Case Summary: Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 2161)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Date of Judgement:  5 May, 2017

Relevant Provisions/Statutes

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police officers during investigation.
• Section 164 – Recording of confessions or statements by Magistrate; admissible in court.
• Section 357A – Victim Compensation Scheme for rehabilitation and financial support.
• Section 428 – Set-off of detention period against sentence upon conviction.

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.
• Section 365 – Kidnapping or abduction to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.
• Section 366 – Kidnapping or abduction of a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse.
• Section 307 – Attempt to murder.
• Section 376(2)(g) – Gang rape.
• Section 377 – Unnatural offences (carnal intercourse against the order of nature).
• Section 302 – Punishment for murder.
• Section 395 – Dacoity.
• Section 396 – Dacoity with murder.
• Section 397 – Robbery or dacoity with use of deadly weapon or grievous hurt.
• Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to protect offender.
• Section 412 – Dishonestly receiving property obtained in dacoity.

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 65B – Admissibility of electronic records (e.g., CCTV, digital forensics).

Facts of the Case

On a cold night of 16th December, 2012, a 23-year-old paramedical student, along with her male friend, was returning from a movie in South Delhi. They boarded a bus, unaware that it was unregistered and being operated illegally. There were six males inside the bus — five adults including the driver, and one juvenile.

The duo took their seats, paid the fare, and expected a peaceful, normal journey back home. But the incidents that followed, was horrifying. The men started insulting and attacking the male friend, both verbally and physically. Soon after, they abused the girl, dragged her to the back of the bus, and brutally gang-raped her.

She was not only raped, but also physically tortured — brutally beaten with an iron rod, which was forcefully inserted through her anus, causing severe internal bleeding, to the extent that her intestines were protruding from her body.

After minutes of unimaginable torture, both the girl and her friend were stripped and thrown out of the moving bus near a hotel. They were later found naked and unconscious by passersby, who alerted the authorities.

Legal Issue involved

• Whether the dying declarations by the victim were reliable and admissible?
• Whether the evidence (medical, forensic, confessional) was sufficient to convict?
• Whether the case satisfied the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine for awarding the death penalty?
• Whether a juvenile involved in an inhumane crime should be punished like an adult?

Arguments

Issue: 1 – Whether the dying declarations by the victim were reliable and admissible?

Arguments by the Appellants (Defence side):

• The defence argued that it was impossible for a woman to be raped by 6 men in a time frame of just 25 minutes; and hence, only the first dying declaration must be taken into account.
• It was further justified that the victim’s mental state was unstable and therefore, the dying declarations after the first one cannot be relied upon completely.
• Also, it was claimed that the appearance of the name ‘Vipin’ in later declarations seemed suspicious (as none of the accused names was ‘Vipin’)

Arguments by the Respondent (Prosecution/State):

• The prosecution claimed that the declaration is consistent in its essence, even if not word-for-word. It was further claimed that this variation in words is expected and completely normal as the victim was in severe shock and trauma, and had fluctuating levels of consciousness.
• It was also mentioned that the doctors who treated her validated her fluctuating conditions, and it was not necessary to get a further opinion from another doctor.
• It was contented that the law doesn’t require dying declarations to be perfect; it is enough as long as they are made voluntary and is credible.

Issue: 2 – Whether the evidence (medical, forensic, confessional) was sufficient to convict?

Arguments by the Appellants (Defence side):

• The defence argued that there were no internal injuries to the uterus, and the rod insertion theory presented by the prosecution was overlooked by the Court; that the Court failed to investigate this part of the case properly.
• They even cited surgery notes and the post-mortem findings to substantiate and justify their contention.

Arguments by the Respondent (Prosecution/State):

• It was argued that the medical examination showed reports of internal bleeding in the uterus and that was evident – the victim’s intestine was pulled out brutally as a result of the forceful insertion of the iron rod via her genitals. This even results in vaginal tear and even her anal part was torn up to 5cm – her genitals were torn in such a way that, it led to a common passage, resulting in excessive bleeding.
• It was further contended that the post-mortem reports showed various wounds and scars in the victim’s body. It can be inferred from those descriptions that the victim was subjected to brutal physical and sexual harassment and it was confirmed in the victim’s dying declarations too.

Issue: 3 – Whether the case satisfied the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine for awarding the death penalty?

Arguments by the Appellants (Defence side):

• The petitioners (accused) contended that the death penalty should not be awarded as this case did not fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
• They argued that the accused’s right to life under Article 21 should be upheld, even for those convicted of brutal crimes.
• The accused’s background, age, possibility of reform, and lack of prior criminal history – all these warranted a lesser sentence, serving as mitigating circumstances. And hence, they must be granted the punishment of life imprisonment, not the death penalty.
• The petitioners mentioned that the “rarest of rare” doctrine, as laid down in previous judgments, required a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors. They argued that this balance had not been properly struck in this, and the death sentence was excessive and disproportionate.

Arguments by the Respondent (Prosecution/State):

• The State argued that this crime was ‘diabolic’ in nature, and it shocked the conscience of the society, collectively.
• They further argued that this crime was the extreme brutality, sexual perversity and complete lack of remorse of the accused in jail, justifies that this case is the ‘rarest of rare’ in the entire criminal history, and thus the accused persons must be given the death penalty.

Issue: 4 – Whether a juvenile involved in an inhumane crime should be punished like an adult? 

Arguments by the Appellants (Defence side):

• The petitioners contended that the juvenile who was involved in the offence was a student who had applied to the Air Force, and hence he must be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act only, to safeguard his future and his career.

Arguments by the Respondent (Prosecution/State):

• The State argued the juvenile’s act was extremely brutal and pleaded that he must be tried as an adult, and not as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

Judgement

• The Court, reaffirming the lower courts’ decisions, declared the crime as inhumane, and convicted all the adult accused for gang rape, murder, unnatural offences, conspiracy and destruction of evidence under the Indian Penal Code, and granted them the capital punishment (death penalty).
• And as far as the juvenile is concerned, regardless of how cruel his acts were, as per the law he must be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 only,
• On 20th March 2020, the four adult convicts were hanged in Tihar Jail. The juvenile was tried separately under the Juvenile Justice Act and served 3 years in a reform facility.

Ratio Decidendi

• PW-1’s (the victims male friend, the informant) minor inconsistencies were attributed to trauma and did not affect the substance of his account.
• The forensic and medical records corroborated the victim’s statements, proving the manner and gravity of the assault.
• The dying declarations were consistent, detailed, and recorded by independent magistrates. The court treated them as admissible and credible.
• Doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ was applied due to the brutal nature of the crime, public impact, and absence of mitigating circumstances.
• The Court applied the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine as established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), and later clarified in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), to conclude that the brutality and societal impact of the crime justified the death penalty.
• Based on careful analysis of the law, all adult accused must be given the death penalty, and the juvenile (regardless of his acts’ severity) must be tried as per the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 only.

Conclusion

• This haunting case of Nirbhaya shook the entire nation, raising concerns about the safety of women and called for legal as well as social reforms.
• The Supreme Court termed this case as ‘rarest of rare’ based on the victim’s declarations and the evidences presented by the prosecution.
• It held that all adult accused must be punished with death and the juvenile must be sent for reform, as per the Juvenile Justice Act.
• It was emphasized that punishment must be given based on law, not emotions – especially in case of the juvenile.
• The judgment highlighted the importance of credible dying declarations, forensic corroboration, and the balance between justice and reformative principles.
• This case triggered major reforms in our legal system: it led to the amendment of the Juvenile Justice Act in 2015, which allowed juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults in heinous offences.
• It also led to the formulation of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which widened the scope of sexual offences and strengthened penalties for such offences.

References

• Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017 SC 2161
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872