| NAME OF THE CASE | Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi[1] |
| CITATION | (2020) 03 SC CK 0075 SLP(Criminal) No. 547 of 2020 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) D No. 2122 of 2020] |
| APPELLANT | Pawan Kumar Gupta |
| RESPONDENT | State of NCT of Delhi |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 20 January 2020 |
| BENCH/ JUDGE | R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhusan, and A.S. Bopanna |
| STATUTES/CONSTIT-UTION INVOLVED | Constitution of India, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 |
| RELEVANT SECTIONS / ARTICLES | Article 32 and Article 72 of the Constitution of India, Section 7 A of JJ Act. |
FACTS
The accused Pawan Kumar Gupta along with the other five accused, gang-raped the victim ‘Nirbhaya’, in a moving bus in Delhi on 16 December 2012, the victim died of multiple organ failure later on and as per medical report, she suffered serious injuries in her abdomen and intestines. The crime shook the whole nation beyond human imagination and was considered very brutal.
On 13 March 2013, the trial court gave capital punishment to all six accused. During the trial court proceedings, Pawan Kumar Gupta, the accused, asserted his juvenility. However, the court, on January 7, 2013, instructed the investigating officers to determine his age. Both the petitioner and his parents confirmed that he was above 18 years old at the time of the offence, leading the metropolitan magistrate to reject his juvenility plea on January 10, 2013. This decision was not contested by the petitioner.
Subsequently, all six accused, including Pawan Kumar Gupta, were sentenced to capital punishment by the Delhi High Court on September 13, 2013. Following a reference from the Trial Court, the Delhi High Court reevaluated the death sentences, affirming them for four convicts on March 13, 2014. The Supreme Court commenced hearings for Pawan and Mukesh on March 15, 2014, ultimately upholding the death penalty for four convicts on May 5, 2017, deeming the case as a ‘rarest of rare’ and stating that the offence caused a significant shock.
A plea of juvenility was once again raised in a review petition before the Supreme Court, but it was definitively rejected on January 20, 2020, after referring to the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Trial court. Pawan Kumar Gupta’s curative petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2020.
ISSUES RAISED
- The offender asserted that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and requested an inquiry under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as well as Section 21 of the Act, which prohibits the imposition of a death sentence on a child in conflict with the law. Referring to the precedent set in the case of Ram Narain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was emphasized that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any point, even after the conclusion of legal proceedings.
- Whether facing torture in prison custody can be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India
- Whether rejecting the mercy petition of the plea of juvenility in the can be said to be an act of misusing the powers vested with the higher authorities
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant, Pawan Kumar Gupta, challenged the order of the Delhi High Court on the following grounds:
- The appellant argued that at the time of conviction of offence, he was just 16 years old and presented a school leaving certificate in his defence.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.P. Singh, argued that without hearing the appellant the order was passed by the High Court.
- The appellant contended that he was a minor when the crime occurred and cited the precedent set in the case of Ram Narain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the conclusion of legal proceedings.
- Furthermore, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. A.P. Singh, argued that the High Court’s remarks against the appellant were detrimental to his rights, especially considering he was not present when the order was issued.
- The appellant maintained that his case should be referred to the juvenile board and be examined under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, asserting that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any point, even if the individual has ceased to be a juvenile before the commencement of the Act.
- Additionally, the appellant’s counsel contended that his client did not share the same intentions as the other co-accused. He also alleged that the appellant had experienced mistreatment and sustained head injuries while in prison, without receiving adequate medical attention, thus arguing against the imposition of the death penalty
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent argues that on January 7, 2013, the Trial Court confirmed the appellant’s age based on the appellant and his parents’ statements. There is no disagreement that the petitioner was over 18 years old at the time of the offence. On September 13, 2013, the Delhi High Court sentenced him and the other five accused to capital punishment.
- The respondent submitted that the plea of juvenility by the appellant and his request for taking up his case as per section 7 A of the JJ Act had already been rejected by the magistrate, high court, and supreme court, hence the appellant’s plea of juvenility cannot be entertained.
- The learned counsel denied the allegations of torture and injuries in prison, submitted that the appellant was given proper treatment for his injuries, and said that according to section 72 of the Indian constitution, torture cannot be grounds for judicial review of executive order.
RELATED PROVISIONS
- Article 32 of the Constitution grants the right to seek remedies from the Supreme Court for the enforcement of rights outlined in Part III. The Supreme Court is empowered to issue various writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, as necessary.
- Article 72 of the Constitution of India grants the President the authority to pardon, reprieve, respite, or remit punishments, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute sentences for individuals convicted of offenses. This power applies in specific situations, including cases under a court martial, offenses falling within the Union’s executive power, and instances involving capital punishment.
- Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act states that if there’s a dispute about a person’s juvenility at the time of the offence, the court must conduct an inquiry and gather evidence to determine their actual age. This claim can be made at any stage of the proceedings, even after the case is concluded. If found to be a juvenile, the case will be transferred to the Juvenile board for appropriate judgment, rendering any prior court orders or sentences null and void. This applies even if the individual has ceased to be a juvenile before the Act’s commencement
RATIONALE
The court’s decision to convict the accused was based on a thorough examination of the substantial evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and relevant legal precedents. The brutality and premeditated nature of the crime were crucial factors in determining guilt.
The imposition of the death penalty was based on the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which is a legal principle in India used to award capital punishment for the most heinous crimes. The court believed that the nature of the offence warranted the highest form of punishment.
It ensured that due legal process was followed and that the accused received a fair trial.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Delay in Justice: The main criticisms of this case were the delay in delivering justice and certain procedural and legal aspects. The legal process, including the appeals and review petitions, took several years. This raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian judicial system. It also led to debates about the existing provisions of the Juvenile Justice Law in dealing with serious offences committed by the juveniles and the need for reforms in the criminal justice system to ensure swifter and more effective justice.
INFERENCE
The severity of the punishment in this case was seen as an attempt to deter potential offenders from committing similar heinous crimes. It reflected society’s collective outrage and the demand for stringent punishment against such heinous crimes. It sparked discussions about the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent to sexual violence.
The case prompted measures on the need for legal reforms, including faster trials for sexual offences and stricter sentencing guidelines. It also highlighted the importance of a victim-centric approach in the criminal justice system. Overall, while the case resulted in convictions and the imposition of the death penalty, it also brought to light systemic issues within the legal framework, such as delays in justice and the treatment of juvenile offenders. It emphasized discussions on legal reforms and the need for a more efficient and victim-centered criminal justice system in India. It highlighted the need for a robust legal framework to provide justice while upholding individual rights.
Niharika Nayal
New Law College, Pune,
Bharati Vidyapeeth (deemed to be) University
[1] Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2020) 03 SC CK 0075