CASE BRIEF: MUKESH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2017) 6 SCC 1

 

CASE NAME	Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1
CITATION	AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 2161, AIR 2017 SC (CRIMINAL) 899, (2017) 2 CURCRIR 253
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Dipak Msira, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan
APPELLANT	Mukesh and Another
RESPONDENT	State (NCT of Delhi) and Others
DECIDED ON	5th May 2017

FACTS OF THE CASE

The twenty-three-year-old paramedical student who had gone to see a movie with her friend at PVR Select City Walk Mall in Saket on December 16, 2012, could not have even remotely given her the impression that during the next few hours, the icy night that was slowly encroaching would bring with it the terrible hour of darkness when she and her friend would board a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped off at a specific location. She might not have imagined that she would fall victim to the savage lust of a gang of six, endure vicious assault, and become a plaything that could be thrown around at their whim, with her private parts being torn apart to satisfy their pervert sexual appetite, unimaginable and sadistic pleasure. The timeline of events unfolded, revealing what the victims had not anticipated. The young woman experienced severe trauma as a result of the six's attitude, perception, bestial tendencies, unfathomable self-obsession, and individual-centeredness. Despite receiving every course of treatment available, the life force that propels the body eventually dies. She was brought to a hospital in Singapore in the hopes that her life would be saved, and that is where she died.  The girl's friend survived despite being thrown outside the bus with the girl, and the accused-appellants attempt to run them over was in vain because they were able to avoid being crushed beneath the bus with a small movement, and the appellants left them believing they were dead. They screamed for assistance while they were lying naked, and as luck would have it, a night patrol vehicle—a motorbike—arrived. The man in question, Raj Kumar, PW-72, gave the boy the shirt and called the control room, from which a Bolero patrol van arrived. They brought a bed sheet, tore it in two, and gave each victim a piece so they could cover themselves and feel civilized. Treatment began at the Safdarjung Hospital after the injured were transported there by the PCR vehicle.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is the crime of rape fully covered by Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code? 
• Is the death penalty or life in prison the appropriate punishment for the offenders? 
• Is it appropriate to send the youngster to a juvenile home or punish them as well for this horrible act? 
• Should Section 375's application be expanded?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The appellant's attorney claims that there was a delay in submitting the FIR because it was supposed to be filed at 3:45 am, but according to Nirbhaya's companion, who was with her when the crime occurred, it was filed at 5:30 am. The appellants contend that because there is a chance that evidence would be fabricated against an accused person, courts typically view delays in enforcing the law through the filing of a complaint in court or a formal police report (FIR) with suspicion. 
• The appellants claimed that the informant, a friend of Nirbhaya, failed to provide information about the incident's bus description, the names of the defendants, or the usage of iron rods. 
• According to the appellants, Nirbhaya's companion cannot be regarded as the primary witness since, in the first place, he frequently alters his account of events, and the severity of his injuries casts substantial doubt on his presence during the incident. 
• Regarding the death sentence, the convicted person's attorney raised an unrelated point. He claimed that the amount of pollution in the Capital City already made the convict's life short.

Arguments on behalf ofthe  respondent

• Since the incident's sequence should be remembered, there was no delay in filing a formal complaint in this instance. Since the sufferer was in serious condition, it was imperative that she receive medical attention. 
• It is not necessary for the FIR to include all of the details of the prosecution case; additionally, as stated in the case of Rattan Singh v. the State of H.P., it is not reasonable to expect the first information report statement to provide every detail about every aspect of the case. Therefore, the appellant's argument that the informant did not mention the use of iron rods, the names of the accused, or the description of the bus cannot be accepted. 
• The principal witness's testimony and the consistency of his claims have been properly relied upon by the court. 
• The learned senior counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, has made a valiant effort to portray the inquiry as perfect and model.

JUDGMENT

In a straightforward directive, the court declared that the devilish deed had rocked the nation's collective conscience and that it should consider this to be one of the very few instances in which the death penalty is appropriate. The Supreme Court claims that the identification of the accused aboard the bus and their involvement in the case were verified by odontology, DNA recognition, fingerprints, and witness evidence. According to the bench, their vile actions are reprehensible, and their manipulation of a woman's identity, body, dignity, and privacy is unacceptable. By sustaining the death sentence for the four defendants in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case—which the Supreme Court described as the rarest of, most violent, and most barbaric assault on 23-year-old paramedic student Jyoti Singh—it brought justice to the victim's family and to all women in the nation. The inmates mistreated their friend to an unspeakable degree and treated the victim like a doll.  A three-judge panel unanimously upheld the Delhi High Court's verdict, which was consistent with the trial court's ruling. When Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh attacked a countrywoman, they were hanged. Because their offense met the rarest-of-rare standards, the court sentenced them to death. The fifth accused was not charged after the incident since he was a kid at the time, and he was sent back to a detention facility for three years. Ram Singh, the case's final accused, committed suicide in Tihar jail during his trial, demonstrating his guilty mind.

CONCLUSION

The primary critique of the ruling is the persistent skepticism regarding Nirbhaya's final declaration. As defined by Section 32(1), a deathbed declaration is a written or spoken disclosure of pertinent facts made by a deceased person. The accused's attorney has repeatedly asked to exclude from consideration the pertinent details Nirbhaya mentioned in her final statement regarding the disproportionate number of accused and the time the rape occurred, as well as the fact that they were tutored rather than willingly involved. Additionally, because Nirbhaya presented different versions of the same facts as the accused's lawyers, Justice Hedge argued that the three dying claims did inspire trust enough to be included in the evidence. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and compassion for someone who has been so severely abused that, despite being unable to speak, they mustered the fortitude to recount the entire event and outline each accused person's role. It is easy to conclude that the attorney took advantage of every chance to postpone the court's time.  In the current case, the court heard all of the accused's nebulous arguments, from the irrelevant questions about the prime witness's relevance to the accused's petitions filed over time to the argument that the accused's life sentence is already too short due to the rise in Delhi pollution. However, recently, it is impossible to forget that Nirbhaya ultimately received justice. The judiciary is still trusted by billions of people in the nation that, like Nirbhaya, all Indian women who have been victims of the same or any other type of tragedy will eventually receive justice.  Even if India's rape laws have changed, important problems like gender neutrality and the concept of marital rape still need to be resolved. To guarantee efficacy, the laws must be updated and modified as needed, not only in reaction to particular occurrences but also proactively. With the exception of Akshay, three of the prisoners requested a summary of the ruling, but their request was turned down. Akshay was hung on March 20, 2020, after the Supreme Court denied his appeal case on December 18, 2019. India still has a high number of reported and unreported rape incidents, despite historic rulings and penalties. In addition to violating human rights, incidents like the Hyderabad Rape Case and the Shakthi Mili Gang Rape also raise questions about the safety and well-being of the victims.  Although India has made strides in modernizing its legal system and advancing gender equality, there is still a problem with delayed justice, which permits significant crimes to occur. Though it took longer than expected, justice was served in the Nirbhaya case, and such delays could affect how other crimes are handled. The legal system must operate dynamically, enacting changes as necessary to guarantee prompt and equitable justice for all.