As per a report in the LiveLaw, Judge Santhosh Gajanana Bhat pronounced the said bail order in the evening of May 13 after having heard senior advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for Revanna, and additional special public prosecutors (SPPs) Jayana Kothari and Ashok N Nayak appearing for the special investigation team. While grant of bail, Judge Bhat imposed conditions that require the accused to furnish a bond for Rs 5 lakh, along with two sureties. In addition to this, HD Revanna has been barred from leaving the country, entering KR Nagar in Mysuru district, and interacting with the witnesses. He has also been asked to cooperate with the SIT investigation. 

Brief background:

As per a report of the Indian Express, electronic devices like pen drives and CDs had emerged in the public domain on April 21, ahead of the April 26 Hassan parliament poll, which had suggested that Prajwal Revanna, son of HD Revanna, had allegedly carried out sexual assaults on several women in Hassan and recorded the attacks on his phone camera. It is to be noted that as many as 2,900 files with videos and images of the sexual encounters of the MP were found in the pen drives that were leaked. A helpline had also been set up by the SIT to report incidents of attack by the MP.

The case against HD Revanna:

On May 4, HD Revanna was arrested by the special investigation team (SIT) formed by the Karnataka government after a kidnapping case of a woman, believed to be one of the survivors of the sexual violence scandal involving his son, was registered against HD Revanna at KR Nagar police station in Bengaluru. This came after the anticipatory bail plea filed by HD Revanna was rejected in the kidnapping case. The said SIT is probing the alleged sexual abuse case filed against HD Revanna and his son Prajwal Revanna. Prajwal Revanna, who is yet to be arrested, has been absconding since April 27. Prajwal Revanna, the incumbent MP, is seeking another term from Hassan Lok Sabha constituency and is an ally of the BJP party.

It is to be noted that HD Revanna had been arrested on the charge that he, along with others, abducted a rape survivor/victim from her KR Nagar home in Mysuru district. The SIT is also probing him for charges of sexual harassment of a domestic help.

Arguments raised during petition hearing:

Arguments raised by the petitioners: On May 9, while the bail petition filed by HD Revanna was being argued, counsel CV Nagesh had alleged that the case against the MLA was not maintainable under the law as there was no mention of evidence against him in the petition filed by the SIT.

“The only argument of the prosecution is that I have not cooperated but they have not found a speck of evidence against me.”

As per the report of Indian Express, the senior counsel had further claimed that “there is neither kidnapping nor abduction” involved in the case. He pointed to the court that the victim was not attacked in the period between April 29 and May 5 when she was reported to have been abducted. The defence counsel had sought a copy of the voluntary statement recorded by the woman before a magistrate on the sexual assault on her. The SIT had told the court that a statement had been recorded.

“There was no allegation of the survivor being forced or trapped. There was no demand. HD Revanna is a politician and there are political reasons behind his arrest. The incident took place on April 29 and the FIR was filed on May 2. There was no kidnap or illegal detention. The survivor was a maid at HD Revanna’s residence and the kidnap charges don’t apply.”

Mr Nagesh had lastly stated that HD Revanna had been arrested unnecessarily as he could have been released after questioning and called back for interrogation whenever needed.

Arguments by the SIT: SPP Jayna Kothari told the special court that the woman, who was allegedly kidnapped on the instructions of H D Revanna, was a victim of sexual assault by Prajwal Revanna. The said woman had worked for six years at the home of the accused and was forcibly taken away on April 29 from her home by the MLA’s associates on the orders of the MLA, the SPP had argued as per a report of Indian Express. She had provided that the victim was later found on May 5 by the SIT at a farm that was 40 km from her residence which belonged to an associate of the Holenarasipura MLA HD Revanna.

Kothari had urged for the rejection of the bail plea by pointing to the court that such leniency in a kidnapping case would send a wrong signal to the victims of sexual harassment by Prajwal. Kothari had said that the offense of kidnapping, dealt under Section 364 A of the Indian Penal Code, alleged against HD Revanna itself prescribes serious punishment of death or life imprisonment. The SPP argued that the case involved the abduction of the woman and holding her under threat to her life as expressed by the woman in her statement to police after her rescue.

Kothari further highlighted that the effort to kidnap was done to obstruct the course of justice and tamper with evidence. Kothari had also emphasised upon HD Revanna’s influence and had alleged that giving bail to him would lead to a “danger of justice being thwarted”.

“The kidnapping is an offence that is in continuation of other crimes.”

“The son has absconded and are we in any doubt that the petitioner will not abscond?”

The grant of bail:

As The Special court in Bengaluru granted bail to leader H D Revanna accused of kidnapping a woman by stating the following:

“Bail Application filed by the the petitioner under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.No.149/2024 registered by the respondent Police station for the offences punishable under Sec.364-A, 365 read with Sec.34 of IPC pending on the file of the learned XLII ACMM Court at Bengaluru is hereby allowed and the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.”

As per LiveLaw, the following court has imposed the following conditions on HD Revanna:

1. a) The petitioner shall not threaten and tamper the prosecution witnesses or the complainant and victim.
2. b) The petitioner shall not evade the Investigation and shall appear before the I.O. whenever called by him for the purpose of investigation.
3. c) The petitioner shall furnish his passport to the Court and shall not leave the State Court without obtaining written permission from the Court.
4. d) The petitioner shall not enter upon K.R.Nagar Taluk or the permanent place of residence of the victim directly or indirectly till further orders.
5. e) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. on every second Sunday of the month and mark his attendance between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for a period of 6 months or till the filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
6. f) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence. Office is directed to return the CD files to the prosecution

Related:

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Fahad Shah granted bail after spending 21 months in jail

Witness say police misquoted them as Muslim teenager whose home was demolished by authorities released on bail

Unjust detention: Gautam Navlakha’s bail victory highlights insufficient evidence

Sexual harassment, stalking and molestation accused Brij Bhushan granted two day interim bail by Delhi Court

The post JD(S) leader HD Revanna, accused of allegedly kidnapping a survivor of sexual assault by son Prajwal Revanna, granted bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bengaluru: The ruling BJP government in Karnataka has been accused of protecting the accused in a rape case of a Dalit woman in Mysuru, with a group representing the community warning of staging a protest.

On Wednesday, the victim, an engineering graduate, filed a complaint in Mysuru city’s Vijayanagar police station against the accused K.S. Manjunath aka Santro Ravi, her husband who is alleged to have close ties with the state’s BJP leadership.

The incident had taken place in 2019.

The victim claimed that she had gone to Manjunath’s residence seeking a job as it was advertised in a newspaper on March 2, 2019.

The accused offered her a job and when she reported for duty, he gave her juice laced with drugs.

She alleged in the complaint that he raped her in a state of unconscious, took her photos and had also blackmailed her.

Later, Manjunath gave her life threat and got married to her forcefully.

Even after their marriage, he continued to harass and assault her, the victim told the police.

As the incident has come to light, Alagoodu Shivakumar, District Convener of the Dalit Sangharsh Samithi, has warned that if the ruling BJP government does not initiate an action against the accused, they would stage a state-wide protest.

“The action should be taken against accused Santro Ravi. He has political connections, the government should take the case seriously,” he warned.

Meanwhile, JD (S) leader and former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy accused Majunath of having connections with all Ministers.

An audio clip of the accused talking disrespectfully to a senior police officer has also gone viral.

In the conversation, he asks the cop to address him as ‘sir’ and mainted that the Chief Minister also addresses him as ‘sir’.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Karnataka BJP accused of protecting rape accused, Dalit group warns of protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Belagavi: Allegedly pained at his name being dragged into a sex scandal involving Chitradurga Murugha mutt seer, Guru Madivaleshwara Mutt Pontiff Basava Siddalinga Swamiji committed suicide in his room by hanging in the Neginahala village of Karnataka’s Belagavi district, police sources said on Monday.

The audio clip containing an alleged conversation between two women discussing how women and girls were exploited at Chitradurga mutt went viral on social media. The two women brought up the name of deceased Basava Siddalinga Swamiji in the discussion which cast aspersions on his reputation and honour, said police sources.

The seer, who ended his life, was pained with the development and devotees of the mutt had lodged a complaint with Deputy Superintendent of Police of Bylahongala in Belagavi district seeking action against vested interests who were targeting Lingayat pontiffs.

The police said that Basava Siddalinga Swamiji was talking to devotees till late night Sunday. He told his devotees that he had been pained that his reference was made in a demeaning way in the purported audio and he is not feeling like living anymore.

The incident came to light on Monday morning. Police said that they were searching for the death note of the swamiji and the exact cause of the suicide was yet to be investigated. Further investigation is on.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Karnataka Lingayat seer dies by suicide after name comes up in audio clip appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking incident in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, a 26-year-old man accused of rape, who was out on bail raped the same survivor again.

The accused who is said to be a resident of Khatkari village was arrested last year on September 23, but was let out upon being granted bail last week. On August 26, the man reportedly abducted the girl as she was on her way for some household work. He took her to a deserted place where he allegedly threatened and raped her.

According to Additional Superintendent of Police Vivek Lal, the girl’s family filed a complaint and the accused was arrested the next day. He was booked under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

For an accused in a case to not only move around freely, but to sexually assault the same survivor again is not only shocking but deeply concerning.

Similar concerns were raised in December 2019, after a 23-year-old rape survivor was set ablaze in Unnao by the accused in the case. The incident took place at Sindupur village under the Bihar Police station area on December 5, when the survivor was on her way to Rai Bareilly for a hearing in the case. The victim has sustained 80% burns and was admitted to the Trauma Center of the King George Medical University, Lucknow. She was then airlifted to Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi where she succumbed to her injuries two days later.

Related:

Unnao rape survivor set ablaze by accused!

The post Rape accused allegedly rapes survivor again upon being granted bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a 22-year-old rape accused on grounds that the survivor/complainant was 17 years old and had “sufficient knowledge” to understand the nature and consequence of sexual activity.

The court observed that the accused and the survivor had been in a physical relationship before the alleged incident of rape. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan placed reliance on the statements of the woman under section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as well as the statement of her father to conclude that his daughter and the accused were in a relationship and had engaged in consensual sexual activity before the alleged rape.

The order reads, “It appears that the applicant and prosecutrix were having an affair and the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. has admitted that the prosecutrix as well as the applicant had indulged in consensual sexual activity for 4-5 times prior to the impugned incident.”

Under section 161 statement, the survivor alleged that she was a close friend of the applicant/accused and that they had indulged in sexual intercourse four to five times, as they were in love. However, in the latter part of the statement, she claimed that the accused was blackmailing her on the basis of some obscene photographs.

In her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC, she said that on September 9, 2020, he had contacted her telephonically, and taken her on his motorcycle to a room, where he allegedly raped her. The survivor’s father, in his statement, had also said that his daughter had informed him that they were in a consensual physical relationship.

Although the survivor in this case is a minor, the court opined that she was well aware of the nature and consequence of her physical relationship with the accused. Justice Khan said, “The age of the prosecutrix is about 17 years and having regard to the fact that she was studying in D.N.M. Institute of Engineering, it could not be ruled out that she was possessing sufficient knowledge and was in a position to fully understand the nature and consequences of sexual activity.”

The court also noted the accused’s submission that no obscene photographs or videos of the survivor were obtained from his phone on his arrest last year. He was thus granted bail on conditions that he would not attempt to meet the survivor and shall “file an undertaking before the trial court that he will not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses will be present.”

The order appears to disregard outright the survivor’s agency in terms of having the right to withdraw consent despite being in a sexual relationship. It thus makes one wonder if the court has inadvertantly validated sexual violence by intimate partners. The order also uses terms like “having an affair” that sound loaded in a society that is already deeply patriarchal and judgmental. The order also comes across as insensitive to the minor survivor.

Indian courts have time and again issued guidelines on how to conduct sexual violence trials but this order appears to stand in contravention of the accepted practices.

In a recent case, involving a rape allegation against a TV anchor, a Delhi court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on grounds that “evidence of character or previous sexual experiences” are not relevant in sexual assault cases. In this case, the defense argued on the same lines that the complainant survivor and the accused anchor were in a ‘loving relationship’ before the alleged incident of rape.

In March, the Apex Court also took note of bizarre bail orders passed by different state courts addressing the paternalistic attitudes prevalent in the system. It scrapped a Madhya Pradesh High Court order requiring the accused to get a rakhi tied by the complainant in a case of sexual violence, and issued certain directions.

One of the guidelines laid down by a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ravindra Bhat reads, “bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. Discussion about the dress, behaviour, or past “conduct” or “morals” of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail.”

But this Allahabad High Court order displays sheer insensitivity, commenting on the survivor’s agency and wisdom, using terms that could undermine the confidence of survivors in the face of fairness and impartiality of courts.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

HC grants bail to accused in minor’s rape, imposes strict conditions

SC addresses paternalistic and misogynistic attitudes reflected in judicial orders; issues directions

Delhi court rejects news anchor’s pre arrest bail plea in rape case

P&H High Court refuses bail to rape accused despite survivor’s “no objection” to bail

Witnesses turn hostile, rape accused BJP MP Chinmayanand acquitted

The post Allahabad HC grants bail to rape accused citing prior consensual sexual relationship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to a rape accused while refraining from taking into consideration that the complainant’s recorded statement contradicted her deposition at the time of trial. The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the complainant made a “u-turn” after making serious allegations in the statement yet, refused to grant bail on those grounds.

The petitioner, seeking regular bail, has been booked under sections 328 (poisoning), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, the father-in-law of the complainant allegedly drugged her and after she lost consciousness raped her and clicked objectionable photographs and made videos, and thereafter threatened to circulate them on social media.

His previous bail applications filed before trial curt were rejected and he challenged the second rejected bail order before the High Court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecutrix (complainant) has not supported the allegations while deposing before the Court. However, the prosecutrix has supported the allegations in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The counsel for the complainant appeared and submitted that she had no objection to grant of bail. However, the public prosecutor raised objections and opposed the bail since the allegations are serious.

The court observed that the argument that the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the Court, it is not enough to grant bail, as the contradiction between the statement and the deposition is a matter of trial.

The court dismissed the petition while observing that the allegations are very serious and now, she made a “u-turn” so the police should look into it with regards to the material available before it.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

SC grants anticipatory bail to Goa restaurant owner accused of rape

Witnesses turn hostile, rape accused BJP MP Chinmayanand acquitted

Madhya Pradesh: Rape survivor tied, paraded with accused, as crowds chanted ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’

The post P&H High Court refuses bail to rape accused despite survivor’s “no objection” to bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court held a special hearing on Holi and granted anticipatory bail to a Goa restaurateur accused of raping, intimidating and poisoning a woman from Delhi.

Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer held a special sitting on Holi to hear the accused’s special leave petition after the Delhi High Court rejected his petition.

The court said, “We have perused the first information report as well as the statement recorded by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC. We are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. We direct that in event the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on submitting a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.”

The petitioner/accused was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who contended that the case against him is a perfect example of cock and bull story and that rape allegations were levelled only last year when the rape was alleged to have committed in 2009.

Bar & Bench quoted Rohatgi saying, “It’s a perfect example of cock and bull story. A FIR was lodged by the woman in December 2020 and the rape allegations are of 2009. She wanted to host a party at my restaurant and I refused. She improved her case under Section164 CrPC statement. She says she met Jude Lobo in 2009 and then that Lobo will marry her. Lobo is married with 3 children out of which two are adults.”

Senior counsel Rohatgi also argued that the allegations were made due to refusal by him to host a party of the complainant at his restaurant due to Covid-19 restrictions. He said, “Lobo had denied to host the party due to government regulations in light of Covid-19. She said she had invited 50 people. But then Lobo asked to explain guests about regulations. Then Lobo said we cannot cancel as there is no confirmation only,” reported Bar & Bench.

The petitioner was granted interim protection from Delhi’s Karkardooma court in February this year but on March 26, the Delhi High Court dismissed his pre arrest bail plea.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Madhya Pradesh: Rape survivor tied, paraded with accused, as crowds chanted ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’

Witnesses turn hostile, rape accused BJP MP Chinmayanand acquitted

Aligarh: Woman allegedly raped while undertaking ‘Kanwar Yatra’

The post SC grants anticipatory bail to Goa restaurant owner accused of rape appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has acquitted a man accused of rape, penetrative sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

The Single-judge Bench of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala noted in her judgment that, “It seems highly impossible for a single man to gag the mouth of the prosecutrix and remove her clothes and his clothes and to perform the forcible sexual act, without any scuffle. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecutrix.”

The trial court, in 2016, had acquitted the accused for the charge under POCSO while convicting him for rape under the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution could not prove that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years.

The prosecution argued that there was no reason for the survivor to furnish incorrect statements against the appellant and that she clearly described the violent incident in her house where he criminally trespassed and committed rape. They submitted that, “The sole testimony of the prosecutrix is worthy of reliance.”

Whereas, the appellant/accused argued that the survivor was above 18 years of age and the act was consensual. It was also argued that she was habituated to sexual intercourse and that the FIR came to be lodged at the instance of her mother after she saw the appellant running out from her house.

The Single-judge Bench perused the submissions and concluded that the survivor was not below 18 years of age as was contended in the FIR and that the prosecution could not prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt. The court said, “The prosecutrix herself in her cross objection admitted that at the relevant time her age was 18 years and she gave her age 15 years in the First Information Report on the say of her mother. Apart from this, the birth certificate though is a public document, does not indicate that the same is the extract of the public record kept in the office of Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, who gave the information about the date of birth of the prosecutrix and at what time her date of birth is taken on record is not reflected from Exh.39. The same is also not in the format as per law.”

With respect to the accusation of rape, Justice Ganediwala reasoned that during a forcible intercourse, there ought to have been a scuffle between the parties, which was absent even in the medical report. She remarked, “A perusal of this portion of the testimony of the prosecutrix, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, does not inspire the confidence of the Court as the incident, as narrated, does not appeal to the reason as it is against the natural human conduct.”

Further, she observed, “Had it been a case of forcible intercourse, there would have been scuffle between the parties. In the medical report, no injuries of scuffle could be seen. The defence of consensual physical relations does appear probable. In cross-examination, the defence could bring on record the probable doubt with regard to consensual relations. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that ‘it is true that if my mother had not come, I would not have lodged report’.”

Justice Ganediwala, then set aside the Sessions Court’s verdict noting, “No doubt, sole testimony of the prosecutrix in rape cases is sufficient to fix the criminal liability against the appellant, however, in the instant case, considering the sub-standard quality of testimony of the prosecutrix, it would be a grave injustice to send the appellant behind the bar for 10 years.”

Accordingly, the court directed the immediate release of the appellant from jail.

In the past month, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala has received considerable criticism for her judgments on the interpretation of the POCSO Act. She has held that acts like pressing breasts of a minor without skin to skin or physical contact, holding hands and unzipping pants do not amount to sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The Supreme Court has stayed the controversial skin to skin POCSO judgment in the interim. Such pronouncements have also cost her the post of a permanent judge, as the Supreme Court Collegium decided to withdraw its recommendation to make her permanent. She is currently an additional judge at the High Court.

The judgment may be read here:

Related:

Groping minor without physical contact, not sexual assault under POCSO Act: Bombay HC
Holding hands and unzipping pants, not sexual assault under POCSO Act: Bombay HC
BREAKING: SC stays Bombay HC’s controversial POCSO judgment
National commissions for women and child rights decry Bom HC POCSO judgment

The post Sub-standard testimony of survivor, no scuffle: Bombay HC acquits rape accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a rape accused after the survivor’s mother expressed that she has no objection to the same.

The petitioner was represented by Lokesh Kumar Mishra and the State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Chauhan.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said, “Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer/I.O./SHO of the concerned Police Station.”

The petitioner who applied for anticipatory bail stated that the present FIR has been lodged on account of misunderstanding between the parties and the complainant has already given request for re-recording of her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He further said that he was a Government servant and that although the alleged incident was committed between the period from January, 2020 to June, 2020, however, the FIR came to be registered only on July 12, 2020.

State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the prosecutrix had supported the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. However, the mother of the prosecutrix submitted that the petitioner has married the prosecutrix and she has no objection if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail.

SabrangIndia had reported on a Madras High Court order that granted bail to a man accused of raping and impregnating a 17 year old girl on a condition that he would marry her when she attains the majority age of 18.

Related:

Madras HC grants POCSO accused bail if he marries survivor!

Kerala rapist demands parole to marry survivor; ploy to escape justice?

The post Delhi HC grants pre arrest bail to rape accused who married Prosecutrix appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has recommended the protection of the rape accused’s identity in a “false case” until they are found guilty especially at a time when rape cases are on the increase, have led to public outrage and the public and social movements and political parties alike are demanding, independent prosecution and strict action against the accused.

The study titled Interrogating violence against women from the other side: An exploratory study into the world of perpetrators which was commissioned by the NHRC and conducted by the Centre for Women’s Development Studies that is affiliated to the Ministry of Education, sought to understand sexual violence against women from the perspective of sexual predators. The study highlighted that where a survivor’s identity is kept under the wraps and revealing the name is a punishable offence, the same principle does not apply to alleged accused persons whose personal details are circulated without any restrictions. “A time has come, when there is a need for safeguards to protect the accused from false claims”, the study mentions.

Amidst the public anger and a popular call for more stringent measures to address sexual violence after the rape case of Nirbhaya in 2012, the Verma Committee was constituted and subsequently the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 19 March 2013, and by the Rajya Sabha on 21 March 2013 to widen the interpretation of the term rape in the Indian Penal Code.

The study recognizes the possibility of misuse of laws quoting that, “Some quarters have objected to the ‘skewing’’ of the law in favour of women. Fears are expressed about the potential ‘misuse’ of the law by women to frame innocent men. The fear of an increase in false complaints probably comes more from a fear of the autonomy that women have received by these legal measures.” The study cites examples of a few incidents where men were falsely accused by women because of issues like miscommunication with the girl’s family, alcoholism, etc.

The study also recommended that the anonymity of the accused can definitely be protected till a charge is framed or till he is convicted. “Such a protection would be very beneficial particularly to the juvenile accused. In order to protect the anonymity of the accused, it is also important that media be careful in reporting on such cases. Although issues of identification and naming of the principal actors may not appear to be significant in the larger picture of things, they have major ramifications especially for accused who are later found to be innocent”, the study said.

The study includes interviews with juveniles convicted of crimes against women which were done at the Special Home for Boys in Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi. Four out of the eight boys denied the charges on which they had been convicted, three accepted their role in the crime and the remaining one did not give any information. The boys who denied charges alleged a police conspiracy, false implication by the family members of the girl, wrongly charged by a woman who had some animosity with his mother as reasons for detention.

While dealing with the issue of Perspectives of Perpetrators of Crimes against women (Juvenile and Adult), the study mentioned that the strange dichotomy that presents before us is that “men are confused about how to handle their sexual urges” because now the unquestioned masculinity privilege is being challenged by gender equality and women’s greater presence in the public sphere. At the same time women, especially the ones belonging to the marginalized sections continue to remain subservient to men and absorb the notions of chastity and family honour. “This creates great confusion and anomie for boys and men as they are given mixed messages. And we as a society have not yet found the means to respond to these contradictory challenges”, the study suggested.

The study talks about protecting juveniles accused of sexual crimes in order to avoid stigmatization through citing the Nirbhaya case. It said, “Even in the Nirbhaya case the identity of the juvenile was not disclosed. This is done to ensure that he is not stigmatized. If his identity is made public, he may face difficulties in integrating back into the society. For instance, he may not be admitted into a school.” It pointed out at the lack of similar provisions for adult offenders. “Names of adult offenders are paraded in sensational media reports along with other personal information. How come the same principal of anonymity is not followed in the case of adult offenders?”, it questioned.  

Neeraj Kumar, a former Delhi Police Commissioner, who had handled the investigations during December 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case had this to say on some of the findings of the study when he told The Hindustan Times that, “It is a fact that rape laws have been misused by stretching the concept of consent a bit too far. Miscarriage of justice on this count can be prevented by alert and mindful judiciary. Treating adults accused of rape on par with juvenile offenders is stretching the logic a little too far. By the same argument, adults accused of other crimes should also not be named until framing of charge. This suggestion appears untenable.”

Related:

CJP moves NHRC in Sultanpur Rape Case
Stop using rape cases for communal polarization

The post NHRC study recommends protecting the anonymity of rape accused until proven guilty appeared first on SabrangIndia.