On August 28, the Allahabad High Court was informed by the Amicus Curiae of the Hathras Gang Rape and Murder victim that the Uttar Pradesh government is yet to comply with Allahabad High Court’s order to provide employment to one of the family members. The Amicus Jaideep Narain Mathur, appointed in the suo-moto case registered over the heinous crime of murder and gang rape of a 19 year old Dalit girl in Hathras, also informed the bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Jaspreet Singh that the state government has notified the policy for cremation/ burial in line with the order of the High Court. It is crucial to note here that the Hathras case had received nationwide attention after the visuals of the police cremating the body of the victim in the middle of night, allegedly without the consent of the family, had become viral.
It is essential to note that in July 2022, the High Court had issued directions to the state government to provide employment to one of the family members in as well as to relocate them to some other place outside Hathras keeping in mind the family’s social and economic rehabilitation and also the educational needs of the children. The said order was passed by the HC pursuant to noting that none of the male members of the victim’s family was getting any employment opportunity as a consequence of the atrocity committed against them and the struggle of the Dalit family to seek justice against the dominant caste.
It is crucial to note that in March 2023, the said order of the High Court was also challenged by the Uttar Pradesh government in the Supreme Court. Dismissing the challenge, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala had expressed surprise at the State’s decision to challenge the High Court’s order in an appeal. Considering the special circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court had upheld the order issued by the Allahabad High Court.
Notably, Amicus, Mathur further apprised the High Court of the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge Trilok Pal Singh. Through the judgment, the Uttar Pradesh Court held one of the accused of the crime to be convicted under Section 304 (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 while the other three accused were acquitted. It is essential to note that the Special Judge Trilok Pal Singh had taken the view that the Section of 302 (Murder) of the IPC cannot be invoked in the said case as the intent of the Prime Accused Sandeep to kill the victim could not have been ascertained. Essentially, none of the four accused were convicted by the Special court for the offence of gangrape or murder.
The bench was apprised that now, the only issues which remain for consideration are those which were reduced in writing in the initial orders of this Court regarding cremation of the deceased, violation of Fundamentals Rights involved in respect thereof if any and the accountability of the officers in this regard. The aforementioned submissions by the Amicus Cur, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 21 in view of the adjournment sought by the State.
The rationale behind the July 2022 order of the High Court:
On July 26, 2022, a divisive bench of the High Court had registered a suo motu case on the the alleged murder and gang-rape of a Dalit girl in Hathras that took place on September 14, 2020. In July, the High Court had ordered the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider giving employment of one of the family members of the victim under the Government or Government Undertaking commensurate with the qualification possessed by them. The High Court passed the order taking note of the socio-economic backwardness of the family and the rights granted by the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989. As per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, it had been laid down that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe victim of gang rape and the family in case of murder, is eligible for pension of Rs. 1,000 per month, or employment to one member of the family of the deceased, or provision of agricultural land, a house, if necessary, by outright purchase.
Based upon the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Court came to the conclusion that the victim’s family has a legal basis for its claim of relocation and job. Notably, the Bench had rejected the argument state that the provision of employment in such a case would violate Articles 14 and 16, and held them to be without any constitutional and legal basis.
The High Court had also taken into account the fact that the majority of the population in the village belonged to the upper castes and the family was being targeted by other villagers. It was further provided in the court that even after being under the security of Central Reserve Police Force, whenever the family members go anywhere, they would be subjected to abuse and objectionable comments in the village. In this backdrop, the Court had directed the State to relocate the family elsewhere within the state.
The order of the Court can be read here:
Background of the case:
On September 14, 2020, a 19-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gang raped by four ‘upper castes’ men and was left bleeding in the fields. She was found by her family and taken to the hospital in Aligarh. On September 28, 2020, she was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi where she succumbed the next day. After her death on September 29, 2020, her body was allegedly forcibly cremated by UP Police.
It is to be noted that on September 19, 2020, the victim had given her statement to the police where she had named Sandeep and another person. In addition to this, she had specifically mentioned she was attacked for resisting sexual advances. She even made a supplementary statement before the Magistrate and named Sandeep, Luvkush, Ravi and Ramu as assailant and accused them of sexual assault. Medical reports suggested use of force. on September 22, 2020, 8 days after the alleged gang rape had taken place, a swab test to ascertain sexual assault was conducted. Naturally, chances of finding evidence of sexual assault (such as sperm) were next to impossible.
The accused were charged under sections 376 (Rape), 376A (causing death due to rape), 376D (gang rape), 302 (murder) as well as section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [SC/ST Act]. On October 10, 2020 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was handed over the case for investigation.
Related:
Hathras conspiracy case: two more accused granted bail by the Allahabad High Court
Jamia student leader, Masud Ahmed, gets bail in ED case, to remain in jail in Hathras UAPA case
SC grants journalist Siddique Kappan bail in Hathras conspiracy case
He had no work in Hathras: Allahabad High Court denies bail to journalist Siddique Kappan
A year on, Hathras victim’s family awaits a house, pension and employment
Hathras case: Allahabad HC refuses to stay or transfer ongoing trial outside Hathras