NIRBHAYA
CASE -TIMELINE
MUKESH v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [1]
Criminal Appeal No. 607-608 of 2017
Supreme
Court of India
*By
Arzoo Chaudhary, (5th Year, B.A L.L.B) USLLS, GGSIPU under the
guidance and supervision of Dr. Anurag Deep, Associate Professor, The Indian
Law Institute, New Delhi
Date
|
Timeline
|
16.12.2012
|
Date of Incident- Sexual Assault (Gang
Rape) Committed
|
17.12.2012
|
Date of registration of FIR
|
17.12.2012
|
Accused Ram Singh was arrested
|
18.12.2012
|
Accused arrested- Vinay, Mukesh and
Pawan
|
21.12.2012
|
Accused Akshay was arrested
|
21.12.2012
|
Delinquent Juvenile was arrested from
Anand Vihar Bus Terminal in Delhi[2]
|
29.12.2012
|
Death of the Victim
|
03.01.2012
|
Charge Sheet was filed
|
Investigation Complete within 17 days
of the incident
|
|
04.02.2012
|
Supplementary charge sheet filed
within 47 days of the incident
|
11.03.2013
|
Ram Singh found dead in his prison
cell
|
10.09.2013
|
Death Penalty awarded to accused
Akshay, Vinay, Mukesh and Pawan by the trial court[3]
|
The Sessions Court passed its judgement
within 9 months
|
|
13.04.2014
|
High Court affirmed Death Penalty
|
The verdict of the High Court came
after 5 months from the decision of the Sessions Court
|
|
15.03.2014
|
Supreme Court stayed the execution of
Death Sentence of Accused Mukesh and Pawan till 31.03.2014
|
Appeal filed in the Supreme Court
after 11 Months (approx.)
|
|
28.04.2014
|
Original Record of Trial Court and
High Court summoned to the Supreme Court
|
07.05.2014
|
A fresh volume I- volume X was filed
with continuous pagination alongwith Volume XI that contained the translation
of all documents in vernacular language[4]
|
14.07.2014
|
Execution of Death Sentence of accused
Akshay and Vinay stayed.
|
25.08.2014
|
The Counsel appearing for the State of
NCT of Delhi informs the Supreme Court that as per the New Amendment of
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 the matters of Death Sentence must go before the
three-judge bench of the court
|
20.12.2015
|
Juvenile in Conflict with law was
released[5]
|
04.04.2016
|
Matter was part heard. Arguments
remained inconclusive
|
08.04.2016
|
Two Ld. Senior Counsels were appointed
as Amicus Curiae, one for petitioners Mukesh and Pawan and the other for
Vinay and Akshay
|
11.07.2016
|
The Counsel for Petitioners submitted
that there is an erroneous impression in the minds of the people that the
counsels appearing for petitioners are unable to assist the court and that is
why the court has appointed Amicus Curiae
Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of State stated that the Court appointed Amicus Curiae to have perspective
from all spectrums
|
18.07.2016
|
The Supreme Court reiterated that the
Court has complete faith in the intellectual integrity in the objective
assistance of the Amicus Curiae
|
22.07.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
25.07.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
29.07.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
08.08.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
29.08.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
02.09.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
05.09.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
16.09.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
26.09.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
17.10.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
21.10.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
24.10.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
07.11.2016
|
Hearing Resumed (Orders to re-seal the
documents before next hearing that will be inspected by the Counsel for
State)
|
11.11.2016
|
Hearing Resumed. Ld. Counsel for State
inspected the documents who had attended the registry on 09.11.2016
|
15.11.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
21.11.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
25.11.2016
|
The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner
concluded his arguments. Amicus Curiae commenced his arguments for all the
convicted persons
|
28.11.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
03.12.2016
|
Amicus Curiae concluded his arguments.
Ld. Counsel for State commenced his arguments
|
05.12.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
14.12.2016
|
Hearing Resumed
|
02.01.2017
|
The bench was unable to assemble
|
06.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed. Supreme Court seeks
mitigating circumstances from the accused
|
09.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
13.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
16.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
20.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
23.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
30.01.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
03.02.2017
|
The Court decides to re-hear the case
on the sentencing aspect after the petitioners contend that there has been a
violation of procedure.
|
04.02.2017
|
Hearing Resumed. Counsel for
Petitioner Mukesh and Pawan concluded his arguments. Counsel for Petitioner
Vinay and Akshay commenced his arguments
|
06.02.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
13.02.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
Affidavits for petitioners were to be
filed by 23.02.2017 after conclusion of arguments. Ld. Counsel for state was
to file the affidavit by 02.03.2017[6]
|
06.03.2017
|
Hearing Resumed
|
20.03.2017
|
Additional Affidavits filed. Ld. Counsel
for State was granted three days’ time to file a status report
|
27.03.2017
|
The Court reserves its verdict
|
05.05.2017
|
The Supreme Court upholds the verdict
of death sentence of the four convicts
|
The Supreme Court gave the judgement
after a period of 3 years from the date of appeal
|
|
22.01.2018
|
Review Petition of Vinay filed[7]
|
Filed after 7 months from the date of
Supreme Court judgement
|
|
09.07.2018
|
The Court rejects review pleas of
three out of four convicts awarded death penalty[8]
(Vinay, Mukesh and Pawan)
|
09.12.2019
|
Review Petition of Akshay filed[9]
|
Filed after 1 year and 5 months from
the rejection of review plea of the other three accused
|
|
18.12.2019
|
Court rejects the review plea of
Akshay[10]
|
19.12.2019
|
Delhi High Court dismisses the plea of
Pawan Kumar Gupta claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence[11]
|
07.01.2020
|
Delhi High Court orders four convicts
to be hanged on January 22, at 7 a.m. in Tihar Jail
|
09.01.2020
|
Accused Mukesh and Vinay filed
Curative Petitions in the Supreme Court
|
14.01.2020
|
Curative Petition of Mukesh and Vinay
rejected
|
16.10.2020
|
Mercy Petition filed by Mukesh to the
President of India[12]
|
17.01.2020
|
Mercy Petition of Mukesh rejected by
the President of India[13]
|
20.01.2020
|
Accused Pawan Kumar Gupta filed a SLP
in the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the
High Court of Delhi dismissing the claim of the petitioner of juvenility
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP[14]
|
25.01.2020
|
Accused Mukesh moved Supreme Court
seeking a judicial review of the rejection of mercy plea by the President
|
27.01.2020
|
Supreme Court stated that the
execution will be given top priority
Mercy petition of Vinay filed to the
President[15]
|
28.01.2020
|
Accused Akshay filed a curative petition
in the Supreme Court[16]
|
29.01.2020
|
Court rejected Mukesh’s petition
challenging the rejection of mercy plea stating that there is no merit in the
contention[17]
|
30.01.2020
|
Court rejected the curative petition
of Akshay
|
31.01.2020
|
Supreme Court rejects the plea of
Pawan seeking review of order passed by the Supreme Court which rejected his
claim for juvenility[18]
|
01.02.2020
|
Date fixed for the hanging of the
accused. Order of stay of execution since mercy petition of Vinay was still
pending
President rejects the Mercy Petition
of Vinay[19]
Akshay filed his Mercy Petition to the
President[20]
|
02.02.2020
|
Accused pleaded that they had been
sentenced to death by a common order and hence they have to be executed
together[21]
|
05.02.2020
|
President rejected the Mercy Petition
of Akshay[22]
High Court permitted the convicts to
exercise all the legal remedies available to them within one week[23]
|
07.02.2020
|
On 11th February, the
Supreme Court will hear the Centre’s plea that challenged the Delhi High
Court’s verdict dismissing the petition against the stay on execution of
convicts[24]
|
13.04.2020
|
The Patiala House Court appointed a
new advocate Ravi Qazi to represent Pawan[25]
|
14.02.2020
|
The Supreme Court rejected Vinay’s
petition which challenged the rejection of his mercy petition[26]
|
17.02.2020
|
Mukesh likely to request for a new
advocate being disappointed by her making him exhaust all the legal options
early[27]
|
20.03.2020------------------------- All four hanged in Tihar jail.
Trial Court
|
High Court
|
Supreme Court
|
President
|
|
Death Penalty Affirmed
|
10.09.2013
|
13.04.2014
|
05.05.2017
|
|
Review Petition (filed)
|
22.01.2018 (Vinay)
09.12.2019 (Akshay)
|
|||
Review Petition
(rejected)
|
09.07.2018 (Vinay, Mukesh)
18.12.2019 (Akshay)
19.12.2019 (Pawan)
31.01.2020 (Review of SLP) (Pawan)
|
|||
Curative Petition (filed)
|
09.01.2020 (Vinay, Mukesh)
28.01.2020 (Akshay)
|
|||
Curative Petition (rejected)
|
14.01.2020(Vinay, Mukesh)
30.01.2020 (Akshay)
|
|||
Mercy Petition (filed)
|
16.01.2020 (Mukesh)
27.01.2020 (Vinay)
01.01.2020 (Akshay)
|
|||
Mercy Petition (rejected)
|
17.01.2020
(Mukesh)
01.02.2020
(Vinay)
05.02.2020
(Akshay)
|
|||
Judicial Review
|
25.01.2020 (Mukesh)
29.01.2020-Rejected (Mukesh)
|
|||
Plea for Juvenility
|
19.12.19- Rejected (Pawan)
|
20.01.2020-Dismissed (SLP)
|
||
Date of Hanging
|
22.01.2020
(could not be executed)
17.01.2020
(Patiala House Court passed order for
hanging on 01.01.2020)
01.02.2020 (stayed by Patiala House
Court, Delhi)
|
07.01.2020
(passed order for hanging on
22.01.2020)
|
Reasons
for Delay[28]
1. The
matter was first admitted to the District Court, which further went to the
hands of the Delhi High Court and then an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court
of India. The discussion of matter in all the three tiers of judiciary has
taken a long time for the matter to be disposed of.
2. Matter
was disposed of by the Sessions court on 10.09.2013 and by the High Court of
Delhi on 13.04.2014.
However,
the Supreme Court reiterated that there was no delay in filing of the FIR. The
sequence of events was natural and the time taken to lodge the FIR is
justifiable.
3. To
the top court matter was admitted on 15.03.2014 but it took over three years to
give the final verdict on 05.05.2017
4. There
were about 40 hearings between 2014-2017in the Supreme Court which led to
indefinite delay in the judgement.
5.
In the Trial Court one of the pleas were that the convicts
couldn’t understand English so the convicts were unable to understand the
documents of the Trial Court proceedings. Thousands of pages had to be translated in
Hindi for the convicts by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
6. A
lot of time was lost in the fast-track court by the prosecution trying to
counter each and every alibi to make the investigation foolproof.
7. As
per law, a review petition shall be filed within 30 days[29].
But the provision of condonation of delay was exploited to the fullest.
8. All
four petitioners filed their review petitions separately on different dates
with long delays. Accused Mukesh filed his review petition after six months,
counsel for accused Akshay and Vinay stated that review petition will be filed
within a period of three weeks. However, even after Mukesh’s hearing was
concluded, he stated that review petition will be filed in another 10 days.
Akshay’s review petition was filed almost one and half year after the review
petition of other accused had been dismissed (on 09.12.2019) whereas the Review
petition of Vinay was filed almost two years ago (on 22.01.2018).
9. After
rejection of all the review petitions, curative petitions were filed (by Vinay
and Mukesh on 09.01.2020 and by Akshay on 28.12.2020) in the Supreme Court,
leaving no stone unturned to apply all the safeguards provided by law
10. The
Curative Petition’s dismissal followed a mercy petition by Mukesh to the
President through Tihar Jail Authorities.The Mercy Petition filedby one of the
convicts leads to a stay in the execution of death sentence of all the accused.
The Mercy Petition filed on 16.12.2020 was rejected by the President on
17.01.2020
Position
of Accused
1. There
were six accused who were alleged to have committed such a heinous offence
namely, Mukesh, Vinay, Pawan, Akshay, Ram Singh and a delinquent juvenile.
2. The
four accused Mukesh, Akshay, Vinay and Pawan have been awarded Death Penalty.
They were due to be hanged in the Tihar Jail, New Delhi on 22nd
January, 2020. However, following the Mercy Petition by the accused Mukesh and
Curative Petition of the accused Akshay, the next date of execution of death
sentence has been fixed for 1st February, 2020.
3. Accused
Ram Singh was found dead in his prison cell on 11.03.2013 before the matter had
reached the High Court.
4. Accused
Juvenile[30],
was sentence to three years detention to a correction home in accordance with
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. He was shifted to a secret
spot a day before he was released.[31]After
his release he was kept with an NGO for a few days[32]and
currentlyhe is serving as a cook in a dhaba in South India[33]
Role
of Accused[34]
1. The
accused Vinay and Pawan robbed the victims of their belongings.
2. While
PW-1 was immobilized by the accused Vinay and Pawan, the accused Ram Singh,
Akshay and the Juvenile in Conflict by Law raped her one after the other by
taking her to the rear side of the bus.
3. Accused
Mukesh was initially driving the bus but he reduced the speed of the bus and
hit PW-1 with an iron rod and thereafter went to the rear side of the bus and
raped the prosecutrix.
4. Ld.
Sessions Judge, vide Judgement dtd. 10.09.2013 convicted the accused persons
Akshay, Vinay, Mukesh and Pawan under the following sections[35]:
·
120B IPC[36]-
Criminal Conspiracy,
·
365/366 IPC[37]
r/w section 120B- Kidnapping and Abducting with intent to secretly and
wrongfully confine person
·
307 IPC[38]
r/w section 120B IPC-Attempt to Murder (PW1)
·
376(2)(g) IPC[39]-
Gang Rape with the prosecutrix in pursuance for their conspiracy under Section
377 IPC r/wsection 120B IPC- Unnatural Offence (prosecutrix)
·
302 IPC[40] r/wsection
120B IPC- murder (prosecutrix)
·
395 IPC[41]- dacoity
in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy;
·
397 IPC[42] r/wsection
120B IPC for the use of iron rods and for attempting to kill PW-1 at the time
of committing robbery;
·
201 IPC[43] r/wsection
120B IPC- causing disappearance of evidence
·
412 IPC[44]-Dishonestly
receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity
[1](2017) 6 SCC 1, Dipak Mishra,
Ashok Bhushan, JJ
[2]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-gang-rape-chronology-of-events/article11862316.ece, last visited 25th
January, 2020, 14:26 IST
[5]https://www.thequint.com/voices/fighting-rape/four-yrs-post-nirbhaya-juvenile-accused-is-a-cook-at-a-dhaba-december-2012-jyoti-singh-damini-sexual-assault-gang, last visited on 25th
January, 2020, 14:35 IST
[8](2018) 8 SCC 149, Mukesh v.
State for NCT of Delhi, Review Petition (Crl.) No. 570 of 2017, Dipak
Mishra, R, Bhanumati, Ashok Bhushan, JJ
[9]https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-nirbhaya-case-seven-years-and-counting-10-reasons-why-justice-has-been-delayed/302502
last visited 27th January 2020, 13:44 IST
[10]Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Review
Petition (Crl.) No. 44603 of 2019, R. Bhanumati, Ashok Bhushan, A.S. Bopanna,
JJ
[11]Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State, Review Petition
(Crl.) No. 1309 of 2019, Delhi High Court, Suresh Kumar Kait J
[12]https://rashtrapatisachivalaya.gov.in/statement-mercy-petition-cases-rejected, last visited 26th
January, 2020, 16:44 IST
[14]Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP
(Crl.) No. 547 of 2020, Supreme Court of India, R Bhanumati, Ashok Bhushan, A.S.
Bopanna, JJ
[15]https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-nirbhaya-case-tihar-authorities-to-postpone-hanging-as-convict-files-mercy-plea-with-president/346450 last visited 3rd February, 2020,
12:40 IST
[16]ibid
[17]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-nirbhaya-convict-mukesh-plea-challenging-rejection-mercy-plea-1641125-2020-01-29, last visited 29th
January, 2020, 12:40 IST
[18]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nirbhaya-gang-rape-murder-case-chronology-execution-postponed-1642122-2020-01-31, last visited 3rd
February, 2020, 13:20 IST
[19]https://www.news18.com/news/india/mercy-petition-of-nirbhaya-convict-vinay-sharma-rejected-another-approaches-president-2482069.html, last visited 3rd
February, 2020, 14:15 IST
[20]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/tihar-officials-to-move-delhi-court-for-execution-date-of-nirbhaya-convicts/articleshow/73838170.cms, last visited 3rd
February, 2020, 14:20 IST
[21]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nirbhaya-convicts-claim-cannot-hang-separately-1642640-2020-02-02 last visited 3rd
February, 2020, 17:40 IST
[22]https://www.livemint.com/news/india/nirbhaya-case-president-rejects-mercy-petition-of-akshay-kumar-singh-11580922179652.html, last visited 8th
February, 2020, 10:04 IST
[24]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/nirbhaya-case-sc-to-hear-on-feb-11-centres-plea-against-delhi-hc-verdict/articleshow/74004731.cms, last visited, 9th
February, 2020, 11:46 IST
[25]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nirbhaya-gangrape-murder-case-execution-dates-hearing-postponed-convict-new-lawyer-1646135-2020-02-13, last visited 15th
February, 2020, 15:32 IST
[26]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/nirbhaya-case-sc-dismisses-death-row-convict-vinay-sharmas-plea-challenging-rejection-of-mercy-petition/articleshow/74132741.cms, last visited 15th
February, 2020, 14:18 IST
[28]https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-nirbhaya-case-seven-years-and-counting-10-reasons-why-justice-has-been-delayed/302502
last visited 27th January 2020, 13:42 IST
[29]Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVII
Rule 2
(1) No report in any
newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of
communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure,
shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may
lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need
of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in
such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the
picture of any such child be published
[31]https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/nirbhaya-gangrape-case-juvenile-rapist-shifted-to-secret-spot-a-day-before-release-278076-2015-12-20, last visited 24th
January,2020,14:14 IST
[32]https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/juvenile-in-2012-delhi-gang-rape-case-unaware-of-verdict-works-as-cook-in-south-india/story-35jbhO8sDu5z8xH3wVbxeN.html last visited 24th January,
2020, 14:17 IST
[33]https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/juvenile-in-2012-delhi-gang-rape-case-unaware-of-verdict-works-as-cook-in-south-india/story-35jbhO8sDu5z8xH3wVbxeN.html, last visited 24th
January, 2020, 14:19 IST
[35]Indian Penal Code,
[36][120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party
to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party
to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
[37]365.
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine
person.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person
to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
366. Kidnapping,
abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or
abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be
likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in
order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it
to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; [and whoever, by means of
criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any
other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent
that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as
aforesaid].
[38]307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever
does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for
life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
[39]376(2) Whoever,— (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but
which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court
may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten
years.
[40]302.
Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
[41]395.
Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
[42]397.
Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the
time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt
to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished
shall not be less than seven years.
[43]201.
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to
screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence
has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment,
or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he
knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence
which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment
for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’
imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term
not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the
description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth
part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.
[44]412.
Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.—Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he
knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of
dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to
believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he
knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
