MUKESH & ANR. versus STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 119 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. l 
MUKESH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017) 
MAYOS,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI 
AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss.120B, 365/366, 307, 3 76(2)(g), 3 77, 302/1208, 395 -
Conviction and death sentence - Nirbhaya case - Forcible sexual 
intercourse with the prosecutrix, one after the other by six persons 
and insertion of iron rod in her private parts and thereafter throwing 
A 
B 
c 
her out of moving bus along with informant - Prosecutrix '.s 
alimentary canal from the level of duodenum upto 5 cm of anal 
sphincter was completely damaged - It was beyond repair -
D 
Septicemia was the direct result of multiple internal injuries - The 
conduct of the accused in committing such heinous offences with 
the prosecutrix in concert with each other and thereafter throwing 
her out of the bus in an unconscious state alongwith PW-I 
unequivocaly bring home the charge u/s.1208 in case of each of E 
them - The criminal acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy is 
evident from the acts and also the word.~ uttered during the 
commission of the offence - Evidence on record lead to a singular 
conclusion that the accused persons were guilty of criminal 
conspiracy - RecovelJ' of articles belonging to the informant and 
prosecutrix from the custody of the accused persons founded on 
F 
the disclosure statements of accused was relevant circumstance 
against the appellants - The chain of events described by the 
prosecutrix in her dying declarations coupled with the testimonies 
of the other witnesses clearly established that as soon as the 
informant and the prosecutrix boarded the bus, the accused persons 
formed an agreement to commit heinous offences against the victim 
- No inte1j'erence with the concurrent findings of lower courts called 
for - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.10 - Crime against women. 
s.1208 - Rationale behind- Held: Conspiracy is a clandestine 
activity - Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly -
G 
H 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a 
compiracy without even being informed of the identity of his co-
conspirators - An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by 
direct proof; it must be inferred ji-om the circumstantial evidence of 
co-operation between the accused - ft becomes clear that the 
prosecution must adduce evidence to prove that: the accused agreed 
to do or caused to be done an act; such an act was illegal or was to 
be done by illegal means within the meaning of !PC: irrespective of 
whether some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance 
of the agreement. 
s.30211208 - Conspiracy - In achieving the goal of the 
conspiracy, several offences committed by some of the conspirators 
may not be known to others, still all the accused will be held guilty 
of the offence of criminal conspiracy - Use of iron rod by one or 
more of the accused was sufficient to inculpate all the accused for 
the same - Gang rape and use of iron rod caused grave injuries to 
victims vagina and intestines: throwing her out of the bus in that 
vegetative state in chilled weather led to her death: all this taking 
place in the course of same transaction and with the active 
involvement of all the accused was sufficient evidence to find the 
accused guilty of criminal conspiracy - The findings of the courts 
below with regard to conviction of all the accused u/s.120-8 and 
s.302 rlw s.1208 is affirmed. (R. 8anumathi, J.) 
s.376(2)(g), Explanation l - Essential ingredients - Held: In 
order to establish an offence under s.376(2)(g) rlw Explanation l 
thereto, the prosecution must adduce evidence to indicate that more 
than one accused had acted in concert and in such an event, if 
rape is committed by even one, all the accused are guilty, irrespective 
of the fact that only one or more of them had actually committed the 
act - s.376(2)(g} rlw Explanation l thus embodies a principle of 
joint liability. (R. 8anumathi, J) 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Death sentence - Mitigating and aggravating circumstances 
- Held: In the instant case, the mitigating factors highlighted by the 
appellants pertain to the strata to which these accused belong, the 
aged parents, marital status and the young children and the suffering 
they would go through and the calamities they would face in case 
MUKESH & ANR. v. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 
3 
A 
of affir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.