The breakfast table was filled with apprehension, shock, disbelief, and outrage. Every news channel, every WhatsApp forward, every news headline pointed to the RG Kar Medical College rape case. A doctor, after a 36-hour shift, tried to get some sleep and woke up to a man, trying to rape her. She put up a strong fight, however she succumbed. The gruesome details of the crime lingered in the air, refusing to be ignored.

The conversation started with my parents and grandparents, telling me to be careful, not to go out at night or wear revealing clothes, the usual. I did not have the strength left in me to argue, because who is to explain to them that a woman was raped in her scrubs, the scrubs my own parents and grandparents wear to work every day.

I am sure, this was not just my breakfast table on the August 10, but every Indian’s breakfast table conversation. The mainstream media called this case “the Nirbhaya 2.0.” The Nirbhaya rape case took place in 2012, which naturally made me ask did no other rape case take place in 14 years? Or did we as a society collectively normalise rape, that only one stood out to us?

A few days later, ironically on the August 15, as the nation celebrated its independence, a 14-year-old Dalit girl was abducted, brutally gang-raped, and murdered in Muzaffarnagar. On the same day, a 6-year-old Dalit girl was raped by a 57-year-old government official in Bulandshahr. Yet, despite the horror of these crimes, there were no protests, no candlelight marches, and no public outrage. These are just two of the many cases that greeted me on the morning of our Independence Day — a day meant to commemorate freedom, but one that served as a reminder to the fact that we are not truly independent.

This is not an anomaly; it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Ten incidents of rape against Dalit women and girls are reported every single day in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2021, the country recorded an average of 86 rapes daily and 49 offenses against women every hour. Yet, despite these staggering numbers, the response from society remains uneven, disturbingly selective, and all too often silent.

What was most striking in the discussions I came across was the focus on the victim’s professional identity — “A doctor was raped.” The outrage, when it does occur, seems to stem from the victim’s social status rather than the sheer horror of the crime itself. It begs the question: why isn’t the conversation centered around the fact that a woman, regardless of her profession, was raped? Why isn’t anyone addressing the pervasive rape culture that we, as a society, have allowed to flourish over the years? Don’t all women — irrespective of their caste, religion, or profession — deserve safety, justice, and outrage when those rights are violated?

Incidents like Hathras, where a young Dalit woman was raped and murdered, went unnoticed by the broader public consciousness. The brutal assaults and humiliation of women in Manipur failed to ignite a sustained national outcry. NCRB data detailing the grim reality of violence against women in India goes largely ignored. These heinous crimes seem to only shake the conscience of urban Indians when they happen to someone with whom they can identify, someone from their own social or economic background, someone whose suffering they deem worthy of their empathy.

Newspapers can easily excuse themselves by saying that if they were to cover every rape case in the country, reports of rape would fill up all their pages. But dailies also let go of numerous rapes that deserve coverage given the interplay between sexual crimes and caste dominance.

This selective outrage exposes a disturbing hierarchy of human worth — one that is deeply entrenched in our collective psyche. A Dalit girl in a remote village is not considered “one of us,” while a doctor or a professional woman living in an urban setting somehow becomes a more relatable figure, her pain more tragic and her suffering more visible. Such a mindset lays bare the layers of privilege, casteism, and discrimination that continue to permeate Indian society, even 77 years after independence.

If our outrage is conditional, if our empathy is selective, then we are complicit in perpetuating the very structures of violence and discrimination we claim to condemn. To be truly free, to truly honour the values of independence, what must be confronted are not just the acts of violence themselves but also the social hierarchies that dictate which lives are mourned and which are forgotten. The toxic culture that allows such crimes to happen, time and again, with little to no accountability can be dismantled only when, this selective outcry does not take place, when society and the mainstream media stop framing certain victims as more deserving of justice, attention, and outrage than others.

Independence Day should be a reminder not just of our freedom from colonial rule but of the ongoing struggle for true equality — a reminder that no woman, regardless of her caste, class, or profession, should be seen as expendable in the eyes of society.

What is equally selective, and perhaps even more troubling, is the pattern of outrage directed against the government. The public and political class do not respond uniformly when those in power are implicated in or associated with crimes. During the Hathras case, a young Dalit woman was brutally raped by four upper caste men eventually succumbing to her injuries, there was no significant demand for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to step down, even as the state administration was accused of mishandling the case, burying the body of the victim without the family’s consent and intimidating the victim’s family. Similarly, when violence erupted in Manipur, leading to countless atrocities against women, women were made to parade around naked the state’s Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh[1] faced no substantial or sustained calls for resignation from those in power.

This inconsistency extends across the political spectrum. The former Chief Minister of Karnataka, B.S. Yediyurappa, now faces charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, yet this has not led to mass demands for accountability or political consequences. Meanwhile, Prajwal Revanna, accused of non-consensually recording and raping more than 400 women, was still allowed to stand in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The lack of public outrage or even discussion around these issues raises an uncomfortable question: Is the outrage we see often politically motivated? Are calls for accountability determined more by political convenience than by principles of justice?

However, this is a question whose answer might be too troubling to confront. It suggests a society where justice is not blind but rather selectively applied, depending on who the perpetrator is and how politically expedient it is to demand action. It reflects a disturbing trend where political allegiance, rather than moral clarity, dictates public outrage. When powerful figures are protected by their political affiliations, the very foundation of democratic accountability is weakened. The selective outrage erodes public trust, making it appear that justice is a tool wielded for political gain rather than a right owed to every citizen.

The West Bengal government, in response to the heinous crime, recently passed an anti-rape bill on the September 4, 2024, which seeks capital punishment for rape convicts if their actions result in the victim’s death or leave them in a vegetative state. This legislative action, framed as a measure of “damage control,” raises fundamental questions about the true basis of our justice system. Are we driven by deterrence or rehabilitation? Is justice merely the administration of punishment, or does it involve a deeper engagement with the causes and mindsets that lead to such heinous crimes?

Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent, a severe warning that aims to scare potential offenders from committing crimes like rape. However, this rationale is built on the assumption that the threat of death will be sufficient to dissuade criminals. But, as pointed out by one of the rapists in the Nirbhaya case in the documentary “India’s Daughter,” such measures can lead to unintended consequences. The convict chillingly remarked that capital punishment could push rapists to kill their victims to eliminate any witnesses and destroy evidence. This mindset underscores a harsh reality: punishment alone, especially in its most extreme form, does not address the underlying social, cultural, and psychological roots of crime. It does not erase the mentality that views women as objects or the entitlement that fuels such violence. What needs to be transformed is not just the crime but the mindset that enables it.

Philosophically, the debate over capital punishment intersects with Immanuel Kant’s perspective on human dignity. Kant posits that human dignity is an absolute value, one that cannot be quantified or compromised. Every individual, according to Kant, possesses intrinsic worth simply by virtue of their rational autonomy. Thus, individuals should never be exploited as mere means to an end but should always be treated as ends-in-themselves, worthy of respect and value. Applying this principle to capital punishment reveals a fundamental moral conflict. If a person is sentenced to death as a means to deter others from committing similar crimes, they are reduced to an instrument for achieving a social goal. This, Kant would argue, is morally reprehensible. Even when the end goal is to reduce crime or protect society, using an individual in this way violates their inherent dignity. For Kant, justice is not about retribution or even deterrence; it is about upholding the moral worth of every human being, even those who have committed grave wrongs.

Moreover, the idea of using capital punishment as “damage control” fundamentally contradicts the very principles of justice that society should uphold. True justice should strive for more than simple vengeance or deterrence. It should seek to understand the roots of criminal behaviour and work towards reforming not just the individual but also the society that allows such behaviour to exist. The pursuit of justice through capital punishment is a stark irony. In seeking to avenge a life taken, we take another life. Can this be considered true justice, or is it simply a continuation of the cycle of retribution? Can we genuinely claim to value human life while simultaneously extinguishing it?

This paradox becomes even more apparent when we consider that capital punishment, by perpetuating the very harm it seeks to condemn, does not address the deeper social issues that contribute to crime. It does not confront the misogyny, casteism, or other prejudices that fuel such violence. It does not offer a path to healing for the victims or their families, nor does it encourage societal reflection on the ways we enable and tolerate such crimes.

Capital punishment, in essence, embodies the notion of “an eye for an eye.” It is rooted in the belief that justice means retribution, a belief that overlooks the potential for rehabilitation and the moral imperative to respect human dignity, even in the most challenging cases. It fails to consider that justice should aim to transform rather than to destroy.

Instead of resorting to capital punishment, a more profound societal introspection is needed. We must ask ourselves what kind of justice system we want. Do we want one that perpetuates cycles of violence and dehumanizes individuals, or one that seeks to rehabilitate and transform? Do we want a system that reacts to crime with more harm, or one that works to prevent it by addressing its root causes? True justice should involve not just punishment but also education, transformation, and the fostering of a society where all lives are valued and protected. The challenge, then, is not just to punish, but to build a society where the very need for such punishment diminishes — where justice is not just a reaction, but a path to a more humane and equitable world.

(The author is a fourth-year law student at the BML Munjal University)

[1] The audio tapes, The Wire has recently released contain explosive contents including Mr. Biren Singh taking credit for the ethic conflict which took over 200 lives and displaced at least 60,000 people belonging to the Kuki and Meitei communities. Please find the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_a7b56ja9I

The post A morning of outrage and what we choose to see 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 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

The post One-year post order of the HC, family of Hathras victim yet to be given employment, awaiting relocation 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.

A special court in Hathras has convicted key accused Sandeep Sisodiya in the Hathras rape case and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Special court judge, Trilok Pal Singh has acquitted Ravindra Singh (Ravi), Ram Singh (Ramu) and Luvkush Singh. However, Sandeep was convicted for section 304 which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while he was charged with murder (section 302).

On September 14, 2020, a 19-year-old girl was allegedly gang raped by four ‘upper castes’ men and had left her bleeding in the fields. She was found by her family and taken to the hospital in Aligarh. She was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi on September 28, 2020 and she succumbed the next day. After her death on September 29, 2020, her body was allegedly forcibly cremated by UP Police. On September 19, 2020  the victim gave her statement to the police where she named Sandeep and another person and she 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. A swab test to ascertain sexual assault was conducted on September 22, 2020 which was 8 days after the alleged gang rape. 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].

Here is a low down on the significant incidents that occurred from the victim’s death up to the trial. The trial was marred by open threats to the witnesses in open court, despite CRPF protection to them.

On October 10, 2020 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was handed over the case for investigation. Besides the alleged gang-rape case, the Uttar Pradesh government also seeks a 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.

Victim’s dying declaration

On September 21, a video of the victim giving an account of the incident had gone viral on social media in which she said that she was raped by Sandeep and three other men, who ran away when they heard the mother coming. In the same video, the girl said Sandeep and Ravi had attempted rape against her previously but she somehow escaped, reported India Today.

Security for the witnesses

Citizens for Justice and Peace moved an Intervention Application (IA) in the Supreme Court (Crl. M.P. No. 102148 of 2020) pleading that the apex court monitor the investigation, protection be provided to the witnesses and a judicial inquiry by a retired Supreme Court judge on the circumstances that led to the hasty cremation of the body.

On October 27, 2020 a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian directed that Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel provide witness protection to the family of the victim as well as the other witnesses. The court also directed the Allahabad High Court to monitor the ongoing CBI probe into the case, as well as erase all mention of the victim’s identity and that of her family from its previous order in the case.

Attempts to disrupt the trial

On March 5, 2021, an advocate named Tarun Hari Sharma, who seemed to be under the influence of alcohol stormed into the courtroom and charged towards the victim’s family and their lawyers, “shouting and issuing threats”. At the same time, a large mob, including lawyers, entered the courtroom and surrounded the applicant and the complainant’s counsel in order to threaten and intimidate them. On being ordered to leave the courtroom, Tarun Sharma again threatened the applicant and his counsel. When the proceedings resumed, another Advocate namely Hari Sharma who, as alleged, is the father of Advocate Tarun Hari Sharma, entered the courtroom and started threatening the complainant’s counsel. In these circumstances, the Presiding Officer was forced to stop the proceedings again. The Presiding Judge observed the real and grave threat to the counsel and the applicant and “ordered the police personnel present in the courtroom to provide her (Seema Kushwaha) security cover within the court premises. 

Accordingly, an affidavit was filed before the Allahabad High Court giving an account of the incident. The court then sought information about the incident from the presiding judge as well as the CRPF personnel who were providing security to the victim family as well as the witnesses, as per the order of the Supreme Court dated October 27, 2020 passed in Writ (Criminal) bearing No. 296 of 2020.

Court’s refusal to transfer case

On August 26, 2021, the Allahabad High Court refused to stay or transfer the ongoing criminal proceedings outside Hathras. This, despite the disruption of trial and open threats made to the victim family and the witnesses, during the trial proceedings!

The CBI had intended to file for transfer of the trial, however, no such application was filed by the agency.

The state justifies hurried cremation

The Allahabad High Court had noted in its order dated November 25, 2020 that the state government refused to transfer the District Magistrate, Hathras and attempted to justify the cremation of the victim in the night by narrating the facts and to contend that the District Magistrate did not commit any wrong in this regard. The government told the court that a political game is allegedly being played and the transfer of District Magistrate has been made a political issue by political parties with oblique motives so as to exert political pressure. On January 2, 2021, however, the DM was transferred by the UP government.

The post mortem report

The post-mortem report also revealed that she was strangulated and had also suffered severe injuries in her spine. The marks on the neck of the victim are consistent with attempted strangulation, the report says. UP ADG Prashant Kumar says that the forensic report confirms that victim wasn’t raped.

The forensic report stated that she was not sexually assaulted and that she eventually died of a heart attack. It was found that the membrane of her private part was torn but there was no mention of when it got torn.

When CBI took over the case, the AIIMS forensics medical team concluded that the possibility of sexual assault can’t be ruled out. The AIIMS report also mentioned the presence of multiple old healed tears in the hymen.

No assistance from government to victim family

On December 18, 2020 the counsel for the victim’s family asserted before the Allahabad High Court that the family had not received any assistance from the State except compensation. The state government, however, denied that the victim’s family had made any such demands.

In September 2021, Advocate Seema Kushwaha, representing the victim’s family, submitted to the court that even though a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs have been provided to the family, other benefits and relief under Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, specifically sub-Rule (4) have not been extended to them. Kushwaha also brought to the court’s attention that the 1995 Rules lays 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. The rules further allow the provision of utensils, rice, wheat, dals, pulses, etc., for a period of three months.

The family, however, had not received such compensatory benefits.

In July 2022, the Allahabad High Court directed the state government to consider giving employment to one family member of the victim’s family within 3 months. There has been no update in this regard.

The chargesheet

The chargesheet filed by the CBI flagged negligence of the local police during multiple stages of the investigation. The chargesheet said that the ‘police negligence clearly led to delay in examination of the victim for sexual assault as well as subsequent forensic examination’, reported India Today as it accessed the copy of the chargesheet.

“The UP Police persons present on 14th September at the police station did not act promptly as well as did not comply with the mandate of section 154 CRPC,” it said.

Related:

CJP MOVES SUPREME COURT IN HATHRAS CASE

SC ENTRUSTS WITNESS PROTECTION OF HATHRAS VICTIM’S FAMILY TO CRPF

HATHRAS HORROR: TRACKING THE TRAUMA

CJP MOVES MEITY AGAINST NEWS CHANNEL FOR PROMOTING CASTE SUPREMACY IN HATHRAS CASE

The post Hathras gangrape: Only Sandeep Sisodiya convicted for culpable homicide, and not for rape appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has been hearing the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in connection with the hasty cremation of the 19-year-old Dalit girl, who was allegedly gang raped and murdered in September last year in Hathras.

In the previous hearing on September 16, the Lucknow bench of Justices Jaspreet Singh and Rajan Roy, has asked the government and victim’s counsels, along with the amicus curiae to apprise it of the various benefits the victim’s family is entitled to under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules made thereunder.

Advocate Seema Kushwaha, representing the victim’s family, submitted to the court that even though a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs have been provided to the family, other benefits and relief under Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, specifically sub-Rule (4) have not been extended to them.

According to Rule 12 (4), “District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make arrangements for providing immediate relief in cash or in kind or both to the victims of atrocity, their family members and dependents and such immediate relief shall also include food, water, clothing, shelter, medical aid, transport facilities and other essential items necessary for human beings.”

Kushwaha also brought to the court’s attention that the 1995 Rules lays 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.

The rules further allow the provision of utensils, rice, wheat, dals, pulses, etc., for a period of three months. In this regard, the counsel told the court, “a house and employment as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions have not been provided, as is mandatory, nor has the pension been provided.”

The court finally ordered, “Let the learned Amicus Curiae as also other counsels appearing for the victim’s family and for the State etc. address the Court on these aspects relating to the benefits to which the victim’s family is entitled under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules made thereunder as also the benefits which have already been made available to them.”

Two cases were registered after the girl’s death on September 30, 2020. The Allahabad High Court has been hearing the suo motu case into the alleged forcible cremation of the girl in the middle of the night and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe court in Hathras is adjudicating on the criminal proceedings of the alleged gang rape and murder.

The proceedings in the trial court were interrupted in March this year, after the family and the lawyer were threatened in open court by an intoxicated advocate named Tarun Hari Sharma. The family had urged the court to shift the trial outside Hathras but the High Court refused to transfer the trial.

The matter will be heard on September 24, where the high court is set to decide the various reliefs the family is entitled to. 

The order may be read here:

Related:

Hathras case: Allahabad HC refuses to stay or transfer ongoing trial outside Hathras

Hathras case: Victim’s family and lawyers threatened inside court premises

State Counsel appears to justify the hasty cremation of Hathras Victim: HC

The post A year on, Hathras victim’s family awaits a house, pension and employment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has refused to stay or transfer the ongoing criminal proceedings outside Hathras in connection with the alleged gang rape and murder case of a 19-year-old Dalit girl in September last year, before the Special Court under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act.

The Bench also made it clear that “the requisite security as also with regards to non-disruption of the trial by any person and the consequences which will follow on such disruption etc., for facilitating a free and fair trial, stand as it is, and they shall be implemented and complied by the concerned strictly.”

In March this year, SabrangIndia had reported on an affidavit filed by the victim’s brother in the High Court about how the victim’s family and lawyers were threatened inside court premises. On March 5, the witnesses who were accompanied by their counsels, Sharad Bhatnagar and Seema Kushwaha, had appeared before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hathras, when an advocate named Tarun Hari Sharma, stormed into the court room and charged towards the victim’s family and their lawyers, “shouting and issuing threats”. Amidst the barrage of threats, the trial was interrupted and the family’s counsel Seema could not represent them.

The High Court had further recorded that the affidavit stated that when Tarun Sharma aggressively approached them, it was evident that he was under the influence of alcohol. At the same time, a large mob, including lawyers, entered the courtroom and surrounded the applicant and the complainant’s counsel in order to threaten and intimidate them.

After perusing the horrific circumstances, the Division Bench, on March 19, directed the District Judge, Hathras to inquire as to whether such an incident occurred on March 5 and send his report to the Court in a sealed cover. The High Court had said that it shall decide whether the trial in question before the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Hathras is required to be stayed and is to be transferred elsewhere, after perusing the report. In pursuance to this order, the District Judge in Hathras conducted an enquiry and submitted a report in a sealed cover and so did the Inspector General, Central sector, CRPF, Lucknow.

The report of the District Judge was submitted to the High Court on April 2, 2021. He submitted a report after recording the statements of sixteen persons, including Ms. Seema Kushwaha, (Advocate representing the victim’s family) and the victim’s brother and mother, who were present at the time of the incident alleged in the affidavit. He also perused the CCTV camera footage from the court of the day of the alleged incident on March 5. The report of the District Judge, Hathras is also accompanied by the report of the Presiding Officer of the Special Court where the trial is being concluded.

The Bench finally recorded, “Having perused both the reports and the statements/reports annexed therewith, without mentioning the details contained therein considering the sensitive nature of the case, as was also requested by learned Amicus Curiae who was permitted by us to go through the reports, suffice it to say, as of now, we do not find any reason to stay the proceedings in Session Trial No 538 of 2020 (Case Crime No. 0005 of 2020) pending before the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hathras nor for that matter to transfer the same elsewhere.”

The Bench also observed that Anurag Singh, appearing for CBI, had submitted that they desired to file an application for transfer of the trial but till date it has not been filed. Thus, the court held that the instant order would be without any prejudice to any application for transfer of trial which may be filed by the CBI, if it is otherwise maintainable.

The matter will now come up before the High Court on September 16, 2020. Two simultaneous cases are pending in the matter-one which is before the trial court in Hathras, and the second is at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which took suo motu cognisance of the case in October last year, to look into the allegations of her forced cremation and the role of police officials and the District Magistrate in the investigation.

The HC order may be read here: 

Related:

Hathras case: Victim’s family and lawyers threatened inside court premises

State Counsel appears to justify the hasty cremation of Hathras Victim: HC

CJP moves Supreme Court in Hathras case

The post Hathras case: Allahabad HC refuses to stay or transfer ongoing trial outside Hathras appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Uttar Pradesh Government has transferred the District Magistrate (DM) of Hathras Praveen Kumar Laxkar, and sixteen other IAS officers. The DM had hit headlines after the gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl. She died on September 29 at Safdarjung Hospital.  

According to media reports, Praveen Kumar will now be the new District Magistrate of Mirzapur, and Uttar Pradesh’s Jal Nigam Additional Managing Director Ramesh Ranjan will be replacing him in Hathras.

This administrative reshuffle comes days after the Allahabad High Court expressed its dilemma over the DM stationed at Hathras. The court wondered if it was ‘fair and reasonable’ to allow the District Magistrate to continue at Hathras during the pendency of the investigation and other proceedings regarding illegal cremation etc.

In court, the DM had accepted that the forceful cremation of the victim in the middle of the night without the family’s consent was imperative to maintain law and order. At this defence, the court noted that the victim was entitled to a dignified cremation and observed, “We do not at this stage find any good reason on behalf of the administration as to why they could not hand over the body to the family members for some time, say for even half an hour, to enable them to perform their rituals at home and thereafter to cremate it either in the night or next day.”

In November, the State of Uttar Pradesh had apprised the court that the Government would not be transferring him because the State believed that it was all a “political game” allegedly played by political parties with “oblique motives to exert political pressure” and that there was no question of the DM to tamper with the evidence relevant to the investigation.

The State had also submitted before the Allahabad High Court that since the investigation itself is being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the State Government does not have any role to play. The court however found the State counsel to have “attempted to justify the cremation of the victim in the night by narrating the facts and to contend that the District Magistrate did not commit any wrong in this regard.”

The victim’s family has also alleged that the DM had given in writing to them about acceptance of their demands of housing and employment based on their conversation with the Chief Minister of U.P. through video conferencing, however, except for the compensation part no other demand had been fulfilled.

The father of the victim also expressed to the court his grief over the conduct of the DM and wondered if his complaint against the DM had been recorded by the Special Investigation Team. To this, the court has directed the State to file a first or interim report of the SIT.

Among other transfers, Gonda District Magistrate Nitin Bansal has been sent to Pratapgarh and Additional CEO of Noida, Shruti, has been made the DM of Balrampur, replacing Krishna Karunesh, who has now become the vice-chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, as reported by The Print.

Related:

Hathras case: UP State & DM deny accepting house and job requests of the victim’s family
State Counsel appears to justify the hasty cremation of Hathras Victim: HC
BREAKING: A’bad HC summons suspended SP, Hathras on November 2, Victim was Entitled to Dignified Cremation    

The post UP Government transfers Hathras DM to Mirzapur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The four accused in the Hathras gang rape and murder case were taken to Gandhinagar in Gujarat for brain mapping and polygraph tests by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on November 21, reported The Indian Express.

The four accused have been lodged in the Aligarh Jail. Alok Singh, the Superintendent at Aligarh Jail told The Hindustan Times that, “The accused will be subjected to polygraph test and brain mapping in Gandhi Nagar. They will return to the jail after the tests.”

An official of the Gandhinagar FSL informed the media, “The CBI officials came for a discussion on the polygraph and brain-mapping test of the accused for which a date will be decided soon. The accused were not brought to the FSL today (November 21)”.

PUCL’s Report

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Uttar Pradesh members Kamal Singh, Farman Naqvi, Alok, Shashikant and K.B. Maurya had visited Boolgarhi village in Hathras and filed a report titled “A Black Story’ highlighting the status of the CBI investigation into the case up until now.

During a press conference on Saturday, Kamal Singh said, “When we went to meet the family, it seemed like we were going to meet a terrorist in his cell and not the family of a horrifying rape victim. The victim’s family is still not assured despite the CBI investigation. The whole family is in a kind of house arrest. Their normal social life is cut off. Family members are afraid for their lives”, The Wire reported.

The PUCL activists revealed the plight of the family members fearing for their lives once the CRPF protection is withdrawn. Kamal singh stated in the press conference, “The victim’s father has told us that he would send his sons outside to work, rather than stay in this village for security reasons. We are also concerned for the family’s safety because the nexus between the local administration, the police as well as the upper caste members of the village will go back to how it was before. I am worried for the day that the security will be withdrawn.”

SC/ST welfare panel

This also comes at a time when the members of the parliamentary committee on the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not allowed to visit Hathras to meet the deceased’s family members.

The Telegraph apprised that the committee had met on October 20 to discuss representation of SC/ST employees at Delhi University when some of the members requested the Chairman to permit a visit to the Hathras family. The Chairman Kirit Premjibhai Solanki, however, rejected the proposal citing jurisdictional issues.

“When the request was made to visit the victim’s family, the chairman did not agree. He said the Speaker would not agree to such a trip. He also said that a visit to the victim’s family was under the jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC),” a panel source told the Telegraph.  

Background

The CBI was entrusted with the investigation into the rape and murder of the Dalit teen by the Uttar Pradesh Government on October 10. The Supreme Court in Satyama Dubey and Ors v Union of India (W.P Crl. No. 296 of 2020), had directed the High Court of Allahabad to monitor the CBI probe via its order dated October 27.

“High Court would look into that aspect of the matter, the CBI shall report to the High Court in the manner as would be directed by the High Court through its orders from time to time”, said the Bench.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) through its Secretary Ms. Teesta Setalvad had also moved an Intervention Application (Crl. M.P. No. 102148 of 2020) as listed third in the abovementioned 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. The Allahabad High Court in its earlier order dated November 2, had also sought for a status report from the CBI to be filed before the next hearing.  

CJP had, through a Letter petition, dated October 9, sought to intervene in the ongoing suo moto matter in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench). At the last hearing on November 2, 2020, the Letter petition was allowed and CJP is now permitted to intervene by the next date of hearing on November 25.  

The matter before the High Court is expected to be heard at 3:15 pm on November 25.

Related:

CJP moves Supreme Court in Hathras case

Hathras case: High Court seeks status report from CBI

Hathras: SC directs CRPF for witness protection

The post Hathras case: All accused to undergo brain mapping, polygraph tests appeared first on SabrangIndia.