Case Details
Case Name: Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: (2017) 6 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 5 May 2017
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 607–608 of 2017
Appellants: Mukesh & Anr.
Respondents: State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Bench: Justices Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi & Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Introduction
It happens that some criminal cases serve as milestones in the evolution of law, since they make courts deal with issues which go beyond the boundaries of a particular case. One of such decisions is Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., which is popularly referred to as the Nirbhaya case.
This case was brought to court following the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi in December 2012. This led to national protests and public discussions related to women’s security and capital punishment in India.
But the significance of Mukesh is not only in the fact of the brutal crime committed by the defendant. It became necessary for the court to consider whether this case meets the extremely high standard of the imposition of the death penalty. In other words, it is a significant case which examines the “rarest of rare” principle.
Facts of the Case
On 16th December 2012, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student along with her friend got on a bus in Delhi. There were some other men in the bus. Both the individuals were attacked and the girl was subjected to gang rape along with brutal physical assault.
Both the victims were then pushed out of the moving bus. The girl sustained serious injuries and was first admitted to Safdarjung hospital after which she was shifted to Singapore. Though she received medical care, she unfortunately succumbed to death on 29th December 2012.
The above event gave rise to an unprecedented level of fury among Indians. Some of the accused were arrested and charged for their offense. One of the accused had passed away while the rest was charged through juvenile laws.
All the adult accused were tried by the Sessions Court and found guilty with death penalty. The judgment of Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the lower court. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
- Whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment.
- Whether the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
- Whether there was a reasonable possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused.
Arguments of the Parties
- Appellants
The appellants challenged the evidence adduced by the prosecution and findings of law made by the courts below. They submitted that there should be consideration of the specific circumstances surrounding the accused when passing sentence, and not just the brutal nature of the offence alone.
- Defence
The defence made use of the principle that the death sentence is an exceptional form of punishment and that mitigating factors and rehabilitation should be considered.
- Prosecution
The prosecution contended that the evidence clearly showed that the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They referred to the exceptionally brutal nature of the crime committed as well as the vulnerable state of the victim who had suffered from the injuries.
It was argued that the circumstances were so exceptional that the case clearly fell within the rarest of rare category and that life imprisonment would be inadequate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
On 5 May 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and death sentences.
The Court carefully examined the evidence and rejected the challenges raised by the accused. It then separately considered the question of punishment.
Relying upon the principles established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court examined whether the case crossed the constitutional threshold required for imposing death penalty.
The Court concluded that the crime involved exceptional brutality and circumstances of extreme gravity. After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it held that the case fell within the rarest of rare category and that the alternative punishment of life imprisonment was inadequate.
Court’s Reasoning and Legal Analysis
The principle of law that was applied in the case in question was the rarest of rare doctrine.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but held that death penalty could be awarded only in exceptional cases. The Court held that imprisonment for life is the norm and the death penalty is an exception.
The rarest of rare doctrine was further elucidated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, wherein the Court considered the following factors as the grounds that would make death penalty the only possible option for the judge: the manner of commission of the offence; the motive; the magnitude of the offence; and the circumstances of the victim.
Applying this doctrine in Mukesh, the Court considered the brutality of the crime and its circumstances as aggravating circumstances that made the case of Mukesh an extremely serious one.
However, apart from aggravating circumstances that should be proved in order to justify the death penalty, there are the mitigating circumstances that should also be considered by the judge. Mitigating circumstances include the background of the offender and the potential of reformation.
It means that the principle is that the Indian criminal justice system is based on is that both “the crime” and “the criminal” must be taken into account while choosing the punishment for the accused.
Moreover, the punishment cannot be based only on public rage caused by the crime committed. The case also brings forward the idea of “collective conscience” that should not play the main role in deciding on the punishment. Though, Nirbhaya incident generated a huge wave of public outrage, the decision cannot be governed by public sentiments but only by constitutional principles and standards.
Critical Analysis
The judgment in question can be regarded as being legally significant since the Court did not consider the death penalty as an automatically awarded punishment for conviction of the murder but proceeded to conduct sentencing hearing.
Nevertheless, there is the flaw in this principle of law as well.
There is no objective criterion for determining when the case can be considered the “rarest of rare”. Therefore, it is quite subjective.
The central legal principle in the case was the rarest of rare doctrine.
It is intrinsically subjective. There is no mathematical yardstick to determine when a case reaches the threshold of being “rarest of rare”, which might make a difference in the evaluation made by judges in each case.
Care should also be taken in the use of the idea of collective conscience. When cases garner a lot of media coverage, there is often tremendous pressure for imposing a harsh sentence. Judges need to make sure that this pressure does not replace the duty of objectivity in sentencing.
Reformation and rehabilitation are other issues worth consideration. The irreversibility of death makes it very important that courts give thought to whether the offender has any potential for reformation. A constitutional sentencing policy cannot afford to have the issue of reformation be a mere formality.
Thus, while the decision in Mukesh may be understandable given the extraordinary situation, this case is yet another example of an important question – how consistently can the rarest of rare principle be used without compromising the constitutional value of life?
Significance of the Judgment
It is relevant in terms of criminal law as well as sentencing jurisprudence. It upheld the uniqueness of the death penalty and applied the Bachan Singh-Machhi Singh test.
Furthermore, it has become a landmark case in the context of discussion on sexual violence, women safety, criminal justice reform and capital punishment. The Nirbhaya case led to legislative reforms through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which introduced legal changes related to sexual offences.
Above all, it exemplified the conflict between retribution and rehabilitation as well as the clash between the society’s desire for punishment and the constitutional imperative of judicial restraint.
Conclusion
Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. is one of the most important decisions of India in connection with sexual violence and capital punishment.
In its decision, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the death penalty can only be used in the rarest of rare cases taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Nevertheless, it emphasized the problem of inconsistency in the application of the aforementioned rule. It is not enough to take into account the severity of the crime when the question arises of whether or not the convict deserves death; one also has to consider constitutional constraints and the possibility of his rehabilitation.
Therefore, Mukesh shows that the problem of criminal justice does not boil down to the infliction of punishment for horrible crimes but to the imposition of punishment within the legal, reasonable and constitutional framework.
References
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68696327/
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
- https://lawarticle.in/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab-rarest-of-rare-doctrine-case/
- Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — S 302, 376(2)(g), 120-B.
- Constitution of India, art 21.
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
