In the current episode while many subordinates have been named and are to be charged Bhole Baba is not in the list of those who are guilty. The reason for the stampede was the propagation that the earth where Baba treads is a cure for most of the diseases. As he was leaving satsang people rushed to collect the earth where he had put his feet, a stampede took place and people died in the process. The popularity of the Baba can be gauzed from the fact that there was permission for 80000 people but 2.5 Lakh people turned up.

As such baba phenomenon is neither unique nor exclusive to India. Though of course their following has gone up in recent times. While some Babas come to be known for specific reasons there a big breed of them scattered all over the country. The notorious one’s like Asaram Bapu and Gurmeet Ram Rahim Insan are cooling their heels in jails for charges like rape and murder. The other successful Babas like Baba Ramdev have been reprimanded by the Supreme Court for his confident undermining of Modern medicine, Sri Sri Ravishanker was involved in damaging ecology of river Yamuna, Jaggi Vasudev’s Ashrams have various criminal charges as well. What is common among these Baba’s is their astounding self-confidence, wealth and promotion of blind faith.

In India while strict correlations are difficult it can be safely said that their prowess and impact has risen during the last few decades. It will not be easy to correlate their increasing prowess with the rise of politics in the name of religion. It is true that in other countries also such Charismatic’s (US) and holy Preachers in some Muslim countries do exist, but the impact of such people is phenomenal in India. These preachers do wear the garb of religion. They do not belong to the formal clergy, which is part of institutional religion. Most of them are self-made and their intelligence in mind reading and taking advantage of the weaknesses of followers is phenomenal.

The other side of this is why do people throng to them? Baba’s salesmanship is very intelligent but the followers have their own weaknesses which land them up in the lap of these frauds. Mostly people with severe problems, not easily solvable, look for soothing words, somebody who gives them confidence which tells them that their problems will be solved by the earth where Baba treads, or by subjugating themselves to the Baba, or by following some advice which Baba gives etc. The followers throng to these Babas mainly due to their own insecurity in the society. There are many other aspects of success of Babas, their nexus with the political class being one such. Just as an example Gurumeet Ram Rahim has been mostly on parole, especially when elections are due. One recalls Manoharlal Khattar took his whole Cabinet to Gurumeet to take his blessings.

The insecurity aspect of followers is the key to understanding their psychology. More the insecurity, more the submission to Baba, the common sense or rational thinking is given a total go bye by the followers. Insecurity aspect can be properly understood when we see the global scenario. In the countries where economic and social insecurity is less, religions are seeing a decline in their active followership. Key finding from Global Research by PEW shows that, “The United States is far from alone in this way. Western Europeans are generally less religious than Americans, having started along a similar path a few decades earlier. And the same secularizing trends are found in other economically advanced countries, as indicated by recent census data from Australia and New Zealand.

Centre for Political Studies Michigan’s Inglehart in “Giving up on God,” (pages 110-111) tells us “From about 2007 to 2019, the overwhelming majority of the countries we studied—43 out of 49 became less religious. The decline in belief was not confined to high-income countries and appeared across most of the world. Growing numbers of people no longer find religion a necessary source of support and meaning in their lives. Even the United States—long cited as proof that an economically advanced society can be strongly religious—has now joined other wealthy countries in moving away from religion.”

The challenge of combating this is not easy. Contrary to the Values of Constitution, Article 51 A (h) under the Fundamental Duties, “[It shall be the duty of every citizen of India] to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”, Babas flagrantly violate this clause, and those protecting or promoting them do the same?

In India at social level there are active groups who oppose the Babas scattered all around by practically exposing them, especially their tricks of taking out ash from hand or walking on fire. Maharashtra has seen Andhshraddha Nirmulan Samiti (Committee for eradication of Blind Faith) associated with Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. He was brutally murdered by activists of conservative groups probably like Sanatan Sanstha. Similarly the murders of Com Govind Pansare, Gauri Lankesh and Prof. Kalburgi were also done by similar forces. After the murder of Dr. Dabholkar, Maharashtra Assembly passed a law against blind faith and magic remedies.

We need to have similar laws all over the country and promote scientific temper. At the core can we march towards social and economic security for one and all? The present system where the poor are becoming poorer and rich are becoming richer needs to be substituted by Mahatma Gandhi’s vision where the social policies are planned keeping the last person in the line; in mind That alone can bring in a sense of security in society.

The post Why Babadom Flourishes: Insecurity is the Core appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through the official account of CPI(M) on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), we know that the Uttar Pradesh government has refused to appeal against the judgment of the Uttar Pradesh Court in the Hathras gang rape case that had acquitted 3 out of the 4 accused and had found the lone 4th accused to be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The post can be viewed here:

We are prisoners & accused are free: brother of Hathras victim to Brinda Karat & Subhashini Ali who went to inquire about their wellbeing. UP govt has refused to appeal against judgement that cleared 3 accused & found 4th guilty of “man slaughter” & not gangrape & murder. pic.twitter.com/PoguGaABUn

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) January 17, 2024

Notably, in March of 2023, a special court in the Hathras district of Uttar Pradesh had convicted the key accused Sandeep Sisodiya for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and had sentenced him to life imprisonment. On the other hand, the Special court judge, Trilok Pal Singh had acquitted Ravindra Singh, Ram Singh and Luvkush Singh. None of the four had been convicted of murder or gang-rape of the 19-year-old Dalit girl, even after having been charged for the same by the police.

While it may be a disappointment, the refusal of the Uttar Pradesh government to move the Allahabad High Court against the aforementioned judgment, the same does not come as a surprise in view of the deliberate role that the state government and authorities played in disrupting the investigation in the gang rape case. From delaying the swab test to ascertain sexual assault by eight days to refusal to transfer the District magistrate, the UP government had played an adversary to the victim and the Dalit family. It is crucial to remember that it was the state police that had forcibly cremated the dead body of the alleged gang rape victim after she had succumbed to her injuries.

It is important to highlight here the callousness shown by the Uttar Pradesh government while they sought to probe into the FIR relating to the alleged criminal conspiracy to spread caste conflict, instigating violence, incidents of vicious propaganda by sections of media and political interests. In the matter of Kerala-based journalist Siddique Kappan, who had been arrested in October 2020 while on his way to Hathras to report on the gang rape, the state government had vehemently opposed the grant of bail to Kappan in the Supreme Court, claiming that he had “deep links” with the Popular Front of India. In September 2022, the UP government had further claimed that Kappan was part of a larger conspiracy to “incite religious discord and spread terror.”

The same government was reported to not have complied with Allahabad High Court’s order to provide employment to one of the family members. On August 28, 2023, the Allahabad High Court, which had been monitoring the Hathras gang rape case, had been informed by Amicus Jaideep Narain Mathur about the same. 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.

Ironically, 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. And yet, the Uttar Pradesh government has refused to challenge the judgment delivered by the Sessions Court.

The gang rape and murder of the teenage Dalit girl had resulted in an uproar, which had put pressure on the state government as well as the courts to at least create an illusion of justice being delivered to the perpetrators. The final judgement in the case shows the vulnerability of Dalit women to sexual violence and caste-based discrimination prevailing in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the indifference of the state government, who chose to protect the dominant caste perpetrators, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to address these deep rooted issues in UP.

Related:

Hathras Verdict: Justice not delivered

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

Hathras Case: Journalist Siddique Kappan moves SC seeking bail

A year on, Hathras victim’s family awaits a house, pension and employment

The post UP government fails to appeal against Hathras gang rape judgment acquitting 3 accused – are we surprised? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Verdict of the Court-

1. Conviction of Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu): The court found Sandeep Sisodia guilty under Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This verdict suggests that the court believed that Sandeep was involved in the incident, but it did not consider it a premeditated murder. Instead, the court appears to have concluded that the victim’s death was the result of Sandeep dragging her by her dupatta, which led to her becoming unconscious and ultimately dying during treatment.
   • Reasons for Conviction: The court cited evidence such as medical examination reports, post-mortem reports, and the victim’s mother’s testimony as credible. The presence of ligature marks and the statements made by the victim and her mother were likely key factors in the court’s decision to convict Sandeep. The court may have believed that while Sandeep’s actions resulted in the victim’s death, there might not have been a clear intent to murder her.
2. Acquittal of Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush: The court acquitted the other three accused, Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush, of all charges, including gang rape and murder.
   • Reasons for Acquittal: The court appears to have found insufficient evidence to link Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush directly to the crime. It noted inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and suggested the possibility of her being tutored due to the political nature of the case. Additionally, the court cited the principle that “FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India, meaning that inconsistencies in the victim’s statements did not necessarily render her entire testimony unreliable.

Ratio:

The court’s central observations and findings can be summarised as follows:

1. Factual Inquiries:
   • The court conducted a detailed examination of the factual context, highlighting the victim’s identity as a Dalit woman and the circumstances surrounding the brutal assault on September 14, 2020.
   • The court noted that the victim’s family initially faced difficulties in registering an FIR, and there were allegations of insensitivity by the police, which led to criticism of their handling of the case.
2. Charges and Evidence:
   • The accused faced charges under various sections of the IPC, including rape, murder, and gang rape, as well as under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
   • The victim’s statement, made as a dying declaration before a magistrate, served as a crucial piece of evidence in the case. In this statement, she named her attackers and provided details of the assault.
   • Medical reports and post-mortem findings corroborated the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, including ligature marks on her neck.
3. Acquittal of Three Accused:
   • The court acquitted three of the four accused of all charges, including gang rape and murder. The accused Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush were found not guilty.
   • The court’s decision was based on an analysis of the evidence and the victim’s statements, which did not conclusively establish the involvement of these three accused in the crimes.
4. Conviction of Sandeep Sisodia:
   • The court found the fourth accused, Sandeep Sisodia alias Chandu, guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
   • The court ruled that Sandeep had dragged the victim by her dupatta, resulting in her unconsciousness and eventual death due to complications arising from a cervical fracture. However, the court did not find evidence to establish the intent to murder the victim.
   • The verdict led to Sandeep’s conviction and potential sentencing to life imprisonment or up to ten years in prison.

Obiter:

While the central findings of the court related to the acquittal of three accused and the conviction of Sandeep Sisodia, certain obiter dicta were also significant:

1. Principle of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”:
   • The court noted that the principle of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. It recognized that witnesses may have elements of falsehood or exaggeration in their testimonies.
   • The court emphasized the duty of the court to carefully analyse and separate credible evidence from unreliable portions.
2. Medical Evidence and Ligature Marks:
   • Medical evidence played a critical role in the court’s judgment. Doctors who treated the victim and conducted the post-mortem examinations provided corroborative evidence of the injuries sustained.
   • The court noted that while ligature marks were found on the victim’s neck, there were no marks on the rear side of her neck. Medical experts opined that the injury might have been caused by a single impact or forceful jerk, rather than strangulation through a dupatta.
3. Intent to Murder:
   • The court found that the evidence did not establish the intent to murder the victim. It noted that the victim had continued to converse about the incident for eight days after the assault, suggesting a lack of intention to kill.
4. Legal Provisions and Sentencing:
   • The court highlighted the legal provisions under which the accused were charged and convicted. It noted that Sandeep Sisodia was liable for punishment under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which could lead to life imprisonment or up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Key Takeaways:

The court’s observations in the Hathras case carry significant implications and key takeaways:

1. Caste Discrimination and Vulnerability: The case underscores the vulnerability of Dalit women to sexual violence and caste-based discrimination, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to address these deeply rooted issues.
2. Gender-Based Violence: The verdict serves as a stark reminder of the persistent problem of gender-based violence in India. It emphasizes the need for sustained efforts to address root causes and ensure justice for survivors.
3. Legal System Scrutiny: The case prompted intense scrutiny of India’s legal system, with questions about evidence, witness treatment, and trial conduct. This raises concerns about the delivery of justice in similar cases and the need for procedural reforms.
4. Advocacy and Public Outrage: The Hathras case ignited widespread public outrage and advocacy efforts, demonstrating the power of civil society organizations, activists, and citizens in demanding accountability and systemic changes.
5. Complexity of Legal Cases: The case exemplifies the complexity of legal cases involving sexual violence, where evidence, medical reports, and witness testimonies play pivotal roles in determining the outcome.

In conclusion, the Hathras case serves as a poignant reminder of the multifaceted challenges India faces in its pursuit of gender equality, social justice, and the eradication of caste-based discrimination.

Importance from a Human Rights Perspective:

The Hathras case is not merely a criminal trial; it represents a significant human rights issue with implications that stretch beyond the courtroom. It exposes glaring doubts about due process and the treatment of marginalized communities in the Indian criminal justice system. The victim’s family and activists argue that the initial investigation by the Uttar Pradesh police was marred by bias and negligence, pointing to systemic issues that continue to hinder the protection of human rights.

One of the most distressing aspects of the Hathras case is the manifestation of deeply ingrained caste-based discrimination in India. The victim, a Dalit, faced not only the trauma of sexual assault but also the potential denial of justice due to her social status. This verdict further questions the state’s commitment to protecting the rights of marginalized communities, especially those from lower castes.

Positive Implications on Human Rights Jurisprudence:

Despite the ghastly nature of the Hathras mass crime, are there any aspects that can be viewed positively from a human rights perspective?

Firstly, the judgment underscores the importance of dying declarations in rape trials. While the court’s decision has been seriously disputed, the fact that it reaffirms the significance of the victim’s statements as powerful evidence in such cases, is a small positive. Dying declarations serve as a testament to the victim’s last wishes, providing crucial insights into the circumstances of their assault.

Secondly, there is little consolation in the fact that the verdict reignites discussions about the role of law enforcement agencies and the need for accountability in handling sensitive cases. The hasty cremation of the victim without her family’s consent shocked the nation, and it reflects broader issues surrounding police conduct and the potential consequences of such actions. The case acts as a reminder that accountability is a cornerstone of human rights protection. The officials responsible for carrying out the illegal and hasty cremation in the dark of the night, and the failure of the investigation and prosecution in tracking who’s orders resulted in this criminality is another huge flaw in the verdict.

However, the fact that the individuals in law enforcement responsible for the 11-day delay in recording the forensic evidence have gone unpunished is a huge flaw in the judicial pronouncement.

Negative Implications on Human Rights Jurisprudence:

However, the significant negative implications stemming from the Hathras verdict outweigh any others, particularly those concerning the handling of evidence and the potential normalisation of victim-blaming.

The court’s reliance on a forensic report, conducted after an 11-day gap, raises concerns about the timing and integrity of evidence collection and as mentioned the above, the reluctance of the court to hold any official or medico-legal professional guilty for this dereliction of duty. This may yet set one more dangerous precedent, potentially allowing perpetrators to evade justice due to procedural delays. In essence, it shifts the burden of proof away from the accused and onto the victim, undermining the principles of justice and human rights.

The scepticism exhibited in the judgment about the victim’s changing statements could well normalise victim-blaming and deter survivors from coming forward to report sexual assault, fearing they may not be believed. This is especially troubling in a country where stigmatisation of survivors and underreporting of sexual violence are already major concerns.

Future Litigation, Advocacy, and Activism:

The Hathras case is far from settled, as the victim’s family has decided to appeal the verdict, marking the beginning of an ongoing battle for justice. Future litigation will focus on highlighting the inadequacies of the judgment, seeking redress for the victim’s family, and setting important legal precedents.

Beyond the legal realm, the Hathras case has sparked widespread human rights activism. Civil society organizations, activists, and concerned citizens have united to demand justice for the victim. This verdict serves as a rallying point for ongoing advocacy efforts to address caste-based discrimination, gender-based violence, and systemic issues within the Indian legal system.

Subsequent Use in Legal Proceedings and Advocacy:

The Hathras verdict is likely to be cited in future legal proceedings and human rights advocacy in India for several reasons:

Firstly, the handling of the victim’s statements, particularly her dying declaration, will likely be cited in cases where such declarations are central to the prosecution’s argument. This highlights the importance of transparent and thorough investigation procedures that ensure the preservation of crucial evidence.

Secondly, advocates and activists may invoke this case to shed light on the challenges faced by Dalits and other marginalized communities in accessing justice and confronting caste-based discrimination. The Hathras case is not an isolated incident but rather emblematic of systemic issues that persist in India.

Lastly, the case serves as a reminder of the need for accountability and impartiality within law enforcement agencies and the casualness and failure to commandeer such accountability by India’s courts. Future efforts to reform police procedures and practices may draw on the Hathras case as a stark example of what can go wrong when authorities fail to uphold human rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Hathras case verdict, from a critical perspective, raises deep concerns and questions about the state of justice, particularly for marginalised communities in India. While it is important to acknowledge the complexities of legal proceedings, this judgment has been met with significant scepticism and disappointment. The acquittal of three of the accused, despite compelling evidence and the victim’s dying declaration, highlights the deficiencies within the criminal justice system.

From a human rights perspective, the verdict signals a potential setback in the pursuit of justice for survivors of sexual violence and marginalized communities, particularly Dalits. The scepticism regarding the victim’s statements and the reliance on procedural technicalities may deter survivors from coming forward, further perpetuating a culture of silence and impunity.

Moreover, the Hathras case verdict underscores the need for urgent reforms in the police and legal systems to ensure unbiased investigations, timely evidence collection, and transparent proceedings. It also underscores the broader issues of gender-based violence and caste discrimination that continue to plague Indian society.

While this judgment is a significant setback, it has also ignited a renewed sense of determination among human rights activists, civil society organizations, and concerned citizens. It serves as a poignant reminder that the fight for justice, equality, and the eradication of caste-based discrimination is far from over.

Background

Factual Context:

In September 2020, a 19-year-old Dalit woman, belonging to one of India’s most marginalized communities, became the victim of an appalling crime. Her identity as a Dalit is significant because it exposes the entrenched issues of caste discrimination and vulnerability faced by this community. Dalits, also known as Scheduled Castes, have historically endured social exclusion, economic disadvantage, and violence in India’s rigid caste system.

The incident unfolded in Hathras district, Uttar Pradesh, a state notorious for high rates of gender-based violence. On September 14, 2020, the victim and her mother were working in the fields when the young woman was brutally attacked. She was found in a severely injured state, her tongue cut off, and her body bearing signs of extreme violence. Her mother, who was working nearby, rushed to her side upon hearing her cries. This incident shattered the victim’s life and irrevocably altered the course of her family’s existence.

Following the attack, the victim was rushed to the local police station to report the crime. However, the police’s response at this initial stage of the incident became a subject of scrutiny and criticism. Allegedly, they delayed registering an FIR (First Information Report) and displayed insensitivity towards the victim and her family. Reports suggest that the police even suggested that the family take the victim away, further compounding their trauma.

The victim’s family persisted in their quest for justice, and an FIR was eventually filed against one of the accused, Sandeep, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section pertains to assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. The victim’s statement at this juncture, detailing her ordeal, marked the beginning of a harrowing legal journey. The accused included-

1. Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu): Sandeep was the primary accused in the case and was initially charged with several offenses, including rape, attempt to murder, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. His name was prominently featured in the victim’s initial statement, and he was arrested soon after the incident.
2. Ravi: Ravi was one of the three other accused in the case. He, along with the others, faced charges of gang rape, murder, and other related offenses. The victim’s statements and the evidence presented in the case implicated Ravi in the assault.
3. Ramu: Similar to Ravi, Ramu was accused of participating in the gang rape and murder of the victim. The charges against him were severe, and he was a key figure in the case.
4. Lavkush: Lavkush was the fourth accused in the case. He, too, faced charges related to the gang rape and murder of the victim. All four accused were from the same village as the victim and belonged to a different caste group.

It’s important to note that the legal proceedings against these accused individuals involved a complex investigation, the examination of evidence, and testimonies from witnesses. The recent court verdict in the case resulted in the acquittal of Ravi, Ramu, and Lavkush, while Sandeep Sisodia (Chandu) was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The case’s legal outcomes have sparked significant debate and controversy, with concerns raised about the handling of the trial and the need for justice in cases of sexual violence and caste-based discrimination. Public and legal discussions surrounding this case continue to focus on the broader issues of gender-based violence, caste discrimination, and access to justice for marginalized communities in India.

Historical Context:

To fully comprehend the Hathras case, one must appreciate its historical backdrop, marked by caste-based discrimination and gender-based violence.

Caste-Based Discrimination in India:

Caste-based discrimination in India has a long and deeply entrenched history, dating back thousands of years. It is a system of social hierarchy and stratification where individuals are categorized into specific groups known as “castes.” At the top of this hierarchy are the “Brahmins” (priestly class), followed by various other castes, with the “Dalits” (Scheduled Castes) at the bottom. Dalits have historically been subjected to systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and economic marginalization.

The Hathras case highlighted the victim’s identity as a Dalit, emphasizing the structural inequalities and vulnerabilities faced by this community. Dalit women, in particular, are at the intersection of caste and gender-based discrimination, often experiencing multiple forms of oppression. They are more susceptible to violence, exploitation, and abuse, making them one of the most marginalized groups in Indian society.

Gender-Based Violence in India:

Gender-based violence is a pervasive and persistent issue in India. It encompasses various forms of violence directed against individuals based on their gender, with women and girls disproportionately affected. This includes sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, acid attacks, and other forms of abuse.

The Hathras case is one of many instances that have evoked memories of previous cases of sexual violence against women in India, such as the infamous 2012 Delhi gangrape case. The Delhi case, which involved a brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman on a bus, sparked outrage and led to nationwide protests demanding justice and changes in the legal framework.

Reforms and Challenges:

In the wake of the 2012 Delhi gangrape case, India did introduce significant reforms to its laws related to sexual violence. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, commonly known as the Nirbhaya Act, was enacted to provide stricter penalties for perpetrators of sexual offenses, including the death penalty in certain cases.

However, despite legislative changes and increased public awareness, gender-based violence continues to be a pressing issue in India. Several factors contribute to this ongoing problem, including:

1. Patriarchal Norms: Deep-rooted patriarchal norms and attitudes persist in many parts of Indian society, perpetuating the subjugation of women and girls.
2. Underreporting: Many cases of gender-based violence go unreported due to social stigma, fear of retaliation, and distrust of the criminal justice system.
3. Slow Legal Processes: Delays in the legal system can discourage survivors from seeking justice, and cases can linger in courts for years.
4. Structural Inequalities: Intersectional factors, such as caste and class, intersect with gender, intensifying vulnerabilities for marginalized women.
5. Police and Legal System Challenges: Issues related to police responsiveness, evidence collection, and the conduct of trials can hinder the pursuit of justice.

In conclusion, the Hathras case serves as a stark reminder that addressing gender-based violence and caste-based discrimination in India requires not only legal reforms but also significant societal changes. These issues are deeply interconnected and demand a comprehensive and sustained effort to combat them effectively and ensure a more equitable and just society for all.

Legal Context:

The legal context of the Hathras case is multifaceted and pivotal to understanding its progression.

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC): The IPC is India’s primary criminal code, encompassing provisions related to a wide range of offenses, including rape, assault, and murder. The accused in the Hathras case faced charges under various sections of the IPC, including Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: In addition to the IPC charges, the accused were also charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This legislation is designed to protect Dalits and tribal communities from violence, discrimination, and exploitation.
3. Dying Declaration: A critical element of the legal proceedings in the Hathras case was the victim’s dying declaration. In this statement, made before a magistrate, she named her attackers and provided details of the horrific assault. The dying declaration served as a crucial piece of evidence in the trial.
4. Criminal Investigation: The case underwent initial investigation by local police authorities but was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI is India’s premier federal investigative agency, responsible for handling complex and high-profile cases.
5. Court Proceedings: The trial of the accused in the Hathras case marked a critical juncture in the legal process. In a recent and highly contentious court verdict, three of the four accused were acquitted of all charges, including gang rape and murder. The fourth accused, Sandeep Sisodia, was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This verdict has triggered a flurry of debates, legal challenges, and public outrage.

Role of the UP government and administration-

The administration and government’s handling of the Hathras case after the tragedy came under intense scrutiny and raised significant concerns about attempts to suppress information, undermine the victim’s family, and challenge court orders related to providing help and reparation to the family. Here’s an overview of some key events and actions taken by the Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) government:

1. Hasty Cremation: One of the most controversial actions taken by the U.P. government was the hasty cremation of the victim’s body against the wishes of her family. The family had requested that they be allowed to perform the last rites, but the administration conducted the cremation in the middle of the night without their consent. This move was widely criticized and seen as an attempt to quickly dispose of evidence and prevent protests.
2. Secrecy and Media Restrictions: The government-imposed restrictions on media access to Hathras and the victim’s family, limiting the flow of information about the case. Journalists were reportedly barred from entering the village, and their movement was restricted. This raised concerns about transparency and accountability in the investigation.
3. Blocking Opposition Leaders: Several political leaders from opposition parties, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, were prevented from visiting the victim’s family. This raised questions about the government’s willingness to allow scrutiny and support for the family.
4. Challenging Court Orders: The U.P. government was involved in legal battles challenging court orders related to the case. When the Allahabad High Court initially ordered a special investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the case, the government challenged this decision but later withdrew its appeal.
5. Denial of Compensation: The government faced criticism for initially denying compensation to the victim’s family. Compensation is typically provided to families of victims of crimes, especially in cases of sexual violence. However, the government’s reluctance to provide compensation added to the family’s distress.
6. Allegations of Intimidation: There were allegations of intimidation and harassment of the victim’s family. They claimed that they were under pressure to change their statements and were not allowed to speak freely. This raised concerns about their safety and ability to seek justice.
7. Political Statements: Some political leaders and officials made statements that appeared to downplay the severity of the crime or question its veracity. These statements were widely criticized for being insensitive and perpetuating a culture of victim-blaming.
8. Lack of Empathy: The government’s response to the case was criticized for a lack of empathy and understanding of the trauma experienced by the victim’s family. This included insensitivity displayed by police officers at the initial stages of the case.

In summary, the administration and the U.P. government faced widespread criticism for their actions and responses in the aftermath of the Hathras case tragedy. Many saw these actions as attempts to bury the case, suppress information, and undermine the victim’s family’s pursuit of justice. The challenges posed by the government to court orders and its handling of the case further fuelled concerns about the state of the criminal justice system and the protection of human rights in India.

Related:

Hathras: Elusive justice and legal nuances with Teesta Setalvad

Hathras Horror: Tracking the trauma

The post Hathras Verdict: Justice not delivered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It should be noted that the Uttar Pradesh police’s Special Task Force has filed charges against nine people connected to the Popular Front of India (PFI) for allegedly committing offences such as sedition, criminal conspiracy, funding of terrorism, and other offences. Among the ones that were charge sheeted were the leader of the group’s student wing, K.A. Rauf Sherif, and Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan. Furthermore, they were also accused of engaging in money laundering activities, claiming that the motivation of those involved was to “incite communal riots and spread terror” in the wake of the Hathras gang rape case.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 153 (A) (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, and place of birth, residence, and language), 124(A) (sedition), 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings…) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) had been used against the said nine accused. Additionally, they are accused of violating several sections of the IT Act as well as Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, which relate to raising funds for terror acts.

Earlier, in December 2022, the Special Judge, NIA/ATS, Additional District and Sessions had denied bail to Sherif and Tunnu. Challenging the order, they moved to the HC.

Arguments made by the appellants:

The two appellants were represented by Advocates Amarjeet Singh Rakhra and Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi. It was argued by the counsels that the current two appellants were not listed in the original FIR, which had initially been lodged in the case against four other accused parties. Furthermore, it was asserted that there was no evidence to support any claims made that they two accused were affiliated with any terrorist groups, were looking for donations or financial support, or had any connections with the PFI or the CFI.

It was further argued that, in light of the provisions of Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, the court handling the accused’s bail application had a responsibility to determine and satisfy itself regarding whether there were good reasons and reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is prima facie guilty of the charges against them.

Their main argument was that the Special Court wholly failed to satisfy itself as to whether Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA applied, and refused the bail requests solely because a charge sheet had been filed against him, and the co-accused’s bail request had also been denied. The bench was also informed that the High Court had earlier granted bail to co-accused Kappan and Mohammad Alam.

Arguments made by the state:

On the other hand, the counsel representing the State contended that the appellants are connected to the PFI organisation, which engages in terrorist actions in the nation and tries to sow discord there by promoting caste and religious prejudice. Furthermore, it was argued that the Special Court had good cause to deny the bail application because there is a substantial amount of evidence against the appellants.

Order of the court:

After having heard the contentions put forth by both the counsels for parties and upon perusal of the records, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I noted that initially, the FIR came to be lodged against four accused persons which did not include the names of the appellants and no incriminating article was recovered from their possession or their pointing out.

“The investigating agency has already filed a charge sheet against the appellant and the trial is yet to commence. The named co-accused, namely, Sidhique Kappan, who has been assigned the lead role, has been granted bail by the Apex Court…The other co-accused, namely, Alam @ Mohammad Alam, who was named in the F.I.R. and Atikur Rahman have been granted bail by a Division Bench of this Court,” the Court observed in its order. (Para 16)

The Court also noted that the two appellants have been languishing in jail since a significant amount of time, with Rauf having been incarcerated since February 2021 and Tunnu since November 2022.

Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court opined that the court below had failed to appreciate the material available on record. With this, the Court granted the two appellants bail.

The order can be read here:

Related:

Jamia student leader, Masud Ahmed, gets bail in ED case, to remain in jail in Hathras UAPA case

Hathras gangrape: Only Sandeep Sisodiya convicted for culpable homicide, and not for rape

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: CJP moves MEITY against news channel for spreading hate and misinformation

The post Hathras conspiracy case: two more accused granted bail by the Allahabad High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking judgment from Hathras, the Special Judge Trilok Singh Pal (SC/ST Act) has acquitted all the four accused persons involved in the horrific Hathras gangrape and murder case. The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) has issued a strong statement protesting the judgement.

This was a case in which a 19 year old Dalit girl was gang-raped and brutally assaulted on September 14, 2020 by four upper caste Thakur men of the village while working in the fields, and later died in hospital on September 29, 2020. Only one main accused Sandeep has been convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and offences under the SC/ST Act. AIDWA’ statement says that “the judgment which reeks of patriarchal and casteist bias acquits all the four upper caste men of gang-rapeand murder, and does not give any credence to even the dying declaration of the victim, and the brutal assault obviously suffered by her.”

Since the case was reported, organisations like AIDWA and several others had pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Police had acted in a biased manner and botched up the investigation from the beginning. In this case, there had been a history of harassment of the victim by the main accused Sandeep for a long time. Though the girl named the accused just after the incident, the Police did not include the charge of gang-rape in the first FIR. This was captured by reporters on video. Though the girl was shifted to an Aligarh Hospital the medical examination of the girl was done eight days after the incident, by which time, obviously, no evidence of rape was present either on the clothes of the girl which had been changed or on parts of her body which had been repeatedly washed. However, it was noted that she suffered fractures due to repeated strangulation. The doctor in the hospital refused to rely on the victim’s statement and stated that he would wait for the forensic evidence to testify whether rape had taken place, despite knowing that the forensic examination was meaningless as the samples had been sent several days after the incident. The victim’s mother who had found her had also clearly stated that blood was flowing from her vagina.

The statement says that even the DGP of Uttar Pradesh had with an obvious bias pronounced that no rape had taken place on the basis of the meaningless forensic test. In Hathras, the upper caste Thakurs mounted an attack on the girl’s family claiming that no crime had been committed. Following an intervention application filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in the Supreme Court, on witness protection, the family was provided security by the CRPF.

It is also relevant to remember that when the girl passed away on September 29 due to her injuries, the Police hastily cremated her and did not allow the family to go near her when the cremation was taking place. Several outraged citizens and organisations including lawyers had then approached the Supreme Court for the transfer of this case to the CBI. The Allahabad High Court also took up suo moto notice and agreed to monitor the investigation which was transferred to the CBI.

The Special Judge held that because the victim had not named all the accused in the statement she had given to a female Police Constable, five days after the incident, her statement given just before her death or after the incident or that of her mother could not be relied upon, and the victim could have been tutored to change her statement to allege gangrape by four persons. The Judge also held that the offence did not amount to murder as there was no intention to kill the girl.

The girl’s statement to the Aligarh Magistrate on September 22 amounted to a dying declaration. Even earlier on September 14, the victim had stated on video that the accused had done ‘zabardasti’ with her. The September 22 statement, which, in law, is a dying declaration statement has been established to be conclusive evidence for rape trials in India. The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of the dying declaration in several cases and stated that the dying declaration can form the sole basis of the conviction. 

However, the judgment in concluding that the accused Sandeep and others had no intention to murder the victim as she was conscious after the incident was also wrong. In the Nirbhaya case, in similar circumstances the Courts held that murder was proved. In any case the accused should be deemed to have known the consequences of their brutal attack on the victim.

The AIDWA has demanded that the CBI should immediately appeal against the verdict so that the injustice meted out to the victim and her family can be undone. The statement was issued by P K Sreemathi, president, advocate Kirti Singh, legal advisor and Mariam Dhawale, general secretary.

Related:

Hathras gangrape: Only Sandeep Sisodiya convicted for culpable homicide, and not for rape

A year on, Hathras victim’s family awaits a house, pension and employment

The post Appeal verdict AIDWA demands of CBI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 9, the Supreme Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who has been under the custody of the Uttar Pradesh Police since October 6, 2020. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Kappan was arrested while he was on his way to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh where a Dalit woman had died after allegedly being gang-raped. The police had claimed that the accused was trying to disturb the law and order in Hathras, and also alleged that the accused had links with the Popular Front of India (PFI).

Kappan was kept under custody for alleged offences under Sections 17/18 of UAPA, Sections 120B 153A/295A IPC, 65/72 IT Act for alleged conspiracy to incite riots following the gangrape-murder of a Dalit minor girl in Hathras. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had in August, 2022 rejected the bail application of Kappan,

Today, a bench comprising of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat garnted him bail, directing Kappan to remain in Delhi for the next six weeks after the release from an Uttar Pradesh prison and also mark his presence with local police station every week. There were other conditions too.

Proceedings before the court

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, was quoted by LiveLaw, as saying, “Kappan was in meeting of PFI in Sep 2020. It was said in the meeting that funding had stopped. It was decided in the meeting that they will go to sensitive areas and incite riots. On October 5, they had decided to go to Hathras to incite riots. He was funded with Rs 45,000 to create riots. He claimed to be accredited to a newspaper. But we have found that he was accredited to the official organization of PFI. PFI has to be notified as a terrorist group. One State, Jharkhand, has notified it is a terrorist group. He was there to incite riots. It’s a little bit like what happened in Bombay in 1990.”

He further submitted that a few ID cards and some material had been discovered. As reported by LiveLaw, the CJI then asked, “Are ID cards, some literature, and any explosives found? You claim to have discovered literature in his possession.” In response to this, Jethmalani said no explosives had been discovered, and Sr. Adv. Sibal claimed that the books were discovered in the vehicle. The court made note of the same and said, “At best you can say this man was travelling in a car, and he was apprehended with three others, there was some literature in the car, the other three are linked with PFI? They are accused of what offences…153A?”

As the accused were allegedly sowing discontent by raping a young girl, Sr. Adv. Jethmalani argued that this situation equally qualified for the application of section 124A. CJI Lalit questioned whether there was a chance that the trial’s conclusion would come quickly. Jethmalani responded by saying that the State was trying to hasten the trial.

The judges asked the defendants if they had taken any action in furtherance of the material that was discovered in the vehicle. Advocate Jethmalani responded by saying the State has statements from co-accused to back up his claim. The comments of the co-accused, however, could not be used as evidence, according to the CJI. When Jethmalani stated that they were attempting to get an approver, when CJI Lalit made the comment that if as long as approval was ongoing, the case was not ready for trial. 

The court then considered whether the material discovered was provocative in nature following Sr. Adv. Jethmalani describing it as “a toolbox for riots.”

At this point, Senior Adv. Kapil Sibal interjected and said that the referred literature was for “Justice for Hathras Girl.” When the bench further inquired into the contents of the literature contents which was believed to be possibly dangerous, Adv. Jethmalani offered that it suggests that they were on their way to Hathras and the type of material they were intending to disseminate among the Dalit population. He drew attention to a passage in the literature that described how the police had incinerated a body without informing the victim’s relatives. According to LiveLaw, he said, “This is propaganda, and the Dalits themselves are not involved in it, so the passions are stoked. There are instructions on how to write emails and run social media campaigns, which the PFI is doing.”

However, the bench was not satisfied with the arguments. CJI Lalit asked, “Every person has the right to free expression. He is trying to show that victim needs justice and raise a common voice. Is that a crime in eyes of law?” Referring to the Nirbhaya protests, Justice Bhat reportedly said, “Similar protests were in 2012 at India Gate, which led to a change of law. Till now you have not shown anything provocative.”

The CJI then questioned whether there was any documentation that demonstrates that Kappan must engage in rioting? Sr. Adv. Sibal emphasised that some of the documents had nothing to do with India and that the case as a whole was “not prosecution, but persecution.” Here, Jethmalani brought the court’s attention to a toolbox that contained advice on how to be safe during riots, including what to dress and what not to wear, how to deal with tear gas, and to run alongside black people if you see them doing so. However, Adv. Sibal was quick to interrupt stating that the toolkit was from “Black Lives Matter” protests from the United States of America.

Following the arguments, CJI Lalit said that the bench had decided to give Siddique Kappan bail.

The order said, “We have been taken through some of the documents placed on record. At this stage we refrain from dealing with and commenting upon the progress and investigation and material gathered by the prosecution in support of its case as the matter is still to be taken up at the stage of framing of charges.” But the court granted him bail saying, “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court within three days from today; and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure presence and participation of the appellant in the matter pending before it.”

The order further said, “Upon release, the appellant shall stay in the 3 city of Delhi and within the jurisdiction of Nizamuddin police Station and shall not leave the city of Delhi without express permission of the trial court; that the appellant shall record his presence in the concerned police station every Monday in a register maintained for the purpose; that this condition shall be applicable for first six weeks from the date of release.” It added, “After six weeks, the appellant shall be at liberty to go back to his native place and stay at Mallapuram in Kerala but shall report at the local police station in similar fashion that is to say on every Monday and mark his presence in the register maintained in that behalf.”

Kappan is to deposit his passport to the investigating authority, and is prohibited from contacting anyone connected with the case.

The entire order may be read here:

Background

Kerala based journalist Siddique Kappan has been lodged in Mathura Jail for over 300 days. The Uttar Pradesh Police have filed a 5,000-page chargesheet against him and 3 others who were arrested along with him, and have accused them of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from financial institutions in Doha and Muscat to create unrest in the state.

Kappan, who is also the secretary of Kerala Union of Working Journalists Delhi unit (KUWJ), and a senior reporter had gone to cover the Hathras horror of the alleged gangrape, and murder of the 19-year-old Dalit woman that had made headlines all around the world. Soon after his arrest, the KUWJ issued a statement expressing that they could not get in touch with Siddique and that neither the Hathras Police Station nor the State Police department could provide any information on taking him into custody. 

The Uttar Pradesh government submitted in its affidavit that they found “suspicious literature, one that could have an adverse impact on peace,” from their electronic devices. Police have also claimed that the four including Kappan were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student body Campus Front of India and that they were going to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation.”

Over these two years, he has reportedly been tortured and harassed by jail authorities, denied legal assistance and medicines (he is diabetic), taken a fall in the jail bathroom, contracted Covid-19, has been chained to a hospital bed preventing him from moving or even using the washroom, forced to urinate in a bottle, and has also lost his mother. Kappan had been granted bail twice by the Supreme Court for visiting his ailing mother and for being treated for COVID-19. On both times, there had not been any allegations that he tried to jump bail or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

As per a BBC News report, Kappan was “dragged and beaten with sticks on thighs, slapped on face, forced to stay awake from 6pm to 6am on the pretext of questioning and subjected to serious mental torture”. According to his wife Raihanath Kappan, the police repeatedly asked Siddique if he ate beef (many Hindus revere cows, and in recent years Muslims have been lynched for eating beef or transporting cattle), and also asked him why Muslims have an affinity to Dalits.

Related:

Siddique Kappan’s bail plea: Supreme Court issues notice
Hathras Case: Journalist Siddique Kappan moves SC seeking bail
He had no work in Hathras: Allahabad High Court denies bail to journalist Siddique Kappan
Siddique Kappan: A journalist who has spent 500+ days in prison, for just doing his job
10 months on, Siddique Kappan still in jail!
Delhi: Journalists demand release of Siddique Kappan who completed one year behind bars
Siddique Kappan not a “responsible journalist”, incites Muslims: UP Special Task force

The post SC grants journalist Siddique Kappan bail in Hathras conspiracy case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kerala based journalist Siddique Kappan has been lodged in Mathura Jail for over 300 days. The Uttar Pradesh Police have filed a 5,000-page chargesheet against him and 3 others who were arrested along with him, and have accused them of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from financial institutions in Doha and Muscat to create unrest in the state.

Kappan, who is also the secretary of Kerala Union of Working Journalists Delhi unit (KUWJ), and a senior reporter had gone to cover the Hathras horror of the alleged gangrape, and murder of the 19-year-old Dalit woman that had made headlines all around the world. Soon after his arrest, the KUWJ issued a statement expressing that they could not get in touch with Siddique and that neither the Hathras Police Station nor the State Police department could provide any information on taking him into custody. 

The Uttar Pradesh government submitted in its affidavit that they found “suspicious literature, one that could have an adverse impact on peace,” from their electronic devices. Police have also claimed that the four including Kappan were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student body Campus Front of India and that they were going to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation.”

Over these 10 months, he has reportedly been tortured and harassed by jail authorities, denied legal assistance and medicines (he is diabetic), taken a fall in the jail bathroom, contracted Covid-19, has been chained to a hospital bed preventing him from moving or even using the washroom, forced to urinate in a bottle, and has also lost his mother.

As per a BBC News report, Kappan was “dragged and beaten with sticks on thighs, slapped on face, forced to stay awake from 6pm to 6am on the pretext of questioning and subjected to serious mental torture”. According to his wife Raihanath Kappan, the police repeatedly asked Siddique if he ate beef (many Hindus revere cows, and in recent years Muslims have been lynched for eating beef or transporting cattle), and also asked him why Muslims have an affinity to Dalits.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

Subsequent to his arrest, KUWJ had moved a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court against his arrest, deeming it unconstitutional. An intervention application was also moved by the petitioner union seeking directions from the top court to permit Siddique to speak to his lawyers and family members. On November 16, a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice SA Bobde had also commented, “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions” while hearing his habeas corpus plea. However, he issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government but told the petitioners that they might be directed to approach the High Court. 

SG Tushar Mehta had submitted that the respondent State had no objection to Siddique meeting his lawyers. “There was no objection and there is no objection,” he said. He outright denied the allegations that Siddique Kappan was denied access to a lawyer. SabrangIndia had reported that on November 19, he was finally allowed to speak to his lawyer for five minutes after 49 days in Mathura jail.

Earlier on October 29, KUWJ had filed an application before the Supreme Court for an interim direction on permission for regular interview over video conferencing of Siddique, with his family members and lawyers. The application also prayed for a direction to the District Magistrate Mathura or a High Court Judge to visit the New Mathura Jail to take note of the human rights violation in it, and the courts of Mathura and to submit a detailed report before the top court in order to take corrective steps.

The application claimed that, “There are no justifiable grounds to reject the application of the counsel for the petitioner to meet the accused, and the said order violates fundamental rights of the Detenu and is against the spirit of rule of law.” The plea further stated that Kappan was not allowed to sign his Vakalatnama for authorising his counsel and when the said lawyer attempted to meet him in the Court during his production before the CJM, the Presiding Officer denied permission.

KUWJ denied that Kappan has any connection with Popular Front of India (PFI). In this regard, the KUWJ stated that the UP Government has taken inconsistent stances in two affidavits. While the first affidavit of UP Government filed on November 20 asserted that Kappan was the “office secretary” of PFI, the second affidavit filed by it on December 9 vaguely stated that Kappan was “in touch with the officials of PFI”.

The rejoinder reads, “It is a matter of grave concern that, the respondents have again claimed that Mr. Kappan has committed very serious offences, despite there being materials to support any allegations in the FIR, or in the investigation, other than vague statements, thereby seriously prejudicing the faith of the common man in the legal system and the procedure established by law.”

Interim bail to meet Kappan’s ailing mother

In early January, KUWJ had moved an urgent application in the Supreme Court, seeking Kappan’s immediate release from Mathura jail to meet his 90-year-old ailing mother, Kadija Kutty.

On February 15, the court granted him bail and said, “Mother is said to be in a critical situation and that she is likely not to survive for many days. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to permit the detenu to visit his mother and return to prison at the end of the 5th day.”

However, the court imposed strict conditions on Kappan. He was not allowed to give any interview to media outlets including social media and was also directed to not meet “members of the public”. He was entitled to meet his relatives and doctors only.

The Court also ordered that Kappan would be escorted by the Uttar Pradesh Police and his house will be guarded by the police from outside. Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed the bail plea on grounds of the serious charges against him but the former CJI intervened and said, “This is unfair Mr. Mehta. We are talking about the mother. We don’t think a man, whatever he may be, will lie about his dying mother”.

When his mother Khadija passed away in June, Kappan could not bid her goodbye or perform the last rites as he was lodged in Mathura jail.

Deteriorating health

When the country was reeling under the second wave, Kappan had collapsed in the bathroom with serious injuries and eventually tested positive for Covid-19. He was hospitalised in a Mathura hospital, when the KUWJ prayed for the top court to take cognisance of his deteriorating health condition and in the interest of justice, they sought for his transfer to New Delhi for treatment.

After taking the fall, his wife wrote to the former CJI complaining that Kappan was allegedly “chained to a hospital bed like an animal” and was not allowed to use the bathroom. Advocate Will Mathew told ThePrint that Raihanth found out about her husband’s condition when she spoke with him over the phone after he was moved to the hospital. Mathew said, “Before he was admitted, Kappan had a fall in the jail bathroom due to weakness. He sustained injuries on his face and was unable to speak clearly. He simply told her, when she called, that he did not want to stay in the hospital, or else, he would die. He said he would prefer to remain in jail.”

In an online event to pay tribute to the political prisoners, Raihanth had said, “Siddique called me from someone else’s phone. He fears that his jawline is broken. He can’t even eat properly; his face is paining. He was constantly asking to be discharged. After being hospitalised, he was not allowed to go to the bathroom. He is handcuffed to the bed. He is urinating in a plastic bottle lying on the bed itself. He said he cannot eat because of severe pain.”

Eventually, the Supreme Court ordered his transfer to a hospital in Delhi for treatment. The order read, “We are of the view that owing to the apparent precarious health condition of the arrestee, it is necessary to provide adequate and effective medical assistance to him and to allay all apprehension relating to his health, it would be in the interest of justice to shift Sidhique Kappan – the arrestee, either to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital or to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) or any other Government Hospital in Delhi for the proper medical treatment. The needful shall in this regard be done at the earliest. We state that the most precious fundamental ‘right to life’ unconditionally embraces even an undertrial.”

The order may be read here: 

In May, SabrangIndia reported that Siddique was “secretly discharged” from AIIMS and was taken to Mathura Jail. Raihanath told SabrangIndia, “I only learnt about it late last night that he may have been discharged. I did not know any updates nor was his lawyer informed and he was shifted secretly at night. He was brought to hospital and since May 1 when I came to Delhi, I had been trying to see him once.”

In July, Kappan’s bail plea was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Anil Kumar Pandey who ruled that there was prima facie case that the journalist and other co-accused were trying to disturb the law and other situation when they were heading to cover the gang-rape incident in Uttar Pradesh. The Mathura court also observed that Kappan’s financial transactions in his bank account revealed that he was provided with the funds to conduct “anti-national” and illegal activities. The judge ruled that they damaged the integrity of the nation by provoking a particular community.

The order dated July 6, 2021 may be read here: 

Latest development

After the Mathura court rejected his bail plea, Kappan through his lawyer, moved an application before the Mathura court, on July 21 seeking a copy of the charge sheet for the purpose of filing a bail application and for initiating further legal proceedings. The court is to decide the matter on August 23, 2021.

As per some sources, Kappan has submitted that he is willing to undergo a lie detector test/Brain Mapping test/Narco Analysis Test to prove his innocence. The court has also rejected Uttar Pradesh Police’s application seeking permission to conduct further probe against Kappan.

In June, the Mathura court also dropped the proceedings against Siddique Kappan and three other persons in connection with a case registered against them under charges related to apprehension of breach of peace while they were on their way to Hathras.

LiveLaw reported that The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Mant, Ram Datt Ram dropped the proceedings against them, as the police failed to complete the inquiry against them within the prescribed period of six months as stipulated under Section 116 (6) of CrPC. They have been discharged of the charges under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) sections 151(Arrest to prevent the commission of cognisable offences), 107 (Security for keeping the peace in other cases) and 116 (Inquiry as to truth of information).

Related:

UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’
Siddique Kappan “secretly” discharged from AIIMS, taken to Mathura jail
Shift Siddique Kappan to Delhi for medical treatment: SC to UP Gov’t
Siddique Kappan ‘chained like an animal in hospital’: Wife writes to CJI Ramana
SC grants 5 days interim bail for Siddique Kappan to meet his ailing mother
Freedom of Press in UP: Journalists killed, attacked, arrested, not allowed to talk to lawyer
We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions: Chief Justice of India
Hathras arrest: Union moves SC to allow journalist to talk to family, lawyers
No objection to Siddique meeting his lawyer: UP gov’t to SC

The post 10 months on, Siddique Kappan still in jail! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ms. Seema Kushwaha, learned counsel for the victim’s family asserted that the family had not received any assistance from the State except compensation. The hearing in the Hathras case that had led to countrywide outrage and protests took place at the Allahabad HC on on December 16, 2020 before Justices Rajan Roy and Pankaj Mithal,

She said, “The District Magistrate had given in writing to the family about acceptance of their demands based on their conversation with the Hon’ble Chief Minister of U.P. through video conferencing, however, except for the compensation part no other demand had been fulfilled.” She also proposed to file an affidavit involving a complaint by the father of the victim about the conduct of the District Magistrate to the Special Investigation Team. She stated that in spite the complaint, “it is not clear as to whether the same has been recorded by the SIT or not.”

To this, the court directed the State to file a report. “In this regard the State should file the first or interim report of the SIT”, the court said. With respect to the demand of the families, the State counsel S.V Raju submitted that as per instructions from the State and the District Magistrate, no such demands were made but he sought some time to get fresh instructions.

“He however offered to get back to us after seeking fresh instructions in view of the assertion of learned counsel for the victim’s family based on some written communication of the District Magistrate. He shall do so before the next date”, the court noted.

The Allahabad High Court has also gone through the audio-visual material on record and has proposed “to offer viewing of the same by learned counsel for various parties as also the then District Magistrate and SP Hathras and one or two members from victim’s family so as to facilitate further proceedings in this regard.”

They have fixed January 16, 2021 as the date for viewing Audio and Visual material available on record. After viewing the material, the court said that the counsels and the persons referred can file their responses thereafter. The parties are also expected to check the copies of the pleadings filed by other parties and file their responses, if need be.

During the hearing that took place on December 16, of this month, the court had noted that the CBI had not filed any status report on the investigation. On being asked to update the Court about the status of the investigation, the learned counsel for the C.B.I, Shri Anurag Singh informed that time for completing the investigation had been granted by the Court up to December 18.

According to media reports, the CBI filed its chargesheet today, on December 18, against the four accused men under sections of gang rape, murder and the SC/ST Act based on the then survivor’s “dying declaration” recorded on September 22.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had also moved an Intervention Application (Crl. M.P. No. 102148 of 2020) that was listed third in the Supreme Court order demanding a CBI probe, protection of witness by Central Para Military Force and appointment of a retired Supreme Court Judge to investigate the circumstances which led to the cremation of the victim on September 30.

The top court had ordered for Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) protection, a key plea in CJP’s application, for the family and witnesses as a confidence building measure. Subsequently, CJP had, through a Letter petition, dated October 9, 2020 sought to intervene in the ongoing suo moto matter in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench).

The next hearing is scheduled to happen on January 27, 2021 at 3:15 pm.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Hathras case: All accused to undergo brain mapping, polygraph tests
State Counsel appears to justify the hasty cremation of Hathras Victim: HC
CJP moves Supreme Court in Hathras case

The post Hathras case: UP State & DM deny accepting house and job requests of the victim’s family appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Allahabad High Court has issued notice to the central government as well as UP Police in the habeas Corpus petition of 3 alleged members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), who were arrested on their way to Hathras as they were going to meet the family of the family of the deceased rape victim. Atikur Rahman, a student, Alam, a cab driver and Masud, an activist were apprehended and arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on October 5.

Their bail applications were rejected by Mathura Court on November 13 stating that their bail is embargoed under section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They were all arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police after a laptop and some ‘objectionable’ literature relating to ‘Justice for Hathras Victim’ was allegedly recovered from their possession while they were en route to Hathras. It is alleged that they are linked with Popular Front of India’s (PFI) student wing Campus Front of India (CFI) and were traveling from Delhi.

A bench of Justices Pritinker Diwaker and SC Sharma has issued notices to the Central government, State of UP, Superintendent of Jail (District Jail, Mathura) and Prabal Pratap Singh (Sub-Inspector, PS Maant- the complainant).

The accused were charged under sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc), 124A (sedition), 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) of Indian penal Code; Sections 17 (raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of UAPA; and section 65 (Tampering with computer source documents), 72 (Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy) and 75 (Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India) of the IT Act

The plea filed by the 3 accused challenges the order of judicial remand and challenges the jurisdiction of Magistrate Court to issue the same as offences under the UAPA are to be tried by a special court. The plea contends that the two accused being social activists were going to meet the bereaved family and Alam, the taxi driver was ferrying them to the destination. It is argued that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought as the police realised that their detention was unlawful.

The pleas states, “the petitioners are unfortunate victims and scapegoats of the high-handed of the police authorities. They have committed no offence which is clear from a bare perusal of the sections slapped on them and the allegations in the FIR which are completely false and bogus and no case as against them is made out”.

The petitioner is the father-in-law of Atiku r Rahman, Shakhavat Khan who pleads that the writ be issued quashing the remand order of CJM Mathura and that the FIR also be quashed. An interim relief has also been sought for interim bail and permission to interact with lawyers and family members. Interestingly, the petition also urges that the District Judge, Mathura, be directed to visit the Mathura District jail to inquire into the human rights violations in the jail premises, if any, and submit a report before the High Court, as reported by LiveLaw.

The court has set the date for next hearing on December 14.

The order may be read here.

Related:

Hathras case: Mathura court rejects bail plea of two CFI members and driver
Hathras case: Mathura court reserves bail order of three charged for sedition
We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions: Chief Justice of India

The post Hathras case: Allahabad HC issues notice in habeas corpus petition of alleged PFI members appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mathura Court on November 13 rejected the bail applications of two Campus Front of India (CFI) members and one driver. All three applicants along with a journalist from Kerala were arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police on their way to Hathras in October.

Government Counsel (Mathura) Shiv Ram Singh told The Indian Express, “The court today (Friday) rejected the bail applications of Atiq-ur-Rahman, Masood and Alam. On Thursday, after hearing arguments from both sides, the court had reserved its order.”

The court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Mayur Jain delivered three separate orders as reported by LiveLaw. The bail pleas were rejected on the basis of the bar under Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The orders state that the bail pleas are liable to be rejected due to the embargo created under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. Section 43-D (5) states that:

“..no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

In addition to charges under UAPA for raising funds for a terrorist act, the court noted that the three were also accused of sedition and promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings that attract sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The court also took into account the allegations of the Prosecution that the accused intended to create disharmony and through the website ‘Justice for Hathras Victim’, they sought to propagate anti-national emotions among the youth.

The Single Bench observed that the prosecution’s allegations against the accused are ‘grave in nature’ and thus keeping in mind the mandate of Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, the Court rejected the three bail applications.

Background

The bail plea of the three accused were rejected in the lower court of Mathura on October 16 and hence they moved Sessions court as reported by SabrangIndia. In addition to this, journalist Siddique Kappan’s habeas corpus petition is pending before the Supreme Court and is listed on November 16.

On November 11 the court of District and Sessions Judge Sadhana Rani Thakur (Mathura), admitted the revision plea filed by the three men against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which allowed 48-hour police remand of the youths. The next hearing on this matter is on November 27.

They were all arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police after a laptop and some ‘objectionable’ literature relating to ‘Justice for Hathras Victim’ was allegedly recovered from their possession while they were en route to Hathras.

It is alleged that they are linked with Popular Front of India’s (PFI) student wing Campus Front of India (CFI) and were traveling from Delhi. Presently, the four men are lodged in Mathura Jail.

Related:

UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’
Hathras case: Mathura court admits revision plea of three charged for sedition
Hathras case: Mathura court reserves bail order of three charged for sedition

The post Hathras case: Mathura court rejects bail plea of two CFI members and driver appeared first on SabrangIndia.