Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. ("Nirbhaya" case)

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017)Decided 5 May 2017
Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice R. Banumathi · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

On the night of 16 December 2012, a 23-year-old para-medical student and her friend boarded a bus in Delhi where she was gang-raped by six men, subjected to extreme brutality including insertion of an iron rod causing fatal internal injuries, and then thrown out of the moving bus with her friend; she later died from her injuries in a Singapore hospital. The trial court and the Delhi High Court had convicted the appellants and confirmed death sentences for the main accused, who then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging both the conviction and the sentence.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the evidence in detail, including eyewitness and forensic evidence, and upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape and murder. On sentencing, the Court held that the extreme brutality of the crime, including the use of an iron rod and the attempt to kill both victims by running them over, placed it squarely within the "rarest of rare" category where the death penalty is warranted, and found no mitigating circumstances (such as age or family background) sufficient to displace that conclusion. Justice Banumathi wrote a separate opinion concurring with the majority's reasoning on aggravating versus mitigating factors and independently affirming the death sentence. The appeals were accordingly dismissed and the death sentences confirmed.

Lesson Learnt

Indian courts reserve the death penalty for the narrow category of "rarest of rare" crimes marked by exceptional brutality and depravity, and personal factors like youth or poor background will not automatically outweigh the gravity of the offence when the court assesses aggravating versus mitigating circumstances at sentencing.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case