Delhi court finds juvenile guilty of rape, murder of 60-year-old woman
New Delhi (PTI): A Delhi court has found a juvenile guilty of raping and murdering a 60-year-old woman in 2017, expressing shock that he inflicted iron rod blows on every body part of the deceased and "mercilessly inserted" it in her private parts.
A final order regarding the sentence will be passed on a later date.
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat was hearing the case against the juvenile against whom a case was registered for the penal offences of rape and murder.
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in 2018 concluded that the child in conflict with law (CCL), aged between 16 and 18 years, was required to be tried as an adult, following which the case was transferred to the present Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court.
According to the prosecution, the juvenile inflicted injuries on the woman with the iron rod and then attempted to rape her in the afternoon of November 11, 2017.
It said that a security guard, upon witnessing the crime, raised an alarm, following which the juvenile was apprehended.
In an order dated October 28, the court said, "It is a proved fact that the metallic rod recovered from the spot was inserted by CCL into the private parts of the deceased and due to that the deceased sustained fatal injuries inside her private parts."
It underlined that according to law, if any object (not being the penis of the accused) was inserted to any extent into the vagina, urethra or anus of a woman, then it amounted to rape.
"Thus, even if there is no clarification from the versions of prosecution witness 3 (security guard) regarding the insertion of the private part of CCL into the private part of the deceased, then also the act of inserting this metallic rod into the private parts of the deceased amounts to rape," the court said.
It noted the post-mortem report, according to which several external injuries were inflicted from the "bulky" metallic rod on "each and every body part" of the deceased, including her face, back of neck, back of head, face, chest, arm, elbow, wrist, head, forearm, finger, vagina, anus and knee.
The court said that if so many injuries were caused to the 60-year-old woman, then there was no doubt about the juvenile's intention to cause death.
It said, "Further, it is also considerable that the CCL did not just give blows of this rod on the body of the deceased, rather he mercilessly inserted this rod into the private parts of the deceased and caused fatal injuries inside her private parts."
The court said that the accused "inserted this metallic rod inside the private parts of the deceased so mercilessly that even the flesh/ body part separating vagina and anus also got torn."
Further, the doctor had also opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, the court said.
"In a nutshell, CCL is found to be in conflict with law for the offence of rape and murder punishable under Sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) of the IPC," the court said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
