For students:

Case Analysis of the most spoken Nirbhaya Case!

Facts of the Case:

December 2012:

On December 16, 2012: The Nirbhaya (herein after called as the victim) and her male friend were returning from a movie theatre, they were waiting for a bus at Munerka bus stand in South Delhi. A private bus halted in the bus stand, looking the victim. The victim and her friend considering the same to be a route bus, boarded the bus from Munerka bus stand. Six men were travellingin the bus, amongst one was a juvenile. Both the victim and her friend were assaulted by those six male passengers. The friend of the victim, tried to protect Nirbhaya, was beaten up by the perpetrators. All the six of them brutally assaulted both the victim and her friend and gang raped the victim in the moving bus. The victim was also subjected to fatal internal injuries on her private parts caused not only as a result of the rape but the pervasive action of the rapists of inserting an iron rod in her private parts, later they throw both of them out of the bus to a drain near Atrocity in Delhi. On the same night the victim was found in the drain by a pedestrian passerby who could hear the hues and cries at around 11:00 pm. Then pedestrian passerby called the Delhi Police who took both of them to Safdarjung Hospital, where the victim was given emergency treatment and placed on mechanical ventilation due to severe bleeding and with serious health condition. The friend of the victim gave complain to the police and filed a First Information Report .Subsequently based on the complaint on 17thDecember 2012, the investigation started, a team was formed by Delhi Police, DCP Varthika Chaturvedi, of Delhi Police was heading such team of investigation the police started searching for accused, After hard core efforts the team was able to track the bus driver named Ram Singh, and through this confession others that is his brother Mukesh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta. One 18thDecember 2012 Ram Singh and three others were arrested. On 20thof December 2012 victim's friend testifies and identifies the accused. The police on 21stDecember, 2012 aberrant juvenile nabbed was from Anand Vihar bus terminal in Delhi. Subsequently the police continued with conducting their raids in Haryana and Bihar to nab the sixth accused, Akshay Thakur and arrested him in Aurangabad district of Bihar and brought to Delhi.

On the same day the victim's friend statement was recorded before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at the Safdarjung Hospital, in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. At the same time there was huge protest from the protesters condemning the act of the incident at the national level.

From 25th of December the victims health conditions was critical as declared by the doctors which was also followed by a cardiac arrest due to which the Government of India took the victim to Singapore's Mount Elizabeth Hospital for further treatment. Unfortunately on 29.12.2012 the victim passed away.

How the Trial proceeded:

In 2012:
Due to huge outcry from the public and women group demanding justice, speedy trial and prosecution; on 24thDecember 2012, the police was forced to file the charge sheet within one week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs held a meeting on 27thDecember, 2012 to discuss the issue. The Delhi High Court approved creation of five fast-track courts to try rape and sexual assault cases. The first fast-track court was set up on 2ndJanuary, 2013 at Saket court complex in South Delhi for speedy trial in sexual offence cases.

In 2013:
On 3rd January 2013 the police filed their charge sheet before the Saket fast track court against five adults accused of murder, gang rape, attempt to murder, kidnapping, unnatural offences and dacoity. The Charge sheet also detailed the roles of the five arrested accused. The police stated that the sixth person apprehended in the case would be tried separately by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as he has claimed to be a minor. A separate police report would be sent to the Juvenile justice board if a bone test confirms his age to be below 18 years.

The accused were charged under the following Sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 300 Murder,
• Section 376(2)(G) (gang rape),
• Section 377 (unnatural offences),
• Section 365 (abduction),
• Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery),
• Section 396 (dacoity with murder),
• Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information),
• Section 34 (common intention) and
• Section 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) of the

The juvenile accused was 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime. The JJB also relied on his birth certificate and school documents to determine his age and therefore rejected the police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age. Subsequently on 28thJanuary 2013, the JJB determined that he would not be tried as an adult.

A petition was filed by Mr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janata Party seeking the prosecution of the minor as an adult on account of the violent nature of his alleged crime. This was rejected by the JJB. Hence the minor was tried separately in a juvenile court. By 5th July 2020 the Inquiry (trial) in JJB against the juvenile concluded and JJB reserves the case for Judgement.

Based on the trial on 31stAugust 2013, JJB held that the minor was found guilty of illegally confining and robbing a carpenter on the night of December 16, before allegedly taking part in the gang rape. The JJB convicted the minor for gang rape and murder. He was awarded three-year term at probation home under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act . The three years' imprisonment was to be compiled with a reform facility, inclusive of the eight months he spent in remand during the trial. The juvenile post completion of punishment was released on 20thDecember 2015. However based on the juvenile's release; a management committees was set up as mandated under the JJ Act for the rehabilitation and mainstreaming of the juvenile. The management committee headed by the officer of the District Child Protection Unit had recommended that "the juvenile should lead a new life with a new identity provided by the appropriate government as applicable in order to avoid any backlash or violent reaction". According to the Media report , the juvenile had learnt cooking and tailoring while at the reform house. Report further said that the juvenile would need a tailoring shop, a sewing machine and other tailoring equipment which would require a onetime grant of Rs.10, 000/- from the government which will be sufficient to support him initially. The department of women and child development (WCD) of the government stated that it would provide the money and would arrange the machine through an NGO .

With regard to the other accused, on 05th January 2013 the FTC (Fast Track Court) took cognisance of the charge sheet and the police requested the court to conduct in-camara proceedings ,keeping all documents pertaining to charge sheet in sealed cover and to hide the victim's identity. Based on the request of the police the Court allowed in-camera proceedings on 07th January 2013.

From 17th January 2013 FTC starts proceedings against the five adult accused and on 2nd February 2013 the FTC frames charges against five adult accused.

The police produced all the material evidences against the accused; including the victim's dying declaration and the testimony of her male friend who was with her on the fateful night. DNA samples, hair strands, blood samples of accused, fingerprints, dental modelling, positive outcome of test identification parade (TIP) of two accused as well as the CCTV footage identifying the bus used in the crime formed part of the evidence.

The prosecution also examined 40 witnesses on a day to day basis. The witness also included the police patrolling team members who spotted the victim sometime after the crime, doctors at Delhi Safdarjung Hospital and Singapore's Mount Elizabeth Hospital who treated the victim and consequently conducted her autopsy on the foreign soil.

In the mean while on 11th of March, 2013, Ram Singh one of the Accused who was in judicial custody committed suicide in Tihar Jail. The reason of his suicide is still unknown.

By 3rd September, 2013 the FTC completed recording of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, defence, hearing of the final arguments on behalf of both the parties and posted the matter for judgement. On 10th September, 2013 the Court convicted Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Pawan of 13 offences which included gang rape, unnatural offence, destruction of evidence, murder of the girl and attempt to murder her male friend. On 13th September, 2013 the court sentenced death penalty by handing to all four convicts.

Subsequently on 23rd September, 2013 the Judgement passed by FTC, was sent for reference before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The HC begins hearing on the convicts' death sentence reference sent to it by the trial court. In January, 2014 the HC reserves its verdict on convict's appeals and in March, 2014 the HC confirmed the death sentence for the four men convicted in September, 2013. The court noted that the crime, which stirred widespread protests over sexual crimes against women in the country, fell into the judicial system's "rarest of rare category" that allows capital punishment.

In 2014:

The High Court's judgement was challenged by the accused before the Supreme Court (SC) and on 15th March, 2014 the SC stayed execution of 2 convicts, Mukesh and Pawan, to allow them make their appeal against the conviction on 31stMarch, 2014. This was further extended by the court to the second week of July. On 2nd June, the two other convicts, Sharma and Thakur, also prayed before the Supreme Court to stay their execution to allow them make an appeal against their convictions. On 14th July, their (Sharma and Thakur) execution was also stayed by Supreme Court. In the mean while on 15thApril, 2014 the SC directs police to produce the dying declaration of the victim.

In 2015 & 2016

The Appeal was pending before the Supreme Court for Hearing. The juvenile, who was one among the accused who was convicted by the juvenile justice board was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

In 2017:

On 3rd February 2017 the SC says it would hear afresh the aspect of awarding death penalty to the convicts. On 5th May 2017 the SC upholds death penalty and rejected the convicts' appeal by saying they had committed "a barbaric crime" that had "shaken society's conscience," and the offence created "tsunami of shock" the court upheld the death sentence of the four who had been charged in the murder.

Under the other legal remedies available to the convicts; they had the right to file a review petition to the Supreme Court.

On 8th of November 2017 one of the Convicts Mukesh files review petition in SC seeking review of its verdict upholding the capital punishment awarded to him and subsequently on 15th December 2017 two other convicts namely Vinay and Pawan also filed review petition before the SC for review of its verdict. This move was opposed by the Delhi police and civil society organisation.

In 2018:

On 9 July 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the review petition filed by three of the convicts on the ground that there are no grounds established for a review by them.

In 2019:

In February 2019 the victim's parents move trial court for issuance of death warrants of the four convicts.

In the mean while the other convict Akshay also filed a review petition before the Supreme Court pleading for mercy which was opposed by the victim's parents. In December 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Akshay and retained the death sentence. The Delhi Government sought death warrants for execution of death sentence to the 4 convicts. In the mean while the Delhi High Court directs Tihar jail authorities to issue notice to convicts to avail their remaining legal remedies left at their disposal.

In 2020:

On 7 January 2020 a death warrant was issued by Delhi court, setting an execution date of 22 January 2020 at 7:00 a.m. IST in Tihar Jail. In the meantime Vinay and Mukesh filed a curative petition before the SC and on 14th January 2020 SC rejected his Curative Petition. On the same day Mukesh files mercy petition before President.

According the Rule 836 of the prison manual , if a case has more than one convicts awaiting death penalty and one of them moves a mercy plea then the execution of all the convicts would be need to be postponed until a decision is made on the pending mercy plea.

On 17th January 2020 the President Ram Nath Kovind rejects mercy plea of Mukesh. Immediately based on the rejection order of the President the trial court again issued second death warrants again with execution of judgement for the convicts to be hanged after a mandatory fourteen-day gap on 1 February 2020 at 6 a.m.

The fourteen days' reprieve was provided in accordance with law which states that the convicts awaiting an execution must have a reprieve after their mercy plea is rejected . During the same hearing, the court also rejected a plea by the convict Mukesh to postpone the execution.

In the mean while on 17 January, 2020 convict Pawan appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order that rejected his claim that Pawan was a juvenile during the crime in 2012. On 31 January 2020, a Delhi court stayed the death warrant. The judge did not issue a fresh warrant for their execution.

On 25th January Mukesh moves SC against rejection of mercy plea. On 29th January: Akshay approaches SC with a curative petition. SC rejects plea of Mukesh challenging rejection of his mercy plea and on January 30 2020 SC dismisses curative plea of Akshay. On January 31 SC dismisses plea filed by Pawan seeking review of its order rejecting his juvenility claim and due to these development the trial court postponed the execution of the black warrants till further order for a second time.

In February 2020 the Central government moves Delhi HC against the trial court order stating that they can execute the order even if all four convicts are not hanged together. However Delhi HC dismisses Centre's plea against the trial court order, says all four convicts have to be hanged together; it further directs the convicts to pursue all legal remedies within a week, failing which the authorities ordered to take action in accordance with law. In the mean while President rejects mercy petition of Akshay.

On 7th of February the Trial court dismisses Tihar's plea seeking fresh date for execution of convicts. On 11th February Vinay moves SC against mercy plea rejection and SC issues notices to all four death row convicts on Centre's appeal against Delhi HC verdict. Vinay also alleges torture in jail, SC reserves order on his mercy review however the SC dismisses Vinay's plea against no mercy, rejects the argument of mental illness and on 17 February 2020, a third death warrant was issued by the court with the execution date as 3 March 2020 at 6:00 a.m.

On 22nd February the trial court dismisses Vinay's plea for medical treatment and finally on 28th February Pawan files curative petition in SC which was also dismissed by SC.

On 4 March 2020, a fourth death warrant was issued by court with the execution date as 20th March 2020 at 5:30 a.m.

Numerous pleas and appeals were made by both the families of the convicts and the convicts themselves, including three of the convicts moving the International Court of Justice for a stay on the death sentence; however, the date for the execution remained the same.

On 20th March 2020 the final moments of Akshay Thakur, Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, and Pawan Gupta. The procedure followed for executing the death penalty:

4:00 am: The four convicts are woken up from their sleep and asked to take a bath.
4:15 am: They were granted time to read any religious scripture they wanted to but they refused; the four were then served the last breakfast.

4:30 am: A little before they were marched to the gallows, the four convicts on death row underwent a medical checkup which established that they were fit to bear the punishment handed out to them. The jail superintendent also checked for any letter or notice which could halt the execution and no such document was received.

5:20 am: With a cotton cloth on their faces and their hands tied behind their back, the four men were marched to the area in the Tihar prison complex known as 'Phansi Kothi' or execution chamber. During this time, none of the other prisoners are allowed to leave their respective cells.

5:25 am: Once they were marched to the 'phansi kothi', a district magistrate present at the spot asked each of them for their final wish. This magistrate countersigned the death 'black' warrant and was present during the execution of the sentence along with the jail superintendent, deputy superintendent, a medical officer. The convicts were also offered a request to have a religious leader of their choice present for the execution but all four declined.

5:40 am: Death sentences of all four convicts carried out.

5:40 am: Tihar Director-General confirms that all four convicts were hanged.

6:00 am: Medical examiner declares that life is extinct which means all the four convicts are dead now. The bodies were then lowered.

7:00 am: The bodies of the four men were taken to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital for an autopsy.

8:00 am: Autopsy begins. After it was complete, the families of the four men were asked whether they wish to claim the bodies for the last rites as per the Delhi jail manual.

The fallout of this case:

The extensive protest to curb sexual violence against women and children was advocated, campaigned country wide protest were whispered by civil society organisation, youth members, media, academicians etc. Owed to this there were many changes and knock-on effect due to this case. To name a few, formation of a committee to recommend/propose changes in the criminal laws, amendments in the criminal legislations, setting up of fast track courts to dispose of pending cases pertaining to crimes against women, formation of Trust of the welfare of girl children, formed to assist women who have experienced violence to find shelter and legal assistance and unity among the people to speak on the issue and to come together for a common cause of prevention and protection of women from exploitation.

On 23rd December 2012 a three member committee headed by Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was constituted by Government of India to recommend amendments to the criminal law to improve the justice delivery system in cases of sexual assault against women. The other two members of the three member committee were Justice Leila Seth, former judge of the High Court, Gopal Subramanyam, former Solicitor General of India.

The urgency of the matter pushed he Committee to undertake the performance of the assigned task within the short period of 30 days to enable the authorities, with all their resources, to take the necessary follow up action within a further 30-day period with hope it will undertake the needed legislative exercise recommended by this Committee. The committee sent out a public notice inviting suggestion from public, civil society organisation, youths members etc. and also conducted consultation with women groups, social action groups, experts in this field, Legal fraternities, social and professional organizations, academicians etc. These groups from across the globe gave their inputs to the committee. While the committee were analysing the inputs and suggestion received they, the committee recognised that the Law Commission's 84th Report in 1980 and its 172nd Report of 2000 relating to Rape law remain unimplemented. The committee looked into the National Police Commission Reports and the Supreme Court's judgment. Looking into all the earlier report, judgement and recommendation Justice Verma Committee reiterated the need for strengthening the existing legislation and to have more laws for protection and prevention of crime against women. The committee submitted its report to the Government on 23rd January 2013 which also emphasised the need for "attitudinal changes to correct the aberration of gender bias have to be brought about in the institutions of governance to improve the work culture, and in civil society to improve the social norms for realizing the constitutional promise of 'equality' in all spheres for the womenfolk. The 'workmen' must improve the work culture instead of quarrelling with the 'tools'. In the Committee's view, without the improvement in this aspect, mere additions in the statute book are of no avail. Focus on the machinery for implementing the laws is, therefore, a significant part of this exercise. The Committee hopes that the concern and urgency shown by the Government in constituting it will not wane with the passage of time and the publication of our report; and that the constitutional promise of gender justice in a social order with the egalitarian ethos will soon be realized without much ado. A positive reaction to the tragedy which triggered this response of the government would be the real tribute to the memory of the victim of gang rape and to the honour of the womenfolk. With this Committee concludes its task with this fervent hope".

The Committee made across-the-board recommendations, from amendments to inserting new offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 relating to rape, acid attack (Criminal Laws Amendment Bill, 2012), sexual harassment (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012), trafficking (Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956), child sexual abuse (Juvenile Justice Act, 2000), medical examination of victims, police, electoral (Representation of People Act, 1951) and educational reforms. New definitions of stalking and voyeurism have been recommended and also have introduced the elements of privacy. Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure by saying that "Since the possibility of sexual assault on men, as well as homosexual, transgender and transsexual rape, is a reality the provisions have to be cognizant of the same," it says. A special procedure for protecting persons with disabilities from rape, and requisite procedures for access to justice for such persons, the panel said was an "urgent need." and to amend the Indian Evidence Act.

Based on the recommendation and suggestions given by the Verma Committee Report on 3rd February 2013, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 was promulgated by President Pranab Mukherjee. It provides for amendment of the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on laws related to sexual offences. The ordinance provided for the death penalty in cases of rape.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 came into effect. This Act made substantive changes in the definition of 'rape' under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein Section 375 was widened to include acts other than forcible peno-vaginal penetration or sexual intercourse. Further, several amendments were made in the IPC, including:

1. Section 166A was added for punishing public servants who refuse to record an FIR in cases of specified crimes against women including rape;
2. a new proviso was incorporated under section 166B punishing those in charge of a public or private hospital for refusal to provide free medical treatment for victims of rape;
3. Section 370 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been substituted with new sections, 370 and 370A which deals with trafficking of person for exploitation. If a person (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person, by using threats, or force, or coercion, or abduction, or fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power, inducement for exploitation including prostitution, slavery, forced organ removal, etc. will be punished with imprisonment ranging from at least 7 years to imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life depending on the number or category of persons trafficked. Employment of a trafficked person will attract penal provision as well.
4. Section 375, and was extended to include acts in addition to vaginal penetration. The definition is broadly worded with acts like penetration of penis into the vagina, urethra, anus or mouth; or any object or any part of body to any extent, into the vagina, urethra or anus of another woman or making another person do so; to apply mouth or touching private parts constitutes the offence of sexual assault. The section has also clarified that penetration means "penetration to any extent", and lack of physical resistance is immaterial for constituting an offence. Except in certain aggravated situations the punishment will be imprisonment not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In aggravated situations, punishment will be rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
5. A new section, 376A has been added which states that if a person committing the offence of sexual assault, "inflicts an injury which causes the death of the person or causes the person to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.
6. In case of "gang rape", persons involved regardless of their gender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life and shall pay compensation to the victim and shall be reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim. The age of consent in India has been increased to 18 years, which means any sexual activity irrespective of presence of consent with a woman below the age of 18 will constitute statutory rape.
7. the scope of section 376(2) was expanded to include rape committed by a member of armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government in such area; and
8. A separate section i.e. 376D for the offences of gang rape with higher punishment was added.
9. Defined Voyeurism, Stalking, Trafficking of person, Sexual harassment etc.
10. The other statutes including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") and the Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act") were also amended to bring them in consonance with the punishments.

In CrPC, section 154(1) that provided for recording of an FIR was amended to include that in certain offenses against women (including rape); the FIR has to be recorded by a police officer, at her residence or at place of her choice. Section 164 (5A) was added in the CrPC which made it mandatory for the Judicial Magistrate to record the statement of the victim, as soon as the commission of the offence was brought to the notice of the police. Further, an explanation was added to section 197(1) of the CrPC which provides the prosecution of judges and public servants.

The changes incorporated under the Evidence Act:

1. Section 53 A was inserted which dealt with evidence of character of previous sexual experience;
2. Section 144 A was substituted by a new one stating that in prosecution for rape under clause (a) to (n) of section 376(2) IPC, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent;
3. The proviso to section 146 was substituted with the existing one to state that in a prosecution for rape, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross examination of the victim as to the general immoral character or previous sexual experience of such person with any person for proving such consent or quality of consent.

Apart from the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India also launched fast track courts to deal with such cases speedily.

Simultaneously there were controversy, prolonged debates and street protests on the age of the juvenile. Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice Bill. The bill now stands Passed in Rajya-Sabha on 22nd December 2015. The amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 was passed by the Parliament of India amidst intense controversy, prolonged debates and street protests by child rights groups, as well as some members of Parliament after the Nirbhaya case accused juvenile was released which proposed that the accused who are above 16 years of age will be treated as an adult in the court of law.

The amendments included several new definitions such as orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children, setting timelines for inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board, streamlining procedures for adoption, inclusion of new offences committed against children and mandatory registration of Child Care Institutions. It discusses the controversial provision of "transferring" children between 16 and 18 years accused of "heinous offences" to the adult criminal justice system. It gives recommendations for law reform and better implementation of the law.

Conclusion:

The much spoken, debated case in our country took 8 long years to reach its finality. There were thoughts that in the case and the convicts were "intentionally delaying" and "frustrating" the legal process in this case by filing their pleas in stages, so that the execution could be postponed. They said that the convicts were mocking the process which has been delayed for years.

However it came to an end when Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad A. Bobde said that "a condemned person cannot fight the death penalty endlessly and it is important that capital punishment should reach its finality. He also asked the Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, that, "whether a condemned person, who reforms after the award of the death sentence by a court, should be spared the noose?" To which Mr. Mehta replied, "If that is accepted, there will be no death penalty. You can't kill your parents and then claim mercy saying you are an orphan".

Unfortunately, though the law came with more stringent penalties for rape, after Nirbhaya incident, the statistics of National Crime Records Bureau ("NCRB") shows that there has been a significant growth in the rape crimes - which can be counted as a failure towards preventive approach, there came no rape-deterrent effect in the law, which resultantly annoy the purpose of Criminal Law in this matter to a large extent.

On the other hand, it is pertinent to note that taking law and order in our hands without a fair trial to the accused is truly no solution at all. It is important to understand and appreciate the primary principle of criminal law is that every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The pressure by the public for speedy justice may lead to unfair ways of punishing the suspects. Justice cannot be meted out just to please public at large; it has to go with the touchstone of fair trial. That is what has happened in this case too.

In one of the cases, the Supreme Court said that rape is a crime not only against a woman but against the entire society. Rape destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her in a deep emotional crisis. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt.

It is no doubt that government is taking steps to reduce rape offenses, however, stringent preventative actions are also to be taken to stop the occurrence of such offenses. The preventive action includes vigilant actions by police and other stakeholders in reaching out to the victim on time and saving her from being abused.