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 savage nature of the crime has shocked my judicial conscience”, observed a Kerala Court, this month, convicting a temple priest for raping his step daughter for over a year and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Special Judge Saleena VG Nair expressed her grief over the incident and noted:

“The sordid episode of the convict stepfather, whose sacred duty was to ensure the protection and welfare of his own daughter like victim, subjected her to gratify his lust in a most cruel and barbaric manner, makes the crime of rape proved even more heinous. Keeping in view the poor and pathetic family background of the victim, it is obvious that a most heinous and perverted type of barbaric act of rape was committed on a helpless and defenceless school going girl of 13 years old by her guardian.

If the guardians of wards behave in this manner, who will guard the wards? The faith of the society by such a barbaric act of the stepfather gets totally shaken and its cry for justice becomes loud and clear. The sexual offence committed was not only inhuman and barbaric, but it was a totally ruthless crime of rape and an affront to the human dignity of the society.”

The court observed in the judgment, that the accused step father used to rape and harass her and when the child tried to stop him and tell him that she would tell her mother, he used to threaten her that her mother would also go to the jail. “He told her that it is a practice for performance after her marriage”, recorded the facts.

The prosecution furnished that once the minor complained to her mother, the mother asked her not to worry “and that he is her father and hence not to reveal it to anyone”. The matter finally came to light when the survivor, along with her aunt and a relative lodged an FIR, revealing the sexual abuse inflicted on her by the temple priest.

With respect to the mother’s culpability, the court noted that it was not entirely her fault as her husband died unexpectedly, leaving behind her family consisting of four girl children and the youngest of the children, the survivor, was just two and a half years at the time of his death.

Justice Nair said, “She had no other option but to entrust the children to care homes and she herself started working in one of the care homes. In these circumstances, the accused, who was working in the institution wherein she had joined, started intimacy with her, which resulted in their marriage. Her family accepted him, trusted him and her father accepted him as his student and taught him vedas and rituals and even conducted his upanayana.”

However, the court said that she did fail in her legal duty to inform the police about the sexual acts. “She might have her own excuses for not doing so. Anyhow, in my considered opinion, the mitigating circumstances in her case outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and hence she deserves leniency in the matter of punishment. So, awarding punishment limiting the sentence to the period already undergone by her appears to be sufficient to meet the ends of Justice,” held the court.

Accordingly, the accused priest was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and fine of rupees twenty thousand.

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

Patna school principal sentenced to death for raping 11-year-old girl
Relationship with 16-year-old girl not unusual, POCSO accused adult gets bail

The post Kerala court sentences priest to life imprisonment for raping step daughter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Punjab Assembly has recently passed a bill for an addition to IPC clause 295 to give life imprisonment for any ‘injury, damage or sacrilege’ of four religious books, (Guru Granth Sahib, Koran, Bible and Geeta) ‘with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of the people’. This is the first time in independent India that a punishment usually given for willfully murdering another human being has been recommended for defilement of religious books!

Punjab chief minister Capt Amrinder Singh of Congress has justified the bill by referring to instances of holy book desecration as acts of sacrilege that were a conspiracy to spread communal unrest and amounted to ‘national security threat that needs to be dealt with an iron hand’. But civil society sees this as an imminent threat not just to the secular fabric of India, but also to freedom of expression and how the law can be misused by the state as well as fundamentalist forces.

 

In a press release, People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) not only denounce the bill as unconstitutional and undemocratic, they also point out how most political parties are reluctant to stick their neck out to speak against the bill. The statement says, “It needs to be noted that no major political party or organization of the state has come out against the bill.” The statement goes on to say, “The bill and the political support it has received are a sign of longstanding misunderstandings of secularism and political and administrative malpractices in India. Given the scale and number of incidents of sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib in 2015-16, it is reasonable to assume that these were result of a conspiracy to agitate Sikhs for definite political ends. Further, it is also likely that this conspiracy enjoyed political patronage from certain sections of the political class of Punjab.”

 

The entire Press Release may be read here:

Punjab Blasphemy Law Violates Constitution and is an Attack on Democratic Rights of Citizens

                         (People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism)




Press Release

12.10.2018

Punjab assembly recently passed a bill for an addition to IPC clause 295 to give life imprisonment for any ‘injury, damage or sacrilege’ of four religious books, (Guru Granth Sahib, Koran, Bible and Geeta) ‘with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of the people’. This is the first time in independent India that a punishment usually given for willfully murdering another human being has been recommended for defilement of religious books. In an article in Times of India (6/9/2018), Punjab chief minister CaptAmrinder Singh of Congress has justified the bill and tried to explain its context. From 2015 to 2017 before the last assembly elections, the state had witnessed more than one hundred cases of sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs who form the majority in the state, and its torn pages were found at many places. Two people were killed in police firing on people protesting against this sacrilege. According to him, these acts of sacrilege were a conspiracy to spread communal unrest and amounted to ‘national security threat that needs to be dealt with an iron hand’. A similar bill was passed by the earlier Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) government, asking for life imprisonment only for the defilement of Guru Granth Sahib. The bill was returned by the NDA central government with the argument that in singling out the holy book of Sikhs it went against the principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian constitution. Amrinder Singh government has now added the other three religious books, to make the bill ‘secular’. Many commentators, civil rights organisations and a group of retired bureaucrats have decried the bill. They have highlighted its anti-secular character, threat to freedom of expression, and potential for gross misuse by state authorities and fundamentalist forces. It needs to be noted that no major political party or organization of the state has come out against the bill. Only Dr Dharamveer Gandhi, the MP from Patiala, and non-parliamentary left groups in the state have given public statements against the bill. Some sections within Congress like MrChidambram have expressed their disagreement with the bill, but they are a small minority.

The bill and the political support it has received are a sign of longstanding misunderstandings of secularism and political and administrative malpractices in India. Given the scale and number of incidents of sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib in 2015-16, it is reasonable to assume that these were result of a conspiracy to agitate Sikhs for definite political ends. Further, it is also likely that this conspiracy enjoyed political patronage from certain sections of the political class of Punjab. The chief minister uses the image of ‘iron hand’ a number of times in his article to emphasise the necessity of a tough response. Yet the fact remains that for nearly three years Punjab police and the two successive governments have completely failed to bring perpetrators of this communal conspiracy to book. This is not an uncommon occurrence. The most abominable communal conspiracy of the post independent India was for the destruction of Babri mosque in 1991. However, no one has been punished for that heinous crime till date. Needless to say, failures of state authority to apprehend and punish perpetrators of communal conspiracies have only emboldened communal forces. No ‘tough’ law can cover up this dereliction of a primary duty by Indian state.

Punjab government believe that their law is secular since it prescribes equal punishment for sacrilege of books of all major religions. It is further argued that the motivation for the bill is not to protect any religious sentiment, which would be the case with religion based laws like Sharia laws in Pakistan, but to defeat plans of spreading communal strife. The latter it is claimed is a purely secular motivation without any sectarian interests. Both arguments are based upon a gross misunderstanding of secularism. Democratic states are expected to be secular so that every citizen enjoys equal right of religious freedom without any hindrance from the state or other citizens. Hence, by definition a secular state cannot encourage deliberate and mischievous sacrilege against any religion. However, itdoes not mean that it has to show ‘equal respect’ to all religious practices.If any religious practice is found to violate requirements of democracy, then a secular state can declare it illegal. This is what the Constitution of India did with untouchability.This means that religious sentiments do not a priori enjoy greater privilege or value than other public sentiments. There is no reason why the hurt to religious feelings should attract greater punishment than the hurt caused by misogynist orcasteist abuses. In fact since the latter are invariably meant to humiliate and assert power over women and Dalits, these should attract greater punishment. Any just legal system determines the severity of the crime on the basis of its fundamental values, and gives punishment in accordance with the degree of crime. By declaring sacrilege to be in the class of most serious crimes, the bill demands that religious sentiments enjoy greater importance than constitutional values like freedom from oppression, and fundamental rights.

The second argument in favour of the bill confuses ‘hurt to religious feelings’ with communal strife. Believers of a religion can claim to be hurt by any number of statements or actions by others. In India the most commonly claimed causes of hurt to religious sentiments have been books, films, and scholarly research. The bill further adds to the quiver of hurt to religious sentiments by very mischievouslyadding ‘sacrilege’ to the list. The latter is a theological concept. Its practical implications are determined by religious doctrines, whose interpretations are the privilege of a religious establishment. Hence, the bill pushes Indian legal system very dangerously towards theocracy. All of the above do not have any connection with communal strife. The latter occurs when public peace is affected due to a clash, physical attack on citizens, or destruction of property. If a group of believers claiming to be hurt by a statement or action by someone else go on a rampage, then they are responsible for communal strife, and need to be punished. Passing on the guilt of communal strife to the supposed cause of the hurt cannot be sustained legally.

The bill shifts the constitutional balance between fundamental rights of freedom of expression and religion on the one side and the powers of the sate machinery and organized social bodies to restrain these rights on the other. In the current social context when rationalists like DrDabholkar, DrPanasare, Prof Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh havebeen murdered for hurting Hindutva religious sentiments, M Farook of Coimbtore was hacked to death by Islamic fundamentalists for declaring himself to be an atheist, and lynch mobs are targeting minority citizens in the name of cow protection, it is necessary to reaffirm the primacy of rights to life, freedom of expression, and conscience. The bill goes in the opposite direction and willynilly strengthens the hand of fundamentalists.It needs to be noted that article 19(1) of the constitution does not permit any restraint on the freedom of speech on the basis of sacrilege. The right to freedom of religion includes the right to critically assess existing religious beliefs to fashion different beliefs. That is how any religious reform takes place. Many Sikhs in Punjab keep Guru Granth Sahib at home and pray to it. Anyone seeking personal vendetta may claim ‘injury (or) damage’ to the book kept at someone’s home. The bill appears to be designed for misuse. Internal reform, rationalist critique, scholarly investigations, and everyday religious practices, any of these can be declared crimes under the bill.

While the two successive governments of Punjab failed to nab conspirators of the desecration of Guru Granth Sahib in 2015-16, the people of Punjab gave a fitting reply to the conspiracy by not falling for it. Public peace was largely maintained and the state had a peaceful transition of government in subsequent elections. Instead of learning from the people, both the Congress and the SAD are taking Punjab along a dangerous path that will gladden only communal fundamentalists. Both parties are kowtowing to communal fundamentalist demands that are against constitutional secularism and freedoms of expression and religion.

People’s Alliance for Secularism and Democracy demands that the bill passed by the Punjab assembly be scrapped. If the Amrinder Singh Government persists with it, then the central government should prevent it from becoming the law of the land.

The post Defiling religious texts to carry same sentence as murder in Punjab! appeared first on SabrangIndia.