Shakti Mills gang rape

2013 Mumbai gang rape

A view of the decrepit Shakti Mills compound.
Date	22 August 2013 (2013-08-22)
Zeit	6:54 pm IST (UTC+05:30)
Standort	Shakti Mills compound, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Also known as	Shakti Mills gang rape
Non-fatal injuries	2 (female and male victim)
Accused	Chand Shaikh
Convicted	Vijay Jadhav Mohammed Kasim Hafiz Shaikh alias Kasim Bengali Mohammed Salim Ansari Siraj Rehman Khan alias Sirju
Verdict	3 get death penalty 1 gets life imprisonment
Convictions	13 counts; including gang rape, unnatural sex, assault, wrongful restraint, criminal conspiracy, criminal intimidation, common intention, destruction of evidence, and certain Sections of the Information Technology Act

The 2013 Mumbai gang rape, also known as the Shakti Mills gang rape, refers to the incident in which a 22-year-old photojournalist, who was interning with an English-language magazine in Mumbai, was gang-raped by five persons, including a juvenile, when she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills compound, near Mahalaxmi in South Mumbai, with a male colleague on an assignment on 22 August 2013. The accused had tied up the victim's colleague with belts and raped her. The accused took photos of the victim during the sexual assault, and threatened to release them to social networks if she reported the rape. Later one more gang rape case was reported against the accused. A 19-year-old call centre employee approached the authorities after the photojournalist’s rape was reported, claiming that she too had been gang raped by five men on 31 July 2013, three of whom were also allegedly involved in the photojournalist gang rape case.

On 20 March 2014, a Mumbai sessions court convicted all five adult accused in both cases on 13 counts. On 4 April 2014, the court awarded the death penalty to the three repeat offenders in the photojournalist rape case. The other two convicts were awarded life imprisonment. Two minors, one in each case, are currently being tried by the Juvenile Justice Board separately. If convicted. the maximum punishment they can face under Indian law is three years imprisonment, which includes time in custody.

Incident

A 22-year-old photojournalist, who was interning with an English-language magazine in Mumbai, was gang-raped by five persons, including a juvenile, when she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills compound, near Mahalaxmi in South Mumbai, with her male colleague on an assignment on 22 August 2013. According to the statements given to the police by the two victims, the photojournalist and her male colleague left their office at 5:00 pm on an assignment to take some photographs of the deserted Shakti Mills compound. They walked from platform number 1 of Mahalaxmi railway station, and reached the dilapidated wall of the mill around 5:30 pm. They were unable to find an appropriate place to enter the mill compound, and stood there realising that the place was not safe to go into. At that time they were approached by Salim Ansari and another man from the compound of that dilapidated wall. The two men informed the two victims of a road ahead that supposedly lead to the mill compound. When they followed the path that the men had told them about, they found that the path was correct and it led inside the mill. On entering the mill compound, since there was sufficient natural light, the two began taking photographs. While they were clicking photos, at around 6:15 pm, the two persons who had shown them the way earlier came there along with another heavily built person. The heavily built person spoke in Hindi, and claimed to be a Railway employee, and told them that his boss had seen them taking photographs and that they would now have to go and meet his boss. The photojournalist offered to speak to his boss on the phone, but the heavily built person refused and said that she needed to accompany him. The photojournalist then attempted to call the head of her photography division, but the number was busy. She and her colleague then followed the trio. While walking, the two victims insisted that they will walk from the main road where there was some vehicular traffic. But the heavily built person refused and said that they would have take the same road which they used to enter the mill compound. On the way, she received a call from the head of the photography department and informed him that some railway employees had asked them to accompany them. Her boss asked her to leave the place immediately. The men led them to decrepit part of the mill.

When the two victims attempted to walk towards the exit, the heavily built man stopped her colleague and informed him that a murder had taken place inside the mill some days ago, and accused her colleague of committing it, possibly in an attempt to scare them. The heavily built person also called two more men to accompany them, and all five of them alleged that her colleague had committed the murder. The photojournalist then pleaded with the five men to allow them to leave, but was ordered to remain quiet. At this time, the heavily built person removed his leather belt from his waist and began beating her colleague, and then proceeded to tie both his hands behind his back with the belt. On seeing this, the photojournalist offered her colleague's Nikon camera and her Apple iPhone 4S smartphone to let them go. The men did not listen, and one of them removed the belts from pants of the two victims. On examination, the heavily built man noticed that the belt tied around her colleague's hand had loosened, so he asked his associate to get a rope and tightly tie the rope around her colleague's hand. After this, three people stayed behind with her colleague and two persons (the heavily built man and a moustached person) took her to a dilapidated room in the mill. At this time, the survivor received a call from her mother. On seeing this, the men held a broken beer bottle against her head and threatened to kill her if she said anything. They then ordered her to tell her mother that everything was fine, which she complied with. Her mother called her again and accused again forced her to tell her mother that everything was fine. On reaching the run-down area of the mill, the men brandished a broken beer bottle and threatened her not to receive any more calls, after which they took her phone and switched it off.

The five men then proceeded to take turns to gang rape the photojournalist, while holding a broken beer bottle to her neck to keep her from shouting for help. The rapists then forced the survivor to clean the crime scene, and took two photos of her on a cellphone, threatening to release the photos on social networks if she reported the attack. The accused took pictures of her and threatened her not to tell anyone. One of them then took out sharp pieces of a broken beer bottle and threatened her. The heavily built man and the moustached person first raped the victim in the dilapidated room, while the other three stayed behind with her colleague. According to the male victim, "After 5-10 minutes the moustached person appeared and then one of the three persons, who were guarding me, went inside. The person with moustache came to me and said, 'Woh bhi kuch nahin bataa rahi hai aur tum bhi kuch nahin bata rahe ho, tum dono ka kuch karna hoga' (Hindi: She is not saying anything, and you are also not saying anything, you both both have to do something)." The moustached person then began checking both the victim's bags. Another person who was guarding the male victim, removed the photojournalist's iPad from her bag and began playing with it. The moustached man also removed a pouch from her bag and while he was removing the pouch, a black cloth fell from her bag. He then closed the bag but did not pick up the cloth and left it lying on the ground. According to the male victim, "After sometime, the bulky person and the other person came out and the two others who were standing next to me went inside. After a while, one of the persons who had gone inside came out, this person was slim-built and wearing a blue jeans. After this, the stout person once again went inside, while all the other four men stood near me. After 10 minutes, the bulky man came outside and said to me, 'tum log bachcha hai' (Hindi: You people are kids). He then untied my hands. At the same time my female colleague also came out, she was scared and caught my hand."

Following the assault, the men brought her back to the place where her colleague was being held. They accompanied the survivor and her colleague to the railway tracks around 7:15 pm. The two victims were told to stand inside the compound wall as two local trains passed by. On reaching the tracks, the five men asked her and her colleague to walk in the direction of Mahalaxmi station and not to look back, while they started walking in the direction of Lower Parel station. When the criminals left, she informed her colleague that she had been raped six times by the five men, and she was in pain and bleeding. On reaching the Mahalaxmi station, her colleague contacted their boss and asked him to come. They then hailed a taxi from opposite the railway station and went to Jaslok Hospital at Peddar Road. On the way, the photojournalist called her mother and asked her to come to the hospital. The survivor was bleeding profusely when she arrived at the hospital, but managed to narrate the incident to a female doctor. She was immediately admitted and began undergoing medical treatment. The victim's family stated that she had suffered some internal injuries and bleeding but was responding well to treatment. She gave her statement to police on 26 August, and was discharged on the night of 27 August.

In a statement to the media from her hospital bed, the victim said, "I want no other woman in this city and country to go through such a brutal physical humiliation perpetrators should be punished severely as they have ruined my life. No punishment short of a life term will take away my pain and humiliation and physical abuse I underwent. Rape is not the end of life. I will continue fighting." The victim also expressed her eagerness to return to work, stating, "I want to join duty as early as possible." Nirmala Samant Prabhawalkar, a member of the National Commission for Women who met the victim at the hospital stated, "She is recuperating from her injuries and trauma. She is still not completely out of trauma but she is composed."

On 3 September, a 19-year-old telephone operator with a private firm approached the authorities after the photojournalist's rape was reported, claiming that she too had been gang raped at the Shakti Mills compound by five men on 31 July 2013, three of whom are also involved in the photojournalist's case. The victim had gone to the Shakti Mills compound with her boyfriend, where they were approached by the accused. Similar to the photojournalist case, the men tied and beat up the victim's male companion, before gang raping her. The two victims fled to Chhattisgarh following the incident, without reporting it, out of fear. Mumbai Police made the telephone operator undergo a "two-finger test" test at the state-run JJ Hospital after she reported the crime. According to Firstpost, "In a two-finger test, a doctor at the government hospital inserts two fingers into the rape victim's vagina to check for the presence or absence of the hymen and also to check the 'laxity' of the vagina, ostensibly to check if penile penetration has taken place. The test is deemed to establish whether the woman has had sexual intercourse and if she is habituated to it. Incidentally even that can’t be ascertained from this test since the presence or absence of hymen or width of the vagina has no correlation with virginity or sexual activity." This occurred despite a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) on 10 May 2013 which ordered that the test no longer be conducted stating, "The procedure (finger test) is degrading, crude and medically and scientifically irrelevant ... Information about past sexual conduct has been considered irrelevant."

Arrests

Police formed 20 teams and officers from 12 crime branch units and 16 police stations were involved in the case. Police detained 20 men after the victim lodged a complaint following the attack. All five accused in the photojournalist case were arrested by Mumbai Police in about 65 hours after the complaint was registered around 8:30 am on 22 August. A total of seven persons, including two minors, were arrested in both the cases in which three of them are common. The accused in the gang rape of the photojournalist were Vijay Jadhav (aged 19), Mohamed Kasim Hafiz Sheikh alias Kasim Bengali (21), Mohammed Salim Ansari (28), Siraj Rehman Khan alias Sirju (24) and Chand Shaikh, a minor. The accused in the gang rape of the telephone operator were Vijay Jadhav, Mohamed Kasim Hafiz Sheikh, Mohammed Salim Ansari, Mohammed Ashfaq Sheikh (26) and an unnamed minor.

Chand Shaikh, a juvenile, was the first to be arrested. He was arrested in the early hours of 23 August from his residence in the Dhobi Ghat slum in Saat Raasta. He sold vegetables along with his grandmother for a living. Vijay Jadhav (aged 19) was the second accused to be arrested. He was sleeping at a video club at Dagad Chawl in Madanpura, when he was arrested by police at around 3:00 am on 24 August. He resided with a friend on Ramji Barucha Marg behind Dhobi Ghat at Agripada. His parents, two sisters and two brothers, stayed at a rented flat at Jai Ambe Park in Virar (East). He had previously been arrested in 2011 for breaking into a house. Siraj Rehman Khan alias Sirju (24) was arrested from a hideout in Govandi on 24 August based on information police obtained from interrogating Shaikh and Jadhav. He worked odd-jobs at shops for a living. Siraj Khan lived on a footpath near Dhobi Ghat at Agripada. His mother was dead, and he had no contact with his father. Siraj Rehman Khan was also an accused in another case in Thane. Television news reports claimed that Siraj Khan, had escaped from the Thane jail where the accused had been detained. This was confirmed by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ujjwal Nikam who stated, "Siraj Rahman Khan, an accused in Shakti Mills gang-rape case of photojournalist, is untraceable." The Mumbai Sessions court hearing the case ordered the concerned authorities to file a reply the next day. However, in a major embarrassment for Mumbai Police, Siraj was later found to be in his Thane jail cell on 26 September 2013.

Qasim Shaikh (21) was arrested at 3:30 am on 25 August, outside Nair Hospital in Agripada. Police received a tipoff at 2:30 am from the relative of a patient admitted at the hospital who identified the accused from police sketches. Following the crime, Qasim Shaikh had returned to his residence at Kalapani in Agripada. He began watching television, when he received a call from a police constable inquiring about his whereabouts. His mother claims that he changed his shirt after receiving the call, then took ₹50 from her and left the house. She also claimed that her son was a juvenile stating, "He was below 17 when he was arrested last year. He was discharged in the case after six months, and has not committed any crime since then. Last week, he turned 17. I don't have any documents to prove it but I can say it confidently as his mother." Salim Ansari (27), who police described as the chief planner of the crime, was the last to be arrested. He was arrested by Delhi Police on the Delhi-Haryana border at 11:00 am on 25 August. Ansari had hidden in Govandi following the crime, and fled to Delhi on a long-distance train that he probably boarded from Kurla. Ansari hid at a relative's house in the Bharat Nagar slum, near Ashok Vihar on the Haryana border with northwest Delhi, and planned to flee to Nepal. He was arrested by police while he was taking a walk in the area. An officer stated that he seemed "seemed oblivious to the possibility of the police looking for him. He was calmly going towards his relative's place when a police team of four swooped down on him." The Times of India reported that Mumbai Poilce tracked down Ansari and informed led Delhi Police to his location, although the police refused to reveal the operational details of how they located the accused. The paper reported that Mumbai and Delhi Police had used mobile phone tracking to find Ansari. He was produced before a Delhi court, which sanctioned a transit remand to the Mumbai Police until 27 August. He was brought back to Mumbai on 25 August.

Right to Information (RTI) activist Anil Galgali had filed an RTI query with Mumbai Police on 15 October 2013, seeking information about the people arrested in the two cases and action taken against the property owners for not securing the deserted premises where the incidents occurred. Then Senior Inspector of NM Joshi Marg police station Sudhakar Ghagre stated in his reply that the Crime Branch was probing the case, and his station did not have information about the owner. Ghagre also stated that the land was in the possession of the Official Liquidator of the Bombay High Court. However, the crime branch provided no information on whether the owners' liability was looked into. when Galgali approached them. The query to the Official Liquidator revealed that the High Court had ordered the Shakti Mills Ltd to be shut down, and possession and responsibility of securing and maintaining the company (in liquidation) was handed over to Liquidator since then.

Investigation

During interrogation, the accused admitted to assaulting at least four other women in the Shakti Mills compound in the preceding six months. The accused had previously molested a girl when a couple entered the isolated Shakti Mills area for privacy. They raped a ragpicker a few weeks following the molestation. In July 2013, they brought a sex worker into the compound and raped her. They also admitted to a fourth attack, however, the details were unclear. After each rape, the men would record video clips or take photographs of the victims to intimidate them. Police believe the gang was emboldened by the fact that none of their previous victims had complained to the police, and the gang believed that the photojournalist would remain quiet as well as they had photographed her after the assault. A police officer stated, "They [the rapists] were confident that would get away with such blackmailing as in the past." Police appealed to all the victims to come forward. Himanshu Roy, joint commissioner of police, stated, "There are reports (of past attacks), but so far nobody has come forward to register a complaint. If somebody comes, we will surely file fresh complaints." The gang also revealed why they did not take any of the expensive electronic goods that the victims were carrying, despite three of them having previous cases of theft registered against them. Qasim Shaikh and Chand Shaikh, who were both history-sheeters, had warned their accomplices that stealing electronics, particularly mobiles, could lead to them being traced.

Teams from of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad, and Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) visited the crime scene and collected scientific evidence. Officials stated that they had advanced technology that enabled them to retrieve pollen as evidence even days after a crime. The Times of India reported that Gujarat FSL team led by Dr S. Acharya conducted psychological tests on the accused. An FSL official explained, "Voice-Layered Analysis (VLA) is a test in which we record the voice of an accused in normal condition and than ask him to talk in unusual circumstances which helps us understand whether he is telling the truth or not." Although this evidence is not admissible in court, it is helpful to the investigation. Bone and DNA tests were conducted on the accused to determine their ages and to match their semen with those on clothes. The crime branch also questioned two ragpickers, after the victim's male colleague told police that one had passed by the area while the rape was occurring.

Trial

On 19 September 2013, the Mumbai crime branch filed a 600-page chargesheet against four of the accused in a metropolitan court, the report on charges against a minor delinquent was given to a juvenile court. The accused were charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 376(d) for gang rape, 377 for unnatural offence, 120(b) for criminal conspiracy, sections 342 and 343 for wrongful restraint, section 506(2) for criminal intimidation and 34 for common intention and 201 for destruction of evidence. The sessions court ordered the prosecution to start trail proceedings in the case from 14 October 2013. The prosecution wanted to add a charge under section 67A of Information Technology Act (punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form). This charge of section 67A is only against Ansari as he was the one who showed porn clips to survivor. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi was the Principal Sessions judge of the fast track sessions court which hearing both cases. The court informed special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam that since the matter is on fast track, the trial should be completed within 60 days. The court further held that the trial in the case would run on regular basis.

On 14 October 2013, the first day of the trial, three panch (independent) witnesses made their statements to the court. They were the artist who prepared the sketches of the crime scene at the Shakti Mills, as well as two panch witnesses, who were present during the crime site inspection and seizure of certain articles like mobile phone, beer bottles from the crime scene. The photojournalist's mother wept continuously during her two-hour deposition before the sessions court on 15 October. She told the court that it had been her birthday and that she and her daughter had planned to go out for dinner. Her statement revealed that the survivor had answered her mother’s phone call twice during the incident, and was forced by the accused to pretend that everything was all right. She had also stated that the 22-year-old was inconsolable and crying in pain when she met her for the first time a few hours after the incident at Jaslok Hospital, where she was treated. The photojournalist's boss also made his deposition the same day. The proceedings were held "in-camera" on the second and third days, on the request of the witnesses.

On 17 October, the 22-year-old photojournalist deposed in the court in front of four of her assaulters, and identified them during a four-hour deposition. She broke down, felt nauseous and fainted when she was shown and asked to identify the porn clip which was shown to her just before she was raped. She correctly identified the clip shown to her by the accused during the sexual assault. Nikam stated that the victim was strong during the first half of her deposition and responded to prosecutor's queries confidently. He further stated, "She broke down before the court, but she very well supported the prosecution's case. However, things changed when the photojournalist was asked to identify the video clip. The moment she was shown the video clip, the woman informed the court that she was feeling nauseous and collapsed." Nikam described the survivor as "confident, articulate and narrative" and said she was "tense" during the deposition and at times requested for a small break. The photojournalist was taken to GT Hospital for medical examination after she fainted. She was escorted out of the court premises through the backdoor by police, along with five girls of similar height wearing burkhas. The court was adjourned for the rest of the day. The decision requiring the victim to testify in court was described by DNA as the result of "archaic laws and an insensitive legal system". Less than a week prior, the Justice Chandrashekhar Dharmadhikari committee, in its recommendations given to the state government, had suggested that the police should video-record the statement of sexual assault victims, thereby doing away with the need for them to give graphic details during cross-examination before a magistrate or court.

The telephone operator deposed before the court on 30 October. According to Nikam, "As the proceedings began in the morning, the girl started weeping. She was trembling. Assuming that she was afraid of the accused, the judge ordered that a partition be put up between them. She still could not stop weeping. I told the court that she is a brave girl and she would give her statement. After some time, she regained her composure. She said she would talk about her ordeal. She then recognised four of the five accused present in the court." She also identified her clothes and a few other materials recovered from the scene of the crime. Accusing the men of brutally beating her during the rape, she requested the court's permission to beat the accused. This was turned down by the court. The friend of the telephone operator who accompanied her to the mill when the gang rape occurred deposed before the court on 20 November 2013. On 13 January 2014, the photojournalist's male colleague testified before the court on-camera, and identified all the accused.

The prosecution examined 44 witnesses in the photojournalist's case and 31 in the other case, while the defence examined three witnesses in the photojournalist's case and only one witness in the other case. In his closing arguments prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam described the rapes as systematic, stating, "They did it in such a disciplined and planned manner, as if it was decided much before what to do if a girl is found in a secluded area." He also pointed out that Indian society tends to punish victims for reporting rape. Nikam told the court, "In our society, if an atrocity is committed on a woman, the common man casts doubt on the lady. They say, 'Oh, she must be that type'. This is the first reaction. This is the story of our culture".

Two minors, one in each case, are currently being tried by the Juvenile Justice Board separately. If convicted. the maximum punishment they can face under Indian law is three years imprisonment, which includes time in custody.

Verdict and sentencing

On 20 March 2014, the sessions court convicted all five adult accused on 13 counts, including gang rape, destruction of evidence, wrongful restraint, assault, common intention, unnatural sex, criminal conspiracy of the IPC and certain Sections of the Information Technology Act. "These accused have a criminal tendency and should be awarded strictest of punishment, which will serve as a deterrent," special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam told the court. Vijay Jadhav, Mohammad Qasim Shaikh, and Mohammad Salim Ansari, were convicted in both the gang rape cases, while Siraj Khan and Mohammad Ashfaque Shaikh were found guilty in the photojournalist and telephone operator cases respectively.

On 21 March, the Mumbai sessions court awarded life sentence to four convicts for the gang rape of the telephone operator at the Shakti Mills compound. While awarding the life term, Principal Sessions judge Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi observed, "The manner in which the offence was committed reflects the depravity of the accused. The crime was not an impulsive act, but the premeditated outcome of a criminal conspiracy. They sexually ravished the girl and left her in a pathetic state. A proper signal has to be sent out to society. Even if in this case the accused are not reformed, others like them will be deterred. In some cases, mercy is justified. But in this case it would be misplaced and would be a mockery of justice".

Following the conviction of the three repeat offenders (Vijay Jadhav, Qasim Bengali, and Mohammed Salim Ansari) in the both gang rapes, on 4 April prosecutor Nikam moved an application to add charges against them under section 376E of the IPC, which provides for the death sentence for repeated rape convictions. The section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in 2013, in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang rape. Demanding the death penalty, Nikam told the court, "The accused are sex-starved goons in shape of humans. They deserve maximum sentence. Any leniency shown to the accused would be a mockery of justice. Their crime has shocked collective consciousness." A total of six witnesses were examined and after final arguments by the prosecution and defence, the court gave its verdict.

On 4 April 2014, the court awarded the death penalty to the three repeat offenders in the photojournalist rape case. This was the first time in India that rape convicts had been sentenced to death under section 376E of the IPC. The three convicts reportedly smiled as the judge read out her order. Siraj Khan, the other convict in the photojournalist case, was sentenced to life imprisonment. All accused in the case had requested the court to be lenient and show mercy towards them. When the judge called Ashfaque to record his statement on the point of sentence, he began crying in the witness box and told the court that he had not done anything, that his financial condition was poor and that there was no one to look after his family. Kasim stated that he had a mother and sister to look after as his father had died 13 years ago, and that he was the sole breadwinner in his family. His advocate, Ravindra Gadgil, requested the court that he be given a chance to reform. Salim insisted that he had been falsely accused. He also stated that he had no one to take care of his family. Jadhav told the court that his parents were poor and he was the only breadwinner of the family.

Responding to all these statements in her judgment, judge Joshi stated, "It may be true that there are circumstances like the age of the accused, their family dependency and also their submission that the system on account of which, they have turned into the criminals, if they are proved to be so. But, then the same system does not make everyone a criminal. It is the individual only who is responsible for the way he conducts himself. We have seen such instances where individuals coming from lower and poor strata of society have achieved success. Therefore, the society or system or anything as such cannot be blamed thoroughly. We hence consider that as it is observed by the apex court, all these aspects are irrelevant when the offence committed is of rape which calls for the punishment prescribed." In her detailed judgment she further observed, "Needless to say that the offence of rape is a very serious and brutal crime. It is not only an offence against victim, but also the crime against the society as such. It is a violation of the victim’s fundamental right to live life with dignity and liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution,” adding, “Fundamental rights are also required to be kept in mind while awarding punishment to the accused, coupled with the fact that the victim undergoes untold trauma and agony with which she has to live throughout her life. Stern view needs to be taken and a proper signal has to be sent out to the society as even if in this case the accused are not reformed, others like them will be deterred. The object of criminal justice is both reformation and deterrence.

Awarding the death penalty, the court termed the crime as "diabolic". The judge stated, "Mumbai gang-rape accused have least respect for law. They don't have potential for reformation as per facts of case. The suffering that gang-rape survivor and her family has undergone is unparalleled. Mumbai gang-rape accused were emboldened since law enforcing agencies hadn't caught them. If this is not the case where death sentence prescribed by law is not valid, which is exemplary and rarest of rare punishment is required in the case." The judge further added that the crime violated all rights of the survivor. Joshi further observed, "The gang-rape accused were not only enjoying the act of sexual assault but also the survivor's helplessness. It was executed in the most gruesome manner with no mercy or show of human dignity to the survivor. The accused were acting in pursuance of criminal conspiracy as judicially proved. The defence argued that the convicts were "deprived of basic fundamental rights", pointing to their impoverished backgrounds. However, citing judgments by the Supreme Court, the judge ruled that considering such arguments would be a "travesty of justice", stating, "Conviction cannot be dependent on the social and the economic status of the victim or the accused and the race, caste, creed of the accused cannot be taken into consideration." The court also held that any leniency would lead to "miscarriage of justice", and observed that the men had boasted of having committed such crimes in the past. Joshi ruled, "Depravity of their character is reflected from the fact that the accused enjoyed the act. They did not commit the crime under any duress or compulsion. They had enjoyed the act. This was a case, where the accused were completely unprovoked. The judge also rubbished the defence's claims that no physical injuries were seen on the victim's body. The judge question whether such submissions made it appear like the accused had "done some charity by letting her leave uninjured". The judge further ruled, "This court had an opportunity to understand the trauma as she recalled them at the time of her testimony in the court. Questions like whether she has suffered any injuries are irrelevant and her trauma cannot be overlooked. Her testimony and her mother's deposition in the court clearly tell how heinous the crime was." Rejecting the accused plea for leniency, the judge rule, "A defenseless, harmless victim was raped by the accused unprovoked ... This did not happen because of some momentary lapse." Applauding the victim for her courage, the court observed, "This case would have also gone unreported if the victim had not come ahead and complained to the police. She took a bold step and lodged the complaint. Because of her, this and the other crime [the telephone operator case] came to light."

Mumbai Police awarded the first ever "best conviction award" of 2014 to the crime branch that probed the two gang rape cases and secured conviction. The annual award category was started that year to "boost the moral of the police force, push them to ensure conviction and not just detection".

Reactions

Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Agarwal sparked a controversy over the brutal Mumbai gang-rape, saying that women needed to pay attention to their clothes to avoid being raped. Agarwal also said that women should not be too influenced by television.

Reacting to the verdict, the mother of the telephone operator, stated, "They deserved death. If there was any harsher punishment than this, their crimes would merit that too. This crime is a blot on society. If rapists like them are set free, it will only encourage molesters and rapists, and send a wrong message to society. Also, it is necessary that equal urgency is shown in all rape and molestation cases. This incident has changed our lives. We live in a locality where word spreads very fast. Some of our neighbours have made our lives hell. They taunt us when we pass. While she has been struggling to overcome the trauma, the local boys have not been letting her do that. She is often chased by youths in the area. When we venture out for family functions, we feel the difference in our relatives' approach towards us." She also added that the quick conviction was only due to the proximity of the 2014 general elections.

At an election rally in Moradabad on 10 April 2014, Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Mulayam Singh Yadav questioned the death sentence. He began his remarks by stating that "when boys and girls have differences, the girl gives a statement that 'the boy raped me,' and that poor boy gets a death sentence." Referring to the Mumbai gang rape he stated, "... later they had differences, and the girl went and gave a statement that I have been raped. And then the poor fellows, three of them have been sentenced to death. Should rape cases lead to hanging? Boys are boys, they make mistakes. Two or three have been given the death sentence in Mumbai." He added that if his party was elected they would repeal the death penalty for rapists, and punish those who report false cases. The SP had previously opposed laws in Parliament that made stalking a criminal offence. They argued that such provisions could be misused to implicate men in fake cases. The party's election manifesto stated, "There is a large scale misuse of laws including anti-dowry, SC/ST (atrocities prevention) act and the new anti-rape law that came into existence after 'Nirbhaya' rape case ... SP is in favour of implementing them strictly and at the same time will initiate strict action against those misusing them."

The statement stirred up a huge controversy. Complaints were filed against Yadav with the Election Commission and the National Commission for Women (NCW). His comments were denounced by the Indian media, women's groups, women's rights activists, public prosecutor in the Shakti Mills gang rape case Ujjwal Nikam, Bollywood celebrities, and a large section of Uttar Pradesh residents. The Times of India stated, "Even by his misogynistic standards, he [Yadav] seems to have sunk to a new low ... The change in the laws was brought on after months of selfless demonstration by citizens striving to bring about a change in India's social outlook. By terming rape as 'just another mistake boys make, Mulayam has just rendered a slap in the face of their effort. The parents of the 2012 Delhi gang rape victim strongly criticized Mulayam and appealed to voters not to support his party is the elections. The victim's mother stated, "Raping a girl cannot be called a mistake, it is a crime. A leader who gives such a statement doesn't have any right to be in the power." The remarks were criticized by both Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress politicians, some of whom also demanded that Mulayam apologize for his statements. Rashtriya Janata Dal President Lalu Prasad Yadav criticized Mulayam stating, "He seems to have lost his mental balance. There is no place for rapists in the society. They deserve strong punishment." Mulayam was defended by his daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav, wife of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, who stated that such comments "are made by a lot of people and it happens at time." In the wake of a gang rape in Budaun district, Uttar Pradesh on 27 May 2014, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticised Mulayam Singh's statement saying, "We say no to the dismissive, destructive attitude of 'boys will be boys'."

The day following Yadav's comments SP Maharashtra unit chief Abu Azmi created another controversy when he stated that women, including rape victims, who have sex outside marriage should be hanged. When asked for a solution to the problem of rapes, Azmi told Mid Day, "Any woman if, whether married or unmarried, goes along with a man, with or without her consent, should be hanged. Rape is punishable by hanging in Islam. But here, nothing happens to women, only to men. Even the woman is guilty. Girls complain when someone touches them, and even when someone doesn't touch them. It becomes a problem then ... If rape happens with or without consent, it should be punished as prescribed in Islam." He further defended Mulayam saying, "See, I don't know what context he said it in. But, at times, the wrong people are awarded the death penalty. Boys do it in josh (Hindi: excitement), but what can I say in this? The death sentence should be given. I won't speak against Islam." Azmi's comments were also widely criticized in India.

See also

• 2012 Delhi gang rape
• 2014 Badaun gang rape
• Rape in India
• Category:Rape in India