Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Why No Death Penalty For Gang Rape In India?

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Dec 9, 19, 10:03, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5519
These were the most emotional last words of Unnao gang rape victim who was brutally gang raped in March and when police allowed those gang rapists to be released on bail then they decided to burn her while she was on her way to attend the court hearing pertaining to this gang rape case

Brother, please save me, I don't want to die. I want to live. Those who have done this to me, I want to see them getting a death sentence.

These were the most emotional last words of Unnao gang rape victim who was brutally gang raped in March and when police allowed those gang rapists to be released on bail then they decided to burn her while she was on her way to attend the court hearing pertaining to this gang rape case as they were hundred percent convinced that the judiciary of India does not hang gang rapists and it is only once in 15 years that a poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee who could not afford fees to hire lawyers and whose petition was drafted by Tihar jail prisoners is hanged and so the chances of very easily escaping from strict punishment are quite bright! Every Indian will get moved to read what this Unnao rape victim said before dying! What was her fault? That she was a women?

Why are rapists released on bail for some time as we saw in case of Unnao gang rape case? Why no security is provided to the victim who was raped? Why the life and safety of victim is not cared for by police as we saw most unfortunately in Unnao which resulted in accused burning her 90% which led to her death later? Why should the strictest action not be taken against all those police cops who ensured that the accused were out on bail and who ensured that gang rape victim got no security?

Should we be proud of our legal justice system which operates at an excruciatingly glacial pace and makes sure that those who commit rape and gangrape coupled with murdering the rape victim by either setting them ablaze as has nowadays become the latest fashion or in some other manner in some cases? All the Judges of Supreme Court, ex Judges, ex-CJIs, legal giants like K Parasaran, Soli J Sorabjee, Kapil Sibal, Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, etc must ponder over it and think of ways by which the waning public faith in our judicial system is restored! If the public faith is destroyed then people will start taking law in their own hands to deliver instant justice which can never be good for our country!

It is most shocking that the incidents of not just rape but even gang rape followed by setting ablaze the victim is increasing very rapidly in our country as we saw most recently in Unnao, Hyderabad and many other cities but still we don't get to read gang hanging! Are gang rapists immune from death penalty? Why is it that under our penal laws there is no mandatory death penalty for gang rape?

Why is it that under our penal laws there is no mandatory life imprisonment also for gang rape as stipulated in Section 376D of the IPC? Why the punishment for gang rape as stipulated in Section 376D of the IPC is shall not be less than twenty years but which may extend to life? Why this discretion bomb in form of may is inserted in Section 376D dealing with gang rape?

Should this discretion bomb not be defused promptly by removing it and providing for mandatory death penalty considering the irrefutable fact that gang rape incidents are increasing alarmingly in our country followed by even gang burning of gang rape victims as we saw most recently in Unnao and earlier in Hyderabad with a 26-year-old veterinary doctor? Can gang rape be justified under any circumstances? Why then do we see that there is no mandatory death penalty for such offences?

Why different punishment prescribed for gang rape on woman under 16 years of age as prescribed in Section 376DA and that on woman under 12 years of age as prescribed under Section 376DB of IPC? Why only life imprisonment under Section 376DA and not death? Why option of life and death in Section 376DB of IPC? Why not mandatory death penalty?

Why even for repeated offenders there is no mandatory death penalty and why the option of life term is added simultaneously in Section 376E of IPC? All these escape routes must be closed now forever so that rapists are never able to take advantage of the loopholes in our legal system anymore now! But are our politicians, lawmakers and Centre ready to do this or will they be happy with just face saving exercise and lip service? Only time will tell!

Why is it that about 15 to 16 years ago a poor rapist named Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged for rape-cum-murder of a Class XI girl in 2004 and that too on circumstantial evidence alone but no gang rapists are hanged ever? How many times have gang rapists been hanged in our country? Why are they not hanged?

Why gang rapists who even murder their victim as we saw in Nirbhaya case are not hanged till now? Should we keep feeling proud that just one poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee whose petition was drafted by prisoners of Tihar jail as was pointed out by senior Supreme Court advocate Colin Gonsalves was hanged about 15 years back in 2004? Should we not feel ashamed that many thousands of rapists cum killers escape death penalty by exploiting the legal loopholes in their favour?

Should we feel proud that since then not a single rapist has been hanged? Should we feel proud that even though thousands and thousands of rape incidents keep happening all across our country but yet we don't see any hanging since 2004 when Dhananjoy was last hanged? Should our judiciary, lawmakers, Parliament and Centre feel very proud on this?

Why just recently we saw how people threw flowers on those policemen in Hyderabad who killed those 4 gang rapists when they attacked them as is being alleged and people started celebrating and many politicians started hailing it? Why is it that people are losing faith in the ability of our judiciary to deliver justice in time? Is it not a matter of utmost concern for all of us that encounter killings is being glorified as people believe that the legal system has been designed in such a manner that it ensures that rapists and gang rapists are not hanged for many decades?

Why is it that Arvind Kejriwal who is Chief Minister of Delhi while expressing concern over people's loss of faith in the criminal justice system openly says that, People across the country are agitated over reports of horrible rape and murder incidents happening across the country that have come to light of late – whether it is Hyderabad or Unnao [where a rape victim was burnt earlier this week]. That's a reason why people are expressing happiness and satisfaction over the police encounter in Hyderabad? Why Kejriwal further says that, It is also something to be worried about, the way people have lost their faith in the criminal justice system. This demands introspection and all governments must come forward and work together strengthening the criminal justice system and investigating agencies? We all must seriously introspect on this!

Why is it that even after the killers of Nirbhaya who had been convicted by the Supreme Court and even after five years of death penalty being convicted by the Delhi High Court have not been hanged top death till now? Why their mercy petition keeps hanging? Is this the real beauty of our judicial system for which we should feel proud?

Why even Supreme Court does not say anything on it? Why even in terror cases like the killing of former PM late Rajiv Gandhi, killing of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, mercy petition keeps pending for decades? Should we be proud of this and justify it in the name of due process?

The Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu very rightly said that, What happens even after punishment is given to convicts. We all are witness... appeal, mercy (petition)... can anybody think of having mercy on such people? This kind of violation of dignity of women cannot go on unchallenged. What is required is not a new bill; what is required is political will, administrative skill and then change of mindset and then go for the kill of the social evil. He also rightly said that minors who know how to rape should not be given any benefit and must be punished just like others! Rightly so!

Why should a definite time not be set for completing rape cases? Why should a definite time not be set for deciding rape cases in lower courts, High Court as well as the Supreme Court also? Why should review petition not be abolished or at least time limit set for deciding it?

Why should mercy petition for heinous crimes like gang rapes and terror cases not be abolished or at least a time limit be set up for deciding it? Why Centre repeatedly ignores such demand made by prominent persons in this regard? Whose interest is served in doing so? Should we be proud of it? Why is it that it takes decades or many years to decide a mercy petition? Why can't it be decided within few days as pointed out by former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee?

It is good to note that even our President Ram Nath Kovind rightly pointed out that incidents of demonic attacks on women have shaken the conscience of the country. He rightly said that women safety is a very serious issue and a lot of work has been done on this but much remains to be done. He also advocated that those convicted under the POCSO Act should be deprived of their right to mercy petition as they do not need any such right. Here I would beg to differ with the President most humbly and add that there should be no discrimination of POCSO and others and all the rapists and all the terrorists deserve no mercy petition under any circumstances and even if it is still not abolished it must be decided within a short span of time say a few days or weeks and not in many decades which only gives a potential tool to our adversaries to take potshots at the manner in which anyone can get away even after killing the former PM of India as we saw in case of late Rajiv Gandhi where mercy petition was not decided even after decades!

Why can't strict and speedy justice be provided to people? Why should the 45% of lawmakers who have been elected to Parliament and who are facing themselves serious charges of rape and murder not be debarred permanently from entering politics until their name is cleared of all charges by the top court itself? Why no law has been enacted in this regard?

Why do we expect that such lawmakers who are themselves facing rape charges will support laws that mandates compulsory death penalty for all rape and terror cases? Are we not foolish? What they will favour is that just a single rapist like the poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee is hanged on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone once in 15 years and no rapists or gang rapists are hanged all these years even after they set the victim ablaze!

They will advise us that law will take its own course! They will advise us to be patient and have faith in India's judicial system! It is high time and now the Supreme Court too must speak out most strongly against all the inadequacies in our criminal justice system due to which people's faith in it is getting steadily dwindled as is being pointed out repeatedly in different newschannels, different newspapers and different magazines which is certainly not a healthy sign for a democratic country like India! Parliament too must seriously debate on it and should give this most sensitive issue of woman's safety and of according nothing but death penalty to those perpetrate the most horrifying crime against women the topmost priority instead of just debating trivial issues like that of onion or tomato or radish! Let's hope so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top