Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.,  overturned the conviction of a rape accused by giving him benefit of doubt.

Case of the Prosecution

In the year 2012, accused committed rape on minor girl aged 15 years and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On an examination of the materials on record, the Court below found that the prosecution has not made out a case against the accused under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court however found that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced the accused.

Accused filed the present petition as he was aggrieved by the sentence and conviction.

Decision

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC?

overt acts attributed against the accused being overt acts allegedly took place prior to Act 13 of 2013, the point to be considered is as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC as it stood prior to Act 13 of 2013.

Prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim girl.

Further the Court observed that the medical examination of the victim girl was done after about 5 years.

The mother of the victim girl who was examined as PW3 turned hostile. In a case of this nature, the fact that the mother of the victim girl herself has not given evidence against the accused in support of the prosecution case throws serious doubts as regards the genuineness of the case.

Bench also noted that the version of the victim girl as regards the overt acts attributed against the accused while she was taken to the doctor for medical examination was that the said incidents took place while she was studying in the 6th standard, whereas, as revealed from the extracted portion of the evidence, what was stated by her before the Court was that the said overt acts have been committed by the accused while she was studying in the 5th standard.

Hence, in view of the inconsistent versions with regard to the overt acts alleged against the accused along with absence of any specific evidence, Court did not found it safe to convict the accused.

“…it was found that the prosecution has not proved the age of the victim girl, even if it is admitted that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, there is absolutely nothing on record to infer that the alleged sexual acts attributed have been committed against the will of the victim girl or without her consent.”

Court also noted that, the overt acts alleged against the accused took place during 2010, whereas the charge in the case is that the accused committed rape on the victim girl during 2012.

Therefore, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and criminal appeal is allowed. [Shaik Shiyavulla v. State of Kerala, Crl. A. No. 773 of 2017, decided on 09-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J., allowed pre-arrest bail to the applicant accused of raping a women whom he allegedly met on facebook.

Accused preferred a pre-arrest bail application for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code, 1860.

Petitioner and informant were in a relationship for 1.5 years and petitioner had promised to marry the informant.

When informant had reached Kozikhode for purchasing some clothes for their marriage, she was taken to a lodge, where both petitioner and informant stayed together and informant was subjected to penetrative sexual abuse.

Petitioner also took some pictures of the informant and threatened with the same to obtain a sum of Rs 40,000 and gold chain.

Decision

Bench noted that according to the de facto complainant, she was in a relationship with the petitioner.

Court relied on the Supreme Court case of Dr Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 (1) KHC 403] wherein it was held that there is a distinction between rape and consensual sex.

Bench stated in the present matter that the question to be considered is:

Whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to that effect only to satisfy his lust?

“…former is not rape but the latter will fall within the ambit of cheating and deception.”

Distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise

Further Court also observed that,

if the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, then such consent cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.

Thus, in view of the above, Court’s opinion was that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessitous for an effective investigation.

Hence, the present application was allowed with certain conditions. [Shanil v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 3798 of 2020, decided on 06-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: P.B. Suresh Kumar, J., addressed a matter in which a 59 year old man was accused of raping a minor girl and the issue that has been dealt primarily in the matter is with regard to consent in the context of rape.

Conviction and Sentence of the appellant were challenged in the present appeal.

What is the accusation?

Accused had committed rape on a minor girl aged 14 years belonging to Scheduled Caste and impregnated her on various days.

Offences alleged were punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Decision of the lower Court

Court below on perusal of the record found that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and impregnated her.

Although the Court found that the prosecution did not prove the age of the victim girl and failed to establish that the case is one that falls under the sixth description in the definition of ‘rape’ in terms of Section 375 of the IPC as it stood then, it held that in the absence of any case for the accused that the sexual intercourse he had with the victim girl was consensual, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

Point formulated for decision

Whether the prosecution established that the sexual intercourse between the victim girl and accused was without her consent?

Court noted that the present case was decided prior to the introduction of Section 114A of the Evidence Act.

Victim Girl’s deposition

While she was watching television, the accused sent his granddaughter away to a shop, closed the door of the house, pulled her to the adjacent room, made her lie down in a cot, removed her clothes and inserted his genital organ into her vagina after removing his clothes.

Understanding the concept of consent in the context of rape

Mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non- resistance, or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by duress, cannot be deemed to be ‘consent’ as understood in law and the consent, on the part of a woman as a defence to an allegation of rape, requires voluntary participation, not only after the exercise of intelligence, based on the knowledge, of the significance and moral quality of the act, but after having freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent.

Sexual assaults including rape are crimes of gender inequality.

Court added to its conclusion that, in a country like ours committed to gender equality, only sexual intercourse which are welcomed could be construed as not violative of the rights of the victim, and accepted as consensual.

Accused was a fatherly figure to the victim girl, leaving apart the age factor there is was doubt with the class in which she was studying during the relevant period. She used to go the accused’s place for watching television and taking advantage of the situation accused had made sexual advances to her.

Accused’s case was only that the admitted conduct of the victim girl in going to the house of the accused as when desired by him subsequently would indicate that the latter instances of sexual intercourse were consensual.

Thus, Court in view of the above concluded that in a situation as was in the present matter, conduct on the part of the victim girl in surrendering before the accused as and when desired by him cannot be said to be unusual or abnormal and such surrender can never be construed as consensual acts of sexual intercourse. [Thankappan P.K. v. State of Kerala, Crl. A. No. 564 of 2018, decided on 29-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J., granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of committing sexual offence.

Petitioner was accused for the offences under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66-B of Information Technology Act, 2000 and by the present petition seeks bail.

State while opposing the petition submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and it would be unsafe for the society if offenders like petitioner is granted bail.

Thus in view of the above Judge of the lower Court had rejected his claim.

Bench on perusal of the petition papers and on consideration of the contentions submitted by the counsels granted anticipatory bail for the following reasons:

  • seriousness alone is not the criteria to deny liberty to the citizen when there is no prima facie case from the side of the State Police;
  • version of the complainant that she was subjected to rape on the false promise of marriage in the given circumstances of the case, is bit difficult to believe at this stage; there is a letter allegedly written by the complainant to the effect that she was ready to withdraw the complaint if a compromise is brought about, especially when the complainant had employed the services of the petitioner since last two years or so; nothing is stated by the complainant as to why she did not approach the Court at the earliest point of time when the petitioner was allegedly forcing her for sexual favours;
  • nothing is mentioned by the complainant as to why she went to her office at night ie., 11.00 p.m.; she has also not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning; the explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished;
  • version of the complainant that she had been to Indraprastha Hotel for dinner and that the petitioner having consumed drinks came and sat in the car, even if is assumed to be true, there is no explanation offered for not alerting the police or the public about the conduct of the petitioner

Thus in view of the above, petitioner was granted bail. [Sri Rakesh v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 2427 of 2020, decided on 22-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ. partly allowed the present appeal wherein a teacher sexually assaulted his minor students.

Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for offences of rape, aggravated penetrative sexual assault and for assault on the minor victim a schoolgirl with intent to outrage her modesty.

Judgment of conviction and sentence order have been challenged in the present appeal.

During the investigation, minor victim was examined and it was found that her breast nipples were swollen and her hymen was not intact and it admitted one finger coupled with tenderness and foul smell. Thus, Dr Rozeela Bhutia opined in her medical report that there was clinical evidence of sexual assault.

Minor victim identified the appellant as Kendrap Sir who used to teach them Mathematics and Hindi when she was in the 4th and 5th standards. She deposed that on two occasions, the appellant put his finger in her pisab garne (vagina). She deposed that on five occasions he put his hands on her chest/breasts in the classroom of the school. She also deposed about the appellant sexually abusing other schoolgirls.

Bench observed that,

It may be possible to get confused at such a tender age about which act was committed on which schoolgirl but near impossible for a schoolgirl to forget how she was sexually abused that too by her own teacher.

Section 375(b) IPC provides that insertion of a finger (a part of the body) into the vagina amounts to rape.

Court stated that it is inclined to uphold appellant’s conviction under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and (n) of the Penal Code, 1860.

Thus in view of the above terms, sentences under Sections 9(f), 9(l) and 9(m) of the POCSO Act are upheld.

In terms of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant is not liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 5(f), 5(l) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the appellant’s sentences under Section 5 of the POCSO Act are set aside.

Keeping in mind all the relevant considerations including the age of the appellant, Court held that sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs 50,000 for the above offences would be sufficient for the ends of justice. Appellant has been sentenced to 7 years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 40,000 each for the offences under Sections 9(f), 9(l) and 9(m) of the POCSO Act.

Thus the appeal is partly allowed. [Kendrap Lepcha v. State of Sikkim, 2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 40 , decided on 01-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., upheld the decision of trial court for offence of rape and videographing the same while clicking nude photographs of the victim.

Appellant filed an appeal against the judgment convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/ 354C/ 506 of Penal Code, 1860.

Background of Case

Appellant had raped a 20 year old girl and videographed the act along with clicking nude photographs of her. Further he blackmailed her while demanding 5 lakh rupees.

Prosecutrix’s stance

The accused kept pursuing the prosecutrix to meet through various messages and calls from unknown numbers and while the prosecutrix kept ignoring the same and warned him that she will complaint to the police and in response accused said that he would commit suicide and she would be responsible for the same.

Next day, again the accused gave a call to the prosecutrix asking her to come to Nirman Vihar Station otherwise he would commit suicide and bring disrepute to her. Fearing the same, she wen to meet him after which the accused took her to a guest house and forcibly established physical relationship, taking nudes photographs her and recording the same.

Further he threatened her that in case she doesn’t attends his calls and comes to the places where he calls her, she would have to suffer ignominy. Next day, she informed her family members and a complaint was lodged.

In another statement under Section 164 CrPC to police, the difference noted was the following:

“…he had pulled her hair and slapped her and further told her that if she screamed, no one would listen to her. He ordered her to remove her clothes. He also rung up someone (purportedly, to his uncle) and stated that “chacha ye ladki maan nahi rahi hai, aap aa jaao”.

Bench Observed that,

There is no inconsistency in her statement that the appellant had forcibly established physical relationship with her.

Any doubt that could have been entertained regarding whether the prosecutrix and the appellant had any consensual sex is removed by the fact that the appellant had prepared a video clip of him establishing physical relationship with the prosecutrix.

Therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix that the appellant had threatened her that he would upload her video and photographs on the net, cannot be disbelieved.

Court found no infirmity with the decision of the Trial Court in convicting the appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 (Part I) and 354 C of the Penal Code, 1860.

Thus, in view of the above, appeal stands dismissed. [Rahul v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 596 , decided on 18-05-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court:  A 3-judge bench of SA Bobde,  CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ has directed a trial court in Ramanagara district of Karnataka to ensure the presence of absconding self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda to face trial in a 2010 rape case. The Court also allowed a plea by K Lenin alias Nithya Dharmananda, former driver of Nithyananda and had filed a complaint against Nithyananda, for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him.

The Court ordered the cancellation of the non-bailable warrants issued against the complainant in the case on the condition he shows up before the trial court in Ramanagara district today itself. He had challenged the Karnataka High Court’s February order where non-bailable warrants were issued against Lenin for not appearing before the court for recording evidence.

“Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, which merely directs the petitioner to give evidence in support of his complaint,”

The Bench also directed that “the concerned trial court shall make every effort to ensure the presence of accused (Nithyananda) to face the proceedings.”

The Karnataka High Court had last month cancelled the bail granted to Nithyananda, even as the state police claimed the absconding godman was on a ‘spiritual tour’. Nithyananda is facing charges of rape and indulging in unnatural sex. He was arrested on April 22, 2010, however, granted bail on June 11, the same year.

[K. Lenin v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 276, order dated 03.03.2020]

(With inputs from ANI)

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and Naveen Sinha, JJ has dismissed a petition filed against the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to former BJP MP Swami Chinmayanand in a case pertaining to the alleged rape of a law student in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

The bench also issued a notice to Chinmayanand on another plea seeking transfer of the trial in the rape case against him from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi. It, however, refused to stay the trial of the case. The Bench, while refusing to interfere with the Allahabad High Court order, said the High Court had imposed sufficient conditions to ensure that the accused would not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the victim, claimed that secret videos of the law student (/topic/law-student) bathing were filmed, which were used by Chinmayanand to threaten her and to rape her. He told the court that the High Court, while granting bail, had noted that there was an apprehension of tampering with evidence and threatening but Chinmayanand was still granted bail.

The court, however, said that the apprehensions are taken note of by the High Court which is why certain conditions were imposed, else it would have been an unconditional bail.

“We understand your anxiety but the High Court is monitoring the investigation pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders. Protection is provided in a substantial manner. Everything has been considered and a charge sheet is filed. When charges have to be framed, the law will take its course,”

In February, Allahabad High Court had transferred from Shahjahanpur to Lucknow the trial in the sexual abuse case against Chinmyanand. The Allahabad High Court had on February 3 granted bail to Chinmayanand, a former Union minister of state, in the alleged rape case filed by a woman who studied law in a college run by Chinmayanand in UP’s Shahjahanpur.

In December 2019, the 23-year-old law student, who has accused Chinmayanand of rape, was released from a district jail in connection with an extortion case after she was granted bail by Allahabad High Court.

The woman was arrested on September 25 in connection with an extortion case filed on the basis of Chinmayanand’s complaint alleging that she, along with three of her friends, had demanded Rs 5 crore from him. Chinmayanand had alleged that they threatened to make public some purported videos of him getting a massage from the law student. On the other hand, the woman had alleged that she was repeatedly raped and blackmailed by Chinmayanand for over a year.

(Source: ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution Benches)

Supreme Court: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court today dismissed the curative petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, a death row convict in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case.

“The application for an oral hearing is rejected. The application for stay of execution of the death sentence is also rejected. The Curative Petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order,”

The five-judge Constitution bench of NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, JJ held,

“In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra, 2002 (4) SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed.”

Gupta had on Friday filed a curative petition before the Supreme court seeking the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. He is the fourth convict in the case to file a curative petition.The Supreme Court has already rejected the curative petitions of the remaining three.

This comes as a lower court issued a fresh death warrant  for the four convicts — Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh Singh, which orders their hanging at 6 am on March 3 at Delhi’s Tihar Jail. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also slated for March 5 hearing on a petition, filed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking directions to execute the death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case separately.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

[Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 264, decided on 02.03.2020]

(With inputs from ANI)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ., while addressing the present criminal reference wherein the deceased/victim was a Five and a half Year deaf and dumb girl who was brutally raped and murdered by the accused, held that,

…considering the depraved and shameful manner in which the offence has been committed, the said mitigating factor would not outweigh the aggravating factors and as such, we are satisfied that present case falls within the ambit of “rarest of rare case”.

Informant –father of the deceased had informed that despite search at various places deceased was not traceable, therefore he expressed his suspicion on some unknown person who would have allured and abducted his daughter. FIR was registered against unknown person for offence under Section 363 Penal Code, 1860.

Kunti Sona (accused 3) informed the police that her younger son informed her that brother Ram Sona had murdered a girl and has kept the dead body in the house. Her son Ram Sona and his friend Keli reached the house and all three concealed the dead body in a muddy Nala besides the railway track and that she could point out the place.

Keli informed the IO that he had seen Ram Sona committing rape and thereafter murdering the deceased/victim, he also saw the deceased bleeding from her private parts.

Accused Ram Sona disclosed to the police that when the deceased was playing he brought her in his house by luring her, when he reached the house, his friend Keli was watching TV and when he was committing rape, his friend tried to restrain him and later on he thrashed her head on the ground due to which she became unconscious.

Further, he adds. That out of fear he gagged her, killed her and concealed the dead body. He also disclosed that the next day his brother Dipak informed that members of the locality were looking for him and he may be thrashed.

Based on the evidence on record, trial judge convicted the accused and sentenced accused Ram Sona to be hanged till death for the offence under Section 376(A) and 302 of IPC, with other sentences for remaining charges.

Appellants Counsel, argued that names of the accused persons were note mentioned in the FIR, therefore they were framed subsequently by the prosecution, as they were not finding the culprits. He further argued that abscondance of accused was neither a circumstance nor there was any evidence of such abscondance. Confession by Kunti Sona and Amrit Singh in their memorandum of statements cannot be admissible against Ram Sona as nothing pursuant to the same was recovered and stands inadmissible in evidence.

Fouzia Mirza, Additional AG – argued that under Section 30 of Evidence Act memorandum of statement of co-accused is admissible in evidence if it is self implicating.

Analysis and Decision of the Court

Bench drew the point of significance that the concentration should be on legality and evidentiary value of the memorandum statements of accused persons and to what extent they can be relied upon to establish one of the important circumstances against the appellant.

Court observed that all the three memorandum statements were proved by the prosecution. Accused Kunti and Amrit did not commit the main offence under Sections 376 and 302 of Penal Code but have only assisted the main accused Ram Sona in concealing the evidence of crime by disposing of the dead body, their disclosure statements were self inculpatory.

Bench referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152, wherein it was argued that the facts already discovered cannot be again discovered.

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, Supreme Court held that,

“…so far as the confessional statement of co-accused is concerned, it may be taken into consideration against the appellant if it fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 30 of the Evidence Act.”

Adding to its conclusion, Court also noted that confession of co-accused can be used when there are other corroborative evidence against the co-accused. Stage to consider the confessional statement arrives only after the other evidence is considered and found to be satisfactory.

Self inculpatory confession of accused can be used against the co-accused and there is no general proposition that it can never be used for any purpose.

Thus, the facts disclosed in the memorandum statement of Ram Sona find corroboration from the medical report, which found injuries over private parts of the deceased and over her head as well. It also corroborated the memorandum statement of Amrit Singh, who had stated that he had seen accused Ram Sona committing rape. It further corroborated from the memorandum statements fo accused Kunti Sona and Amrit Singh, who has stated that all the 3 concealed the dead body near muddy Nala besides the railway track.

Memorandum statements of Kunti Sona and Amrit Singh are therefore admissible in evidence against accused Ram Sona.

Bench with regard to absconcion of the accused Ram Sona stated that the same gained importance, as he was the person who was last seen together with the deceased.

“We are convinced that the chain of circumstantial evidence has been duly proved against all the accused including Ram Sona and it is he who brought the deceased to his house, committed rape and thereafter murdered deaf and dumb prosecutrix, aged about 5½ years.”

High Court considered,

 “Whether the death sentence awarded to accused Ram Sona is to be confirmed or the same deserves to be commuted to life imprisonment.”

In Supreme Court’s decision of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, it was held that,

“…normal rule is that offence of murder shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court can depart from that rule and impose sentence of death only when there are special reasons for doing so.”

“If Court finds that the offence is of exceptionally deprave and heinous character and constitutes, on account of its design and manner of its execution, a source of grave danger to the society at large, the Court must impose the death sentence.”

Another case that was relied on by the bench was of Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, (1994) 3 SCC 381, in this case also the victim was a 7-year-old girl who fell prey to the accused’s lust and the Court held that,

“…The appellant seems to have acted in a beastly manner as after satisfying his lust he thought that the victim might expose him for the commission of the offence of forcible rape on her to the family members and others, the appellant with a view to screen the evidence of his crime also put an end to the life of innocent girl who had seen only seven summers.”

“…appellant had conceived of his plan and brutally executed it and such a calculated, cold-blooded and brutal murder of a girl of a very tender age after committing rape on her would undoubtedly fall in the category of rarest of the rare cases attracting no punishment other than the capital punishment.”

Hence, the High Court in view of the above-cited cases along with few others affirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed upon Ram Sona, Amrit Singh and Kunti Sona. [In ref. Of State of Chhattisgarh v. Ram Sona,  2020 SCC OnLine Chh 9, decided on 31-01-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench  of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ has said that it will hear on March 5, a petition, filed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking directions to execute the death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case separately. It is pertinent to note that a fresh death warrant has been issued for the four death row convicts, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta, and Mukesh Singh, in the case for their hanging at 6 am on March 3.

Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, appearing for the Union of India today, submitted to the apex court that the Delhi High Court had given a week’s time to execute the death warrants. The Centre had moved the top court after the Delhi High Court had rejected its petition.

The Delhi High Court had, on February 5, stated that the death warrant of all convicts in the Nirbhaya case should be executed together. The Delhi High Court had observed that Delhi prison rules do not state whether when the mercy petition of one convict is pending, the execution of the other convicts can take place and from the trial court to
Supreme Courtall convicts have been held by a common order and a common judgment.

Meanwhile, a Delhi court on Saturday dismissed an application filed by Vinay Sharma, one of the four death row convicts in Nirbhaya case, seeking specialised medical treatment for his claimed “grievous head injury, fracture in his right arm, insanity, mental illness and schizophrenia”.

Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution in the infamous Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

(Source: ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ has dismissed the plea seeking review of the order of the President of India rejecting the mercy petition of Vinay Kumar Sharma, one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case. It said,

“The note put up before the President of India is a detailed one and all the relevant materials were placed before the President and upon consideration of same, the mercy petition was rejected.”

Here is a gist of the grounds raised by the petitioner and the Court’s response to the said grounds:

Non-furnishing of relevant materials under RTI Act

Stating that since this Court has examined the file as indicated above, the petitioner cannot make grievance that because of the non-furnishing of the copy of the documents, prejudice is caused to them, the Court said that in any event,

“the issue with regard to the nature of documents required not being provided under the Right to Information Act would not arise, keeping in view the definite parameters under which the petition of the present nature is required to be considered.”

Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and Home Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi did not sign the relevant file

Upon perusal of the file relating to the mercy petition of the petitioner, it is seen that the Minister (Home), NCT of Delhi and Lieutenant Governor, Delhi has perused the relevant file and have signed the note to reject the mercy petition.”

Non-placing of relevant materials before the President of India and the relevant materials were kept out of consideration

By perusing the note put up before the President of India, we have seen that all the documents enclosed along with mercy petition of the petitioner and the submissions made by him in the mercy petition were taken into consideration.”

Non-placing of relevant materials – medical status report and the status report as per the mental health of the petitioner

It was argued that torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment and the physical assault were inflicted on Vinay Kumar in the prison, and that he was was suffering from various illness and on complaints of “decreased appetite”, “decreased sleep” and number of other times for “psychiatric review”, “thought disorder” and “weakness”, number of times, he was taken to Central Jail Hospital and the petitioner was given treatment repeatedly. This was, however, not brought to the notice of the President. On this the Court noticed that the medical report of the petitioner along with the treatment and his latest medical report dated 30.01.2020 was placed before the concerned authorities which in turn, was placed before the President.

“In the medical status report, Dr. Akash Narade has referred to the details of the treatment of the petitioner and certified that the petitioner is psychologically well adjusted and he was being provided with regular therapy sessions by specialized therapists and the general condition of the petitioner is stable.”

The Court further reiterated that the alleged suffering of the petitioner in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting petitioner’s mercy petition. The bench had said the same thing while dismissing Mukesh Kumar’s plea against rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

Solitary confinement

for security reasons, the petitioner was kept in one ward having multiple single rooms and barracks and the said single room had iron bars open to air and the same cannot be equated with solitary confinement/single cell.

“It is clear from the affidavit filed by the Director General (Prisons) that the petitioner was not kept in solitary confinement; rather he was kept in protective custody which was for the benefit of the petitioner and also for ensuring the security.”

Bias Order was passed on irrelevant considerations

It was argued that bias caused to the case of the petitioner because of the statements made by the Ministers in the Delhi Government as well as in the Union Government which have led to pre-judging the outcome of the petitioner’s mercy petition even before it was placed before the President of India for consideration. On this the Court said,

“The public statements said to have been made by the Ministers, cannot be said to have any bearing on the “aid and advice” tendered by the Council of Ministers of Delhi to the Lieutenant Governor or by Council of Ministers in the Central Government to the President.”

Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution in the infamous Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

 [Vinay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 196, decided on 14.02.2020]

 

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by ANI,

Chinmayanand who is an Ex-BJP Minister was accused of raping a law student has been granted bail.

The woman who has been said to be raped by the minister was arrested in connection with an extortion case filed on the basis of Chinmayanand’s complaint, wherein he stated that the woman along with few other friends of hers had demanded Rs 5 crore from him while threatening him with the release of some inappropriate videos.

Victim had alleged that she was repeatedly raped and blackmailed by Chinmayanand for over a year.


[Source: ANI]

Hot Off The PressNews

A Delhi Court postpones the execution of death convicts in the Nirbhaya case till further orders. The execution which was scheduled for tomorrow i.e. 01-02-2020 has now stayed.

Additional Sessions Judge Dharmendra Rana reserved its order on the two applications moved by the counsel of the convicts – A.P. Singh and Vrinda Grover.

During the course of hearing, Singh (Counsel for the convicts) said that a mercy plea has been filed on behalf of one of the convicts – Vinay Kumar.

Saying only one convict’s plea is pending and the others can be hanged, Tihar Jail authorities challenged the application of three condemned prisoners in the case seeking a stay on their execution.

The convicts’ lawyer disagreed with the jail authorities and said rules dictate that when one convict’s plea is pending the others cannot be hanged.

Tihar jail authorities filed a status report in the matter and informed the court that the convicts can be hanged separately adding that convict Mukesh Singh has exhausted all the legal remedies available to him.

Advocate Seema Kushwaha, representing the victim’s side, said that the convicts herein are adopting delay tactics to thwart the speed of justice.

[Story to be updated]


[Source: Media Reports]

[Image Credits: ANI]

Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution Benches)

Supreme Court: A 5-judge bench of NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, JJ has rejected the curative petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the four convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case. While doing so the Court said,

“We have gone through the Curative Petitions and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, reported in 2002 (4) SCC 388.”

Last month, on 18.12.2019, a 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had rejected the review petition and had said,

“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the appreciation of evidence or the findings of the judgment dated 05.05.2017. None of the grounds raised in the review petition call for review of the judgment dated 05.05.2017.”

Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution on February 1 in the matter.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

The Court had on May 5, 2017, upheld the death sentence of all the four convicts in the brutal December 16 gangrape and murder case. The Court, while dismissing the appeal of the four convicts, had said that the crime fell in the rarest of rare category and “shaken the conscience of the society.”

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

[Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 108, decided on 30.01.2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Two Finger test Held — Unconstitutional

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Bhargav D. Karia, JJ., while deciding  the two clubbed appeals, held that,

“Two-finger test is unconstitutional. It violates the right of the victim to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

Court while analysing the present set of appeals stated that, it is a very unique acquittal appeal.

In the present case, two appeals have been combined.

The accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 363 of the Penal Code, 1860. Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charge of rape under Section 376 of IPC.

Prosecutions’ Case

While the victim was on her way to answer nature’s call early in the morning, she was hit by the accused with a weapon and forcefully taken away by him. While the victim was in custody and confinement of the accused, she was ravished forcefully.

It has been stated that the victim went missing on 26-03-1994, but the FIR lodged by the mother was on 10-04-1994. Further, the investigation revealed that the victim was confined at the house of the brother of the accused. Once the accused was arrested by the police at the stated place, the victim and the accused were thereafter sent for medical examination.

Through the birth certificates and other relevant documents, it was found that the victim was a minor at the date of the alleged offence, i.e. she was less than 16 years of age.

On noting the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of Penal Code, 1860. But the trial court acquitted the accused of the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC on an erroneous assumption that the victim was major on the said date of offence.

Analysis of the Court

As stated earlier, the Court found the present set of appeals as a very “unique acquittal appeal”.

It was noted that, at the time when the trial court heard the prosecution and the defence on the point of the sentence that the trial court realised that it had committed a mistake in calculating the age of the victim. Trial Court acknowledged its mistake, but declined to do anything in the matter, as the order of acquittal was already pronounced.

Point about the “Two-Finger Test”

Court noted very disturbing contents in the medical certificate of the victim, wherein it appeared that in the course of the medical examination, the two-finger test was conducted.

“The two-finger test also known as the PV (Per Vaginal) refers to an intrusive physical examination of a woman’s vagina to figure out the laxity of vaginal muscles and whether the hymen is distensible or not. In this, the doctor puts two fingers inside the woman’s vagina and the ease with which the fingers penetrate her are assumed to be in direct proportion to her sexual experience. Thus, if the fingers slide in easily the woman is presumed to be sexually active and if the fingers fail to penetrate or find difficulty in penetrating, then it is presumed that she has her hymen intact, which is a proof of her being a virgin.”

Adding to the above, Court also stated that the two-finger test is one of the most unscientific methods of examination that is used in the context of sexual assault and has no forensic value. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not allow a rape victim’s credibility to be compromised.

To add to the analysis, Court while placing their concern with regard to the “two-finger test” also stated that,

“Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence.”

Referring to the Supreme Court case in, Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643, wherein it was held that,

“…A rapist not only causes physical injuries, but leaves behind a scar on the most cherished position of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity.”

 “…two-finger test and its interpretation violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

 Learned APP, submitted he is not sure whether the State of Gujarat has issued any directions to do away with the Per-Vaginum examination – Two-Finger Test.

 Endeavour is to remind the trial courts as well as the medical fraternity that the “two-finger test” is unconstitutional, as it violates the right of the victim of sexual assault to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.

Further, the Court found the only question for consideration,

“Whether the trial court committed any error in holding the accused guilty of the offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 366 IPC and acquitting the accused of the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC?

 For the above, High Court stated that, in case if the victim was a consenting party and had some relations with the accused, there is no escape from the fact that the victim was minor.

Once the victim is found to be a minor at the time of commission of offence, more particularly, when it comes to the offence of rape, the accused cannot plead in his defence that the victim was a consenting party.

Conclusion

High Court on perusal of the above stated that unfortunately, the trial court realised its mistake at a very late stage and in such circumstances, the trial court found itself in a helpless situation as it could not have reviewed its order of erroneous acquittal or illegal acquittal so far as the offence of rape was concerned.

Thus, the High Court held the accused to be guilty of the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Conviction appeal preferred by the accused should fail and the acquittal appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat should succeed.  [State of Gujarat v. Rameshchandra Rambhai Panchal, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 114, decided on 17-01-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Dismissing the petition filed Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder convict Mukesh Kumar Singh, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by President Ram Nath Kovind, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Ashok Bhushan, JJ said,

“Merely because there was quick consideration and rejection of the petitioner’s mercy petition, it cannot be assumed that the matter was proceeded with pre-determined mind.”

Mukesh Kumar had filed the writ petition against the President’s order rejecting his mercy petition and had sought commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment on the following grounds:

  • Relevant materials were not placed before the President of India and they were kept out of consideration while considering the mercy petition;
  • The mercy petition was rejected swiftly and there was pre-determined stance and complete non-application of mind in rejection of the mercy petition;
  • Solitary confinement of the petitioner for more than one and half years due to which the petitioner has developed severe psychiatric ailments;
  • Non-consideration of relevant circumstances like prisoners’ suffering in the prison and consideration of extraneous and irrelevant circumstances; and
  • Non-observance of established rules and guidelines in considering the petitioner’s mercy petition.

After hearing the matter at length for the entire day, the bench observed that

“By perusal of the note, we have seen that all the documents were taken into consideration and upon consideration of the relevant records and the facts and circumstances of the surrounding crime, the President has rejected the mercy petition. There is no merit in the contention that the relevant materials were kept out of the consideration of the President.”

The Court further noticed that where the power is vested in a very high authority, it must be presumed that the said authority would act carefully after an objective consideration of all the aspects of the matter.

On the argument relating to Solitary confinement of the prisoner, it was brought to the Court’s notice that for security reasons, the petitioner was kept in one ward having multiple single rooms and barracks and the said single room had iron bars open to air and the same cannot be equated with solitary confinement/single cell. It was further stated that the prisoner/petitioner who was kept in the single room comes out and mixes up with the other inmates in the prison on daily basis like other prisoners as per rules.

On the argument raised by Mukesh Kumar’s counsel that he was physically and sexually assaulted in Tihar jail and put under solitary confinement, the Court said,

“The alleged sufferings in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition.”

The Court concluded by holding that the delay in disposal of mercy petition may be a ground calling for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution, however,

“the quick consideration of the mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. Nor does it suggest that there was pre-determined mind and non-application of mind.”

Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution on February 1 in the matter.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

[Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 96, decided on 29.01.2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: After a day long hearing in he petition filed Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder convict Mukesh Kumar Singh, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by President Ram Nath Kovind, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Ashok Bhushan, JJ has said that it will pass the order at 10:30 tomorrow.

Four people, Mukesh Kumar Singh , Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Sharma, and Akshay Kumar Singh, are facing execution on February 1 in the matter.

Advocate Anjana Prakash, appearing on behalf of Mukesh, alleged that her client was physically and sexually assaulted in Tihar jail and put under solitary confinement.

“He (Mukesh) was forced to have intercourse with Akshay (another death row convict in the case) in Tihar jail,”

The counsel said that the Presidential pardon is a Constitutional duty of great responsibility, which must be exercised keeping in mind greater good of the people.

“Solitary confinement and procedural lapses are the grounds for considering this case … Undue delay in hearing the petition and the due and prescribed procedure was not followed in this case,”

She further contended that the documents were placed before the President of India without application of mind. She said,

“I am not challenging the judicial verdict. The judicial verdict stands as it is. The courts can’t go into as how it was rejected, but the president can certainly go into the merits of the case,”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Delhi government, said that even death convicts have to be treated fairly under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but opposed the plea of the death row convict.

“Delay can be a ground for considering a case, but expeditious disposal of case/petition (/search?query=petition), it can’t be a ground for challenging this before the court,”

He highlighted that the trial court, Delhi High court, and the Supreme Court had awarded and upheld the death penalty to the convicts in the case while considering their medical condition.

“Sometimes, the medical health and condition of a death row convict deteriorate so much so that the death penalty can’t be awarded to those death row convicts, but in this case, the medical condition of this convict is fine,”

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

(Source: ANI)

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court : A bench headed by CJI SA Bobde has said that it will hear the writ petition filed by one of the death row convicts
in the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case tomorrow at 12:30. The death row convict Mukesh Kumar Singh has challenged the rejection of his mercy petition by President of India. CJI had, earlier today, asked Mukesh Kumar’s lawyer to approach Supreme Court Registry for urgent listing of his plea against rejection of mercy petition by the President. He said,

“If somebody is going to be executed on February 1, it’s top priority”

A Delhi court has issued a fresh death warrant against the four death-row convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case, who will be executed on February 1 at 6 am.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

Last week, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial.
Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

(Source: ANI)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J., allowed a criminal revision application filed against the order of the Magistrate whereby he had rejected the petitioner’s prayer under Section 156(3) CrPC to send the petition of complaint to the officer-in-charge of the police station for treating the same as first information report.

The petitioner had alleged commission of various offences against her in-laws including rape and forceful abortion of her pregnancy. The petitioner claimed that she had written a complaint before the police authorities and also reported the incident to Superintendent of Police but no action was taken by them. As such, she was compelled to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC for treating the same as an FIR and directing the officer-in-charge of Habra Police Station to cause an investigation into the allegations. The Magistrate directed the officer-in-charge to verify the allegations. The officer-in-charge in the report stated that the petitioner was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and in-laws on several times but there was no evidence of rape and termination of pregnancy of the petitioner by force except her own statement. On the basis of this report, the Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the instant revision application.

The High Court gave due consideration to the submissions made by Angshuman Chakroborty, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Sayanti Santra, Advocate representing the State.

Not satisfied with the approach adopted by the Magistrate, the Court observed: “The learned Magistrate has committed an error without taking cognizance of the alleged offences under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC at the time of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC.”

It was further explained: “The appropriate course of action of a Magistrate while rejecting a prayer under Section 156(3) CrPC, to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Section 200 CrPC and to examine the complainant and her witnesses to determine as to whether the process should not be issued. Again under Section 202(1) CrPC the Magistrate, instead of issuing process, may direct an investigation to be made by a police officer. An investigation under Section 202(1) CrPC may hold the Magistrate to ascertain whether or not there is substantial ground to proceed further.”

The High Court was of the opinion that the Magistrate committed an error by rejecting the entire petition of the complaint and, therefore, held the impugned order was not sustainable in law. The Magistrate was directed to consider the petitioner’s prayer under Section 156(3) afresh. [Pranati v. State of W.B., 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 132, decided on 21-01-2020]