of December 16, 2012, infamous molesters and attackers committed one of the most horrific crimes in
our country's history.

• The judgment was passed in the year 2017 and implemented in the year 2020 was welcomed by all the
citizens even in the pandemic period of COVID. Such delays tends to eliminate the deterrent effect that
criminal law aims at immediate and harsh punishments for such serious crime may aid in stopping its
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• The victims, а 23-yeаr-оld woman, Jyоti Singh, and her male friend, were coming back to home on the night

of 16 December 2012 after watching the film Life of Рi in Sаket, South Delhi.

• At аrоund 9:30 p.m., they bоаrded the bus in Munirkа bound for Dwаrkа (IST). The bus had just six

раssengers, plus the driver.

• Minor, one of the guys had summoned раssengers and told them that the bus was on its way to their

destination.

• Her friend grew suspicious when the bus deviated from its usual route and shut its doors.

• When he protested, the other six men on board, including the driver, ridiculed the pair, asking what they

were doing alone at such a late hour.

• When the friend attempted to defend Nirbhaya, he was beaten up by the attackers.
• During the debate, a fight broke out between her friend and a group of men. With an iron bar, he
was beaten, gagged, and knocked unconscious.

• The men then pulled Jyoti to the back of the truck, where they hit her with the rod and raped her
as the bus driver drove away.

• 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
1. Whether Section 375 of Indian Penal Code covers the crime of rape
entirely or not?

2. Whether the offenders should be punished with life imprisonment

or death penalty?

3. Whether the minor should also be punished for this heinous act or
should be sent to juvenile home?

4. Should the scope of Section 375 be broadened?

 REASONING
• In the present case, aggravating circumstances outnumbered
mitigating factors. In ‘rarest of rare cases,’ where any alternative
sentence is ‘unquestionably foreclosed’, capital punishment should
be declared. Here, horrible abuses of human dignity have surfaced,
and an implicit feeling of uneasiness had gripped the society.
Human desire was never permitted to take such an evil structure
and thus capital punishment is certainly conceded.
• Supreme Court upheld Delhi HC and Trial Court’s decision to grant death to
the remaining four convicts. Ram Singh, the fifth accused committed suicide
while the 6th one being a minor was granted a long-term in-correction facility
by Juvenile Justice Board. He was released in 2015.

• The Apex court in judgment laid down that the intention to run the bus over
the prosecutrix after committing such a heinous crime indicated that every
possible attempt was made to erase the evidence.

• The court depended on the case of Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, where it was held that the age of the accused and his
family background can’t be considered as mitigating conditions.
 ARGUMENTS
• ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

On behalf of the petitioner, learned senior counsel Ms. Anjana Prakash

submitted that power under Article 72 of the Constitution is the constitutional duty
and is to be exercised in the light of the guidelines and with great care and
circumspection.

• Placing reliance upon Shatrughan Chauhan and another v. Union of India and
others (2014) 3 SCC 1, it was submitted that while forwarding the mercy petition,
all the relevant documents like case records, judgment of the trial court, High
Court and the Supreme Court should be placed before the President of India and
the Home Ministry is to send their views within reasonable time.
• Placing reliance upon communication from the Superintendent, Tihar Jail dated
14.01.2020, the learned senior counsel submitted that as laid down in Shatrughan
Chauhan, the relevant materials had not been placed before the President of
India and the relevant materials had been kept out of consideration.

• The learned Senior counsel inter alia submitted that in violation of the principles
laid down in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494,
the petitioner had been kept in solitary confinement and this aspect has not been
taken into consideration.

• It was further contended that the sufferings of the petitioner in the prison during
the custody has not been taken into consideration while considering his mercy
petition.
• ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENT:

Refusing the contention of the petitioner, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General submitted that while
forwarding the mercy petition all the relevant materials as laid down in para 23 and 24.2 of Shatrughan Chauhan
have been placed before the President of India.

The learned Solicitor General submitted that all the guidelines laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan and other
judgments have been substantially complied with. Insofar as the averments of solitary confinement, the learned
Solicitor General submitted that as per the affidavit of the Director General, Prisons, the petitioner was only kept in a
single room with iron bars open to air and the petitioner was intermingling with other prisoners as per rules and the
same cannot be equated to solitary confinement.

So far as the averment as to quick rejection of the mercy petition, the learned Solicitor General submitted that delay in
disposal of the mercy petition may be a ground for consideration of the mercy petition; whereas quick consideration
of the mercy petition and rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order of the President
under Article 72 of the Constitution nor does it suggest that there was pre-determined mind and non-application of
mind.
 JUDGEMENT

• The Supreme Court delivered justice to the victim's family and all
women in the country by upholding the death penalty for the four
convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, describing it
as the rarest of rare, most violent and barbaric assault on Jyoti
Singh, a 23-year-old paramedic student. The convicts treated the
victim as if she were a doll and abused her/his friend at an
unforgivable extent.
THANK YOU