CASE CITATION – 2020, 03 SC CK 0075 SLP (Criminal) No. 547 of 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT – JANUARY 20, 2020
BENCH – ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. BANUMATHI and A.S BOOPANNA
APPELLANT – PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
RESPONDENT – STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
FACTS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled death sentence to the convicts of the Nirbhaya gangrape case on January 20, 2020. The whole nation was appalled by hearing the news of the most horrifying and brutal gangrape of a 23 year old women. The women was a physiotherapy student. The incident occurred in a moving bus in the capital of the nation. On the night of December 16, 2012, the victim accompanied with her male friend were returning back home after watching a movie at the theatre. They were waiting for a rickshaw around 9.30 pm. At the time, an off-duty charter bus, not for commercial purposes, approached and offered ride from Munirka to Dwarka. They boarded the bus, as they couldn’t find any public transport to return home. There were only 8 members in the bus including the victim and her friend.
After some time, they noticed the bus was taking a different route. When the male friend asked them about it, they shouted and raised finger to them and asked why were they out so late. A fight had started between them and the other six in the bus. Two of the people started abusing the victim and when her friend tried to fight back, he was hit with an iron rod which was lying inside the bus. When the victim tried to help her friend, she was pushed back. When the victim’s friend was caught and beaten up, the assaulters took their turns to rape her. The heinous act caused severe injuries and damages to the victim’s internal organs, as they inserted an iron rod into her private part. The assaulters also robbed them.
Later, the victim and her friend was thrown out from the moving bus. Both of them were spotted by a person and he immediately informed the police. They were taken to the Safdarjung hospital. The doctors confirmed that the victim had lost lot of blood and most of her intestines and abdomen were damaged. The victim was later transported to Singapore for further treatment, but she was surrendered to death on December 29, 2012.
The trial court awarded death penalty for the six accused on 13 March, 2013. But one of the accused, Pawan Kumar Gupta, propounded that he is a juvenile. The court asked the investigation team to determine his age. After the analysis of the report submitted by the investigating team, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court held that the accused Pawan Kumar Gupta was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. The juvenile was convicted of rape and murder and was awarded with the maximum sentence that is allowed under the Juvenile Justice Act. All the other offenders where convicted with capital punishment by the Delhi High Court on 13 September, 2013. The Supreme Court had confirmed the death penalty for all the accused and also the court stated that the case falls under the “rarest of rare” category as the crime is extremely brutal.
The accused again filed a review petition and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court as the evidence against offenders are overwhelming and the matter also shook the entire nation. One of the accused later committed suicide at the Tihar Jail. After the court’s rejection of the Special Leave Petition and the review petitions, the Delhi High Court ordered a new warrant against the four convicts and they were executed on 20 March, 2020 at Tihar Jail.
ISSUES RAISED
- The argument raised by one of the accused that he was juvenile at the time of commission of the offense, under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He also argued that it was against Article 21 of the Constitution of India which prohibits the death penalty for children.
- Rejecting the plea of juvenility can be considered as the misuse of power whicha re vested upon the authorities.
CONTENTIONS
Of the Appellant
- One of the accused and the appellant argued that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the crime.
- The counsel for the appellant stated the order was passed by the High Court without considering the fact.
- The counsel cited the precedent in the case of Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh , that the plea of juvenility can be stated at any stage of the proceedings.
- The appellant also argued that his case shall be transferred to the Juvenile Board under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Also, the counsel stated that his client had faced severe torture and mistreatment in the prison and hadn’t received required medical attention.
Of the Respondent
- The respondent argued that the age of the appellant was above 18 years at the time of commission of the crime and the same was confirmed by the Trial Court. And based on this the Delhi High Court passed capital punishment for all the accused. Therefore, the plea of juvenility cannot be entertained.
- The counsel rejected the allegations of torture and mistreatment in the prison, and submitted that he was given proper medical treatment.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court explained the brutality of the crime, which involved gangrape and murder of a 23 year old women. The court included the case into the “rarest of rare” category and imposed capital punishment to the convicts, ensuring that the justice is served. The Delhi High court sustained the convictions of all the accused and held that there is no way of alleviation that can alter the severity of the sentence. The court charged section 376 and 302 under the Indian Penal Code. The plea of juvenility made by one of the accused had repeated rejections, which had played a crucial role in his conviction.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The major defect of law in the particular which can be seen is the delay in justice. This was the major criticism faced throughout the cases. The legal procedures and review petitions took several years in delivering the judgment. This has definitely raised objection against how effective and efficient the Indian Judiciary. This has made several modifications in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and raised many objections relating to the effectiveness of the existing laws and how serious offences are handles under the statute. Many concerns have been raised in including the case into the “rarest of rare” category that the doctrine shall be used in exceptionally heinous crimes.
INFERENCE
The Nirbhaya case, that involved the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23 year old women created a significant impact in the Indian society. The case surrounded several systemic issues in the legal framework, social aspects and effectiveness of the various reforms that were introduced for the protection of women.
The Nirbhaya case induced several legal reform in India. Major reforms has been made in the criminal laws in the nation, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, has been introduced. This legislation introduced stringent penalties and punishments against sexual offences, redefined rape and other offences against women, including acid attacks. The amendment is made in order to meet the required insufficiency in the existing laws of violence against women. Moreover, there has been significant improvement in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The statute lowered the age from 18 to 16 years where the individuals can be tried as adults for violent crimes.
The Nirbhaya case entirely questioned the efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian Judicial System. The major concern raised in the case was delay in justice. The multiple postponements of the judgment and execution dates of the accused significantly pointed out the loopholes in the judiciary. And the introduction of reforms in the field of violence against women was essential. The delay in justice will crucially erode the trust and confidence of the public in the judiciary.
The public outcry post the Nirbhaya incident indicated the gender based violence and the amount of safety the women in the Indian society has. Nationwide protest electrified how it affected the public. It was indeed a wake up call for the entire nation in order to elevate the protection of women in the Indian society and change the attitude of women in the society.
The case also emphasized the victim rights in the legal framework, by providing care and protection to the survivors of sexual abuses. This can be done through legal aid, medical support and mental support. This shall also ensure that the victims are treated with respect and dignity.
To conclude, the Nirbhaya case was a significant battle of women against the sexual violence that they place, how it paved way for significant legal reforms and the protection of women and the victims.
REFERENCES
STATUTES
- The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 7 A
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 and 302
- The Constitution of India, Article 21
CASES
- Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973, 1 SCC 16
ONLINE SOURCES
- The Hindustan Times, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-2012-gang-rape-case-what-happened-on-december-16/story-GboszJckGgslhWHpRcci4K.html, (late visited 21.11.24)
- The Times of India, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-nirbhaya-case/articleshow/72868430.cms, (last visited 21.11.24)
- The Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nirbhaya-gangrape-case-2012-a-look-at-what-all-has-happened-over-the-years-4641418/, (last visited 21.11.24)
- Casemine, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581181222713e179479fd9cf , (last visited 21.11.24)
- Law essentials, https://lawessential.com/m%26a-deals-%26-cases-archive/f/pawan-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-nct-and-others , (last visited on 21.11.24)
Abhirami T K
Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru