Delhi Case Follow-up thread

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Sep 2013 13:16

RamaY wrote:Chanakya garu,

The law has two responsibilities. One is to prevent/preempt things like rapes and another is to punish the guilty.

On the question of age of the culprit, that rapist was old enough to not only rape a girl but also old enough to hurt in the ways not even an adult, forget about a child, would think.

When the law becomes an excuse to not to punish such rapists, then that law has no meaning. And I wonder whether it is wisdom or law-abiding citizenery when people use such excuses to support this nonsense.

It was against law when Jesus came up with the stuff he came up with. It was against law when Galileo came with his stuff. It was legal to have slaves till late 1800s. So should we agree with all the people who indulged in inhuman stuff just because they were legal/constitutional in their days? This is the logic of Christian church and Communism, who always apologize for their past genocides while continuing with their new crimes.

That is why Ramanaji's question about individual 'Moral Compass'. Such moral compass doesn't need laws and constitutions/constipations to do the right thing. The laws and constitutions have been written million times.

Only prejudiced hide behind such laws and constitutions.

RamaY garu, may I beg to differ. I don't understand how a mere law can "prevent" anything, only one's conscience, or fear (of being caught and punished under a law that is strictly and fairly enforced) can have a hope of preventing a crime.

Laws are normally one-size-fits-all type. The special treatment of minors was enshrined into law with good intentions--once upon a time in England, it was common to simply hang even 8-9 year old children for crimes such as stealing bread. Revulsion against such abuses was part of the reason to exempt minors from the full force of the law.

Even in Hindu tradition, there is the story of a sage who was punished in for having been cruel to insects in a previous life. (someone knowledgeable can fill in the name & other details). Being a sattvic sage, he endured the punishment as he knew he had earned it, but then, using his tapas-power, he modified the law so that from then on, children under 15 are not held responsible for their evil actions.

The point is, there is plenty of good reason to give special "innocent" status to minors. That unfortunately has led to an undesirable outcome in the Delhi rape case. A youth who, by rights should have been severely punished is almost "getting away." This exposes a flaw in the juvenile law--someone should have thought of adding a provision (roughly similar to that present in the US) whereby the prosecutor can go to a higher court judge and ask for special leave to prosecute the accused as an adult.

Unfortunately, even if that mistake is rectified and this kind of procedure is put in place, it won't help in the present case since we can't apply changes in the law retroactively (to do so will lead to lots of abuse and turn us into a paki-style banana republic). So, the best outcome that I can see is (a) the loophole in the law is plugged forthwith and (b) some other way is found to see to it that this particular young person never hurts anyone again.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Sep 2013 19:37

KLNM garu, your analogy is right but extrapolation is not correct.

The Rishi was Mandavya - I wrote the story in epics thread a while ago http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1199338

Here the situation is reverse Mandavya. Let me explain -

In Mandavya's case, he did some Adharmic act as part of his childhood innocence and the law of the day was unnecessarily cruel to him. He was punished at an old age for a mistake he committed as a young boy.

In today's Jyothi Singh Panday a.k.a Nirbhaya's case the crime was committed not part of the culprit's childhood innocence and the law of the day is unnecessarily lenient towards naya-Kasab. Here the constipationalists question the suggestion to punish the guilty even when they grow out of their minority.

In Mandavya's case the Dharma Devata (Yama) itself was questioned and even cursed by Mandavya. He came to earth as Vidura.

In Jyothi Singh Panday's case the constipationalists are asking/giving immunity to all Adharmics sighting a colonial centric constitution.

That is why Ramanaji talked about moral compass, which guides the individual in a dharmic way even if there were no laws and constitution. He raised this point few times, Everytime asking the member to think beyond prevailing law/rules/constitution in a dharmic path, that is natural to one's intellect.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Sep 2013 19:53

People here were wondering what's wrong with the defence lawyers, well......

Gangrape controversy: Will burn my daughter alive if she had premarital sex, says Defence lawyer

New Delhi: In a shocking display of the decayed mentality of Indian society, AP Singh, the defence lawyer in the Delhi gang-rape case said he would have burnt his daughter alive if she was ever involved in love affairs or indulged in premarital sex.

"...If my daughter was having premarital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. I would not have let this situation happen. All parents should adopt such an attitude," AP Singh said referring to the gang-rape case infront of mediapersons.

and the consequence.....

Delhi gang-rape defence lawyer in trouble over remarks

The defence lawyer of two convicts in the December 16, 2012 gang- rape has been flayed for terming the verdict politically and emotionally driven and that he would have burnt his daughter alive had she been involved in pre-marital sex and were she to step out with boyfriends at night.

The Bar Council of Delhi has taken a serious view of lawyer AP Singh's statement to the media saying the judgment was coloured with other considerations and he would have burnt his daughter if she had been involved in ex-marital sex and roamed at night with her friends. Singh, lawyer for Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur, had even questioned whether such a stringent sentence would actually act as a deterrent and stop incidents of rape in the city.

Singh Friday told mediapersons that in response to a poser by the court he had said that "...if my daughter was having pre-marital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. I would not have let this situation happen..." The poser from the court was apparently in the context of Delhi gang rape victim.

Council secretary Murari Tiwari told IANS that the council was a statutory body mandated to ensure its members did not behave in a manner unbecoming of lawyers. Lawyers can't conduct themselves in an undignified manner and use language that lowers the esteem of the legal profession. "We have a code of conduct and professional ethics to follow," Tiwari said adding it was unbecoming of Singh to cast aspersion on the verdict before the media. "We condemn his statement and would seek his explanation," he said. "Everything that Singh had said would be taken up when he personally appears before the council," said Tiwari.

Meanwhile, the council has asked organisations representing social groups, who are up in arms over Singh's statement, to send their complaints in writing. A social activist said when Singh does not respect the freedom of his own daughter, what respect he will have for other human's rights.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Sep 2013 19:54

RSN Singh made a point which is very pertinent.

That (bloody) Juvenile is enjoying all perks and privileges of Laws based on a ( dubious) Primary School certificate and Court is sticking to that. While the Highest Court and Govt could not trust the Good old General Singh on his Matriculation certificate and denied him the due that was his.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Sep 2013 22:56

RamaY wrote:KLNM garu, your analogy is right but extrapolation is not correct.

The Rishi was Mandavya - I wrote the story in epics thread a while ago http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1199338

Here the situation is reverse Mandavya. Let me explain -

In Mandavya's case, he did some Adharmic act as part of his childhood innocence and the law of the day was unnecessarily cruel to him. He was punished at an old age for a mistake he committed as a young boy.

In today's Jyothi Singh Panday a.k.a Nirbhaya's case the crime was committed not part of the culprit's childhood innocence and the law of the day is unnecessarily lenient towards naya-Kasab. Here the constipationalists question the suggestion to punish the guilty even when they grow out of their minority.

In Mandavya's case the Dharma Devata (Yama) itself was questioned and even cursed by Mandavya. He came to earth as Vidura.

In Jyothi Singh Panday's case the constipationalists are asking/giving immunity to all Adharmics sighting a colonial centric constitution.

That is why Ramanaji talked about moral compass, which guides the individual in a dharmic way even if there were no laws and constitution. He raised this point few times, Everytime asking the member to think beyond prevailing law/rules/constitution in a dharmic path, that is natural to one's intellect.

18 years is probably too high a limit to be liable for a violent crime, most likely the 16-18 years age group (for boys particularly) has to be considered a transitional period which would require a special procedure to determine which version of the law has to be applied.

But that's just thinking with a legalistic hat on. The real problem with rapists like the Delhi ones and many others that have been surfacing is that the Indian mind is conditioned to think of Ravana, Duryodhana-Dussasana, Kichaka et al as the ultimate in rapist mindset, and Hindu tradition is quite clear about how to deal with such types. But I think the kind of attack visited upon Jyoti would shock even Ravana and other archetypal rapists. We don't have a template for imagining such brutality and wickedness.

But we think we (somehow being educated and in charge of our lives, apparently) should have such a template, therefore we come up with all kinds of analyses and solutions, none of which will be satisfactory, since the real need is to readjust our moral landscape (in which the moral compass has to operate) to include such levels of depravity. At that point the intellect can take over.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2013 01:24

KLNM, Also cant rule out the possiblity that the juvenile exemption was to protect scions of ruling elites of all kinds. we don't know the debates that led to this overarching blanket exemption.

For the statistics inclined ones a good exercise would be to count the reported number of rapes by juveniles before and after the act was passed.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 Sep 2013 04:57

Again we must remember the system convicted the juvenile. He is a convicted murder, there is no doubts about his. It is the sentencing phase that is causing all these problems. This is a little different from the west where technically a juvenile can not even stand trial, IIRC. It is possible to tweak the system to follow and monitor such individuals, not dissimilar to the sex crimes registry. Again he is a convicted murder so we can definitely demand he subject himself to the system for the rest of his natural life.

I think one will have to go lower that 15-16. There have been isolated cases in the west and even India where 10-12 year old's have 'chosen' to kill. A good psychologist can help find out if the concept of right/wrong is understood by the perpetrator, enough to be charged as an adult. That is the key test needed, not some arbitrary age cut off which does not make sense any more.
-----------------

Ramana,

We went though this extensively earlier. I too wanted a retrospective change to the law. But it was Chaanakya who pointed out that while retrospective changes are permitted for civil cases, they are not possible for criminal cases. At which point I reluctantly conceded that the law is flawed and allows the juvenile to face minimal punishment. Law needs to be modified.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 Sep 2013 05:09

chaanakya wrote:RSN Singh made a point which is very pertinent.

That (bloody) Juvenile is enjoying all perks and privileges of Laws based on a ( dubious) Primary School certificate and Court is sticking to that. While the Highest Court and Govt could not trust the Good old General Singh on his Matriculation certificate and denied him the due that was his.

These cases do not look similar to me. Can some lawyer compare them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2013 06:17

Yes. Its about the courts accepting birth certificates. In case of yje juvenile murderer they accepted his age sithoutvzny other proof. However in Gen VK Singh case they did not. The Supreme Court wanted him to bend with the wind in case you forgot.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 16 Sep 2013 06:20

^^It is similar at least to 'lay' eyes. A school certificate accepted in one case and rejected in the other. In fact, in the case of the General the certificate had been accepted at one time (when joining NDA or was it the IMA). In the case of this murderer the certificate has been accepted at the face value right at the outset.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 Sep 2013 09:15

AFAIK, the court accepted the generals birth certificate. There was never a question about it not being valid.
The question was his service condition document.

Also one is Civil and the other is Criminal. The rules are different as became clear with the retrospective rules issue.

Again some lawyer type should comment.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Sep 2013 15:28

Please read carefully , what I have written.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Sep 2013 15:29

And Criminal Culpability can not be applied with retrospective effect. Constitution as well as legal jurisprudence is very clear on that

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 Sep 2013 21:31

Chanaakya,

AFAIK the court 'trusted' the General on the birth certificate.
Am I wrong in this?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Sep 2013 21:43

Not in the same way as Court trusted that Juvenile's certificates

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 Sep 2013 21:59

Hmm! For the Juvenile the court also used the bone density test right which could not conclusively prove he was an adult. The court did not take that document at face value. The only document the court had was the fellows school leaving certificate, per which he was 17.

This is all very different from the General for whom the court was very clear that his birth certificate was legal and valid.

The real attack should be directed at the MoD which decided ‘on principle’ (what ever) that it would stick to the Generals service contract and not change his DoB. The Court merely said that the MoD was within its rights to do so as well.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Sep 2013 22:32

There was no bone density test nor could it be conclusive if it was a borderline case.

here is the extract of Juvenile Court Ruling though

A juvenile board, comprising a magistrate and two child welfare activists, said it accepted school records showing the juvenile, who may not be identified, as having been born on June 4, 1995. It said a bone density test to determine his age was not necessary.

Deljo Police had done test on its own and could not be admitted asevidence and JJ Court denied the motion for official bone density test.DP ultimately decided not to appeal this ruling . If you remember there was this farting from Kabir about Juvenile.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 16 Sep 2013 23:46

Theo_Fidel wrote:Ramana,

That problem with the law should be fixed.
There is no question of extra-judicial action being acceptable.
We must be a nation of laws.
Distance has nothing to do with it.
He is not a role model for anyone but demented thugs.
What are you talking about.

Law & Order is earned by society, often grievously.
We must remain law abiding even under the most trying of circumstances.
There are no short cuts.

Very valid. The law and order needs to be strengthened. It has shielded this murderer but the current law had provisions i.e. what made the judge accept his 10th certificate as valid when they refused it for the then Army Chief. There is more to this.

At the same time I fully agree with Theo that extra-judicial action is detrimental to the society. Robin Hoods seldom have the big picture and fracture the society and in the end strongest goonda takes over (a la Bihar under Lalu).

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Sep 2013 21:47

India Delhi gang rape lawyer faces 'misconduct' hearing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24105000

The post-trial comments of a defence lawyer in the Delhi gang rape case amount to "professional misconduct", Delhi Bar Council vice-chairman Rakesh Sherawat has told the BBC.Mr Sherawat said AP Singh "could lose his licence for life if found guilty".Mr Singh caused shock saying he would have "burned my daughter alive" if she was having "premarital sex and went out late at night with her boyfriend".He told the BBC on Monday his personal views had been taken out of context."I was asked about my views on a personal matter and I answered that in my personal capacity of being the patriarch of my house," he told the BBC. "My quote was not in the context of rape of any girl and it was misconstrued." Mr Singh, the lawyer for Akshay Thakur and Vinay Sharma, made his comments outside court on Friday after the judge sentenced his clients and two other men to death.His remarks - which were taken to be referring to the 23-year-old victim murdered in last December's attack - have caused a furore in India.
Anger and outrage "Mr Singh's remarks were very offending. It amounts to professional misconduct," the Delhi Bar Council's Mr Sherawat told the BBC.C"As a lawyer, one has to maintain some dignity, we have to be very careful while commenting on a case, specially at a time when the eyes of the entire world are on us."Mr Sherawat said Mr Singh's comment had led to anger and outrage among the legal community and that "every lawyer is feeling bad". The 25-member Delhi Bar Council would meet on Friday to discuss what action to take against Mr Singh, Mr Sherawat said and added that "if he is found guilty, we can suspend his licence for a period of time or even life"..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Sep 2013 01:30

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... ghter.html

The lawyer who’ll burn his daughter
Wednesday, 18 September 2013 | Rajesh Singh | in Oped

AP Singh, who unsuccessfully defended two of the four accused in the trial court in the December 16 rape case, seems to have lost his bearings

It is remarkable how just a statement or two from a person can reveal his character of a lifetime or at least his mindset of the moment. The country had known little about AP Singh until September 13. But on that day and in the next few hours, everyone knew how insensitive and foolish he is. By way of introduction, Mr Singh is a lawyer who defended two of the four accused in the gang rape of December 16 last. As a lawyer he had the right to defend and the accused the right to be defended. But soon after a trial court sentenced the four accused to death, Mr Singh erupted like a volcano, spewing venom directly on the judiciary (he alleged that the verdict was politically motivated and was not based on sound law) and indirectly on the victim who died days after she was brutalised by the gang.

This gentleman, who is evidently well-educated and conversant in law, appears to have lost out somewhere in life in picking up the basics of decency. Sample what he said after the sentencing: “If my daughter was having premarital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. I would not have let this situation happen. All parents should adopt such an attitude.” To say that these remarks smack of a patriarchic mindset is to be kind to him. Only a demented mind is capable of such an outburst. In any case, we are not concerned with what he would want to do to his daughter if she were to engage in pre-marital sex. We don't know if he has a daughter. If he does, she will have to scourge for reasons to be proud of her father post-September 13.

In the larger context, what Mr Singh said is an endorsement of ‘honour' killing. Someone please tell: Isn't there a provision in the law to book a person — a person of law at that — who makes such outrageously provocative remarks which fly in the face of the Supreme Court's various observations that ‘honour' killing is illegal? Please do something about this man before he translates his words of menace into action in some form or the other.

There is indeed something fundamentally wrong with Mr Singh, and the Bar association concerned must proceed to cancel, not merely suspend, his licence to practise. According to some reports, the lawyer-cum-loose cannon had even questioned, during the hearings of the case, the character of the victim — and he was severely reprimanded by the judge. This is another instance of the lawyer not knowing about or deliberately ignoring the directives of the apex court that the character of a victim in cases of crimes against women cannot be the basis to further an argument, either by the defence or the prosecution. If he gets away with such mischief and insensitivity, it will set a bad precedent. Worse, it will embolden others in Mr Singh’s mould to adopt similar obnoxious behaviour.

Does he understand the agony of the victim's family — her father, mother, brother? He is moved to tears by the death penalty to his clients, but does he not have the slightest bit of anger for what the brutes that he represented stand convicted of? If he did, he would not have behaved with such crassness. But then, how can we expect any understanding from a person who boasts that he will set his daughter on fire if she were to move around with her boyfriend late in the night or have physical relations with him? Mr Singh's place is not in the courtrooms where laws are meant to be respected, but among those Khaps that promote barbarity.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Sep 2013 19:54

December 16 Gangrape case: High Court to hear trial court reference on Monday

The Delhi High Court will hear the trial court's reference for confirmation of the death penalty awarded by it to four men in the December 16 gangrape-cum-murder case on Monday.

The matter will be heard by a bench headed by Justice Reva Khetrapa.

On September 13 while awarding capital punishment to Mukesh (26), Akshay Thakur (28), Pawan Gupta (19) and Vinay Sharma (20), Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna had referred the case to the high court for confirmation of the sentence.

The trial court has to refer each death penalty case to the high court for confirmation of the punishment.

The four convicts were awarded death sentence in the brutal gangrape case by the sessions court which said it fell in the rarest of rare category as the crime was committed against a 23-year-old girl in a "beastly" and "hair-raising" manner.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 23 Sep 2013 19:42

HC issues production warrant to death row convicts

NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC issued production warrants for tomorrow to four death row convicts in the December 16 gang-rape and murder case on the trial court's reference for confirmation of the capital punishment given to them.

A bench of justices Reva Khetrapal and Pratibha Rani directed Tihar Jail authorities to produce Mukesh (26), Akshay Thakur (28), Pawan Gupta (19) and Vinay Sharma (20), before it tomorrow.

The order came on the submission of Dayan Krishnan, who has been re-appointed as special public prosecutor by the Delhi Police in the case, that this court can direct production of the convicts to know whether they are going to file an appeal against the trial court's judgement convicting and sentencing them in the case.

The prosecutor made his submission while answering a query of the bench as to how soon the court can hear the matter at length.

The court also asked the high court registry to prepare paper books for the parties in the matter.

On September 13 while awarding capital punishment to Mukesh, Akshay, Pawan and Vinay, Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna had referred the case to the high court for confirmation of the sentence.

The trial court has to refer each death penalty case to the high court for confirmation of the punishment.

The trial court had also granted 30 days time to the convicts to file their appeal before the high court.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 23 Sep 2013 19:53

Its your fault lady

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2013 23:41

X-Post...

Being “Juvenile”

Of the six accused in the Delhi gangrape, one was reportedly the most brutal. He is also the only one who has managed to prove that he was a couple of months shy of 18 years of age – considered as juvenile in India. On this technicality, while the others received the death sentence, the “juvenile” was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act and given the longest possible sentence of 3 years in a reform home. Eight months of which he has already served as an undertrial.

The law is the law. And under it, he is to be placed in a reform home where he would be given proper psychological care, counseling, vocational training, education and will be rehabilitated. He will then be released as a reformed man. A worthy pursuit if indeed this is what would happen.

Since the verdict, news reports have claimed that the “juvenile” is watching television, leading the good life, learning to read and write, can play games and is learning tailoring.

Newslaundry, most impressed by this great social reform story, decided to visit Majnu Ka Tilla observation home where he has been lodged, to document how he is being reformed.

This is what we found.

To begin with, the juvenile has been lodged inside a room in the “place of safety” section of the observation home. He is not allowed to interact with any of the other inmates in the home and is always accompanied by guards when out of his room. Two guards accompany him whenever he leaves his room or takes toilet breaks. He eats alone and in his free time watches television. His room has an air-cooler, bed and television set with a Tata Sky connection. His day is spent watching TV and relaxing in his room. There is some monitoring, though. One of the officers who looks after the 14-odd children in the home told me that the “juvenile” is allowed to “watch only Hindi cinema not Hollywood films”. The films that were last playing on the popular Hindi movie channels on Tata Sky were – Ghanchakkar (about a group of robbers led by the hero of the film, who forgets where he’s hidden the money they’ve stolen), Mujhse Shaadi Karogi and Return of Ghajini to name a few.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 23 Sep 2013 23:52

Came to this thread to post same link by Jamwal ji here. (Must read)

Shahbaz Khan Sherwani of HAQ – Centre for Child Rights, appointed specially to look after the “juvenile”, said that solitary confinement goes against the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act and is lethal. While he used to counsel the “juvenile” as an undertrial, he has not started counseling him at Majnu Ka Tilla yet. He said, “I do not know how much truth is there in the fact that he has been kept in a separate place for his own safety as other inmates would kill him. But if this is the reason why are they not providing him personal care, he needs special attention”. Another child care professional, who works at the Sewa Kutir home’s drug de-addiction centre said, “To let the juvenile watch television at will is not right. When he saw the Delhi gangrape verdict on television, it could have had a negative impact on him. He might have thought that ‘I got away so easily. I was saved from being hanged’”
Amod Kanth, General Secretary of Prayas and former Chairperson of DCPCR – who argued the case along with the defence counsel for the “juvenile” to be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act – also agrees. “If that is so, it is a bad option. You need to put him through a rigorous regime of reformation, education and intense counseling. When he has been put in a reform home, how can he be treated like an isolated case? Why should the jail authorities act in a panic? At the end of the day, the purpose of his stay at the juvenile home is reformation, restoration in the mainstream, rehabilitation and being fruitful and productive to the society.”

Afroze coming after nice R&R to your neighborhood..with name and identity changed of course.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Sep 2013 15:43

Siraj Ur Rehman main accused in Mumbai photo journalist gang rape case escaped?

bhupendra chaubey ‏@bhupendrachaube 42m
Breaking news: Siraj Ur Rahman, main accused of rape of a mumbai photo journalist, missing from Thane Jail.He seems to have run away as well

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 26 Sep 2013 15:45

harbans wrote:Siraj Ur Rehman main accused in Mumbai photo journalist gang rape case escaped?

bhupendra chaubey ‏@bhupendrachaube 42m
Breaking news: Siraj Ur Rahman, main accused of rape of a mumbai photo journalist, missing from Thane Jail.He seems to have run away as well

he didnt , he was in jail all along

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Sep 2013 04:50

Theo_Fidel wrote:It not over unfortunately. Even Nalini had her death sentence commuted.
We should keep following this case.

Those who hinted at extra judicial action action against the minor should rethink when the emotions are calmer....

Theo,

New thought on this...

IIRC, GoI came up with "Nirbhaya Law" on popular demand due to this case. I am assuming that this judgement is given based on that new Nirbhaya law.

The question is, then why didn't Nirbhaya law include "considering even juveniles as adults in rape cases"?

To get an answer, please research on secular debates during the "reduction of age for consensual sex" issue and its eventual reversal. There is this lets-ape-west lobby that is behind the why the Nirbhaya law didn't include that condition.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 29 Sep 2013 12:49

RamaY wrote:

IIRC, GoI came up with "Nirbhaya Law" on popular demand due to this case. I am assuming that this judgement is given based on that new Nirbhaya law.

Assumption is wrong. Actually incident happened before the law was amended. Hence it was on account of death of Jyoti that death penalty was applied.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2013 04:11

Didn't Asram Bapu suggest the Delhi Gang Rape victim beseech her rapists by calling them brothers? Did he ignore his lust when the poor girl was brought to him for counseling?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Oct 2013 04:39

chaanakya wrote:
RamaY wrote:

IIRC, GoI came up with "Nirbhaya Law" on popular demand due to this case. I am assuming that this judgement is given based on that new Nirbhaya law.
Assumption is wrong. Actually incident happened before the law was amended. Hence it was on account of death of Jyoti that death penalty was applied.

That is what I was saying. The judgement on Nirbhaya case was given using Nirbhaya law, which is introduced due to this case.

My question was, then why didn't the Nirbhaya law include treating juveniles as adults in cases of Rape? Remember the pundits arguing that the juvenile is treated thus based on prevailing law, for my question on why the law cannot be changed before that decision is taken?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2013 05:11

I dont think you are correct. The Nirbhaya law was passed after the crime and and above judgement is not based on Nirbhaya law but a plethora of IPC code violations.

Its legal principle that a law cannot be applied retrospectively.

The Juvenile Act was modified to be in conformance with UNHCR recommendations. And they INC slipped in its own versions to make the law lax by increasing the age to above 18 for all crimes.
UNHCR had the recommendation that certain heinous crimes like murder and rape the juvenile can be treated as an adult. But INC in its wisdom and may be to protect babalog excluded juveniles from all crimes.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Oct 2013 00:21

RamaY wrote:

IIRC, GoI came up with "Nirbhaya Law" on popular demand due to this case. I am assuming that this judgement is given based on that new Nirbhaya law.

chaanakya wrote: Assumption is wrong. Actually incident happened before the law was amended. Hence it was on account of death of Jyoti that death penalty was applied.

RamaY wrote: That is what I was saying. The judgement on Nirbhaya case was given using Nirbhaya law, which is introduced due to this case.

My question was, then why didn't the Nirbhaya law include treating juveniles as adults in cases of Rape? Remember the pundits arguing that the juvenile is treated thus based on prevailing law, for my question on why the law cannot be changed before that decision is taken?

I see Ramana garu has answered your query . That is the position in Jyoti case.

When IPC was amended , there was no common views on bringing Juveniles under IPC rather than JJ Act.

MHA , Women and Child Welfare Ministry and Law and Justice Ministry had different points of View. Even the then CJI had voiced his opinion openly. Govt van not ignore these voices.

Therefore it has not been included. Matter is under consideration and and some sort of common opinion is emerging but by this time passion in the case has gone. So things will be discussed threadbare and then decided,

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2013 00:29

^ I think it will not come into effect for thousands of juveniles are facing rape charges due to teenage sex incidents and parents (of girls) often slapping these charges. This is the reason why they tried to reduce the age of consensual sex.

All these are linked together. Age of consensual sex, marriage age, juvenile laws etc.,

The marriage age gets tangled due to difference in perspective on the institution of marriage in India and others.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Oct 2013 08:30

Yse that is one of the important reason. But we need to distinguish between such cases and criminal intent and rape by juveniles. In cases involving love or infatuation or elopement etc girl is not harmed. But on the other side we have cases or premeditated rape and assault resulting in disability and/or death , criminal assault and rape , gang rape, sale of minor girls for sexual purposes. In all such cases serious penal action is needed. Life and death sentences should be the norm. But it is nobody's case that all rape cases should be result in death sentence.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 06 Oct 2013 09:08

Dear All,

ABV , Arun Shourie etc in 2001 modified juvenile law and raised juvenile age from 16 years to 18 years. It was NOT to meet UN resolutions. The UN resolutions were NOT binding. For that matter, in USA and Australian, juveniles can get full punishment. ABV had other motives. Raising juvenile age from 16 years to 18 years increased love jihad in India, and also increased violent crimes against women. ABV Enron Purush, LKA Aluminium Purush, Arun Jetley Kanoon Purush , Arun Shourie Gyan Purush, Ram Jethmalani, a well known smugglers' lawyer and Pramod Mahajan were the six key Ministers who raised juvenile age. Why did they do so? I cant write on their nefarious motives on BRF. Pls see my facebook notes at https://facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151182275711922 .

ABV , Arun Shourie etc added many clauses to enable juvenile criminals to become more rampant, eg policemen can keep juvenile in custody. They can only send him to juvenile home where he cant be questioned by policemen, but can only be questioned by child psychiatrists. Also, the juvenile board which decides punishment has one judge (or retired judge) and two social workers !! IOW, politicians can take bribe and appoint anyone. The names and even sentences are kept confidential. The dec-16 case was high profile and so duration became public. Otherwise, in most cases, duration of punishment is not disclosed. And then records are erased !!

The juveniles in first year of college are mostly 17 years old. And crimes against girls in 10th to first year is rampant due to the law ABV made in 2001. The criminal minded juveniles not only harass\abduct girls, but they also freely beat their brothers\fathers etc. After all, the law and the "rule of law" are both with them. So why fear?

The effect of juvenile law became clear in just 2-3 years. But ABV, Arun Shourie etc refused to amend it. Even today, BJP leaders have NOT submitted any proposal in speakers' office to decrease juvenile age.

====

Solution?

I have ordered my MP via SMS to decrease juvenile age from 18 years to 16 years effective 1-jan-2010, so that 5th juvenile criminal in delhi dec-16 named Amar Akbar Anthony (name changed) can be also hanged. And I also sent order to my MP via SMS to modify an article in constitution, so that law on punishment on violent crimes against women can be applied with retrospective effect.

We are requesting 80 crore voters of India to order MPs via SMS to decrease juvenile age from 18 years to 16 years effective 1-jan-2010, so that 5th juvenile criminal in delhi dec-16 named Amar Akbar Anthony (name changed) can be also hanged.

I have already given newspaper ad in Gujarat Samachar , Ahmedabad, 1-oct-2013, page-1 (see scan and text at https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151632173661922 ) . I request all to give such ad requesting citizens to order MPs via SMS to reduce juvenile age.

Pls note that ALL leaders that I know have opposed the proposal to decrease juvenile age, as well as opposed the proposal that voters should send orders to MPs via SMS. To be specific, Anna and Arvind Ghandy have both insisted that juvenile age should NOT be decreased. Now pls dont ask me for links. Pls call them if you wish to verify.

The long term measure I have proposed is to let the Jurors, and NOT corrupt/nepotic judges, to decide if the accused was immature or mature. If Jurors decide that accused was mature, then even a 12 years old should be give 100% punishment. Thats the law in Australia. Thats the law we should have,

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Oct 2013 09:56

Am I to understand that BJP wanted Love Jihaard to flourish?

As regards reducing age and making changes in line with international practices, that is ongoing work. Currently doing rounds in the Ministries. That is how Indian System Works its way to any changes.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 06 Oct 2013 16:52

chaanakya wrote: 1. Am I to understand that BJP wanted Love Jihaard to flourish?

2. As regards reducing age and making changes in line with international practices, that is ongoing work. Currently doing rounds in the Ministries. That is how Indian System Works its way to any changes.

1. You may conclude whatever you wish to. But over 95% BJP leaders are known to become more congressi than congressi when enough green is shown to them. And the saudi lobby which wants to promote love jihad in India has enough greens. And why just love jihad, these six BJP Ministers even tore apart National ID system drafts to stop Bangladeshis. And as I said, I cant write things in black and white on BRF. BRF has a rule that one cant accuse PM or ex-PM or certain respected Ministers like Arun Shourie of taking bribes and that too from saudi arabia and that too to promote an islamist cause. So pls see my FB link for reasons why the six BJP Ministers decided to raise age from 16 years to 18 years in year 2001. I wont write more on nefarious motives of BJP Ministers on raising juvenile age from 16 years to 18 years.

2. Well , then we citizens should all ask those BJP leaders to leave India and contest elections in UN. After all, if they are so worried about UN resolution and not what damage such laws can bring in India, we should make them live in UN. We really dont need such UN-bhagats in India, and we will be better off without them.

Was UN resolution binding? If it was binding, then what was the punishment on India if resolution was not followed? Which clause in UN resolution said that age for juvenile crimes for all crimes must be 18 years and that punishment must never exceed 3 years? And which clause made resolution binding on India? And if that UN resolution was binding, then how come Australia and many Western countries give full punishment to juveniles as old as 14 years? IOW, the UN resolution was NOT binding. It was just one of the 10s of goody-goody declarations that jobless people in UN pass on all goody-goody issues. The countries like USA, Australia etc have less corrupt polity, and so they laminated the resolution and pasted on a wall. But they didnt make any law out of it. But we have corrupt polity, and so that corrupt polity took that resolution as god's word, and made a law out of it that promotes crimes !!

Next time, ISI should send a dozen Kasabs below 18 years. I wonder what would judgment then. Should we still follow UN resolution and give only 3 years of punishments?

===

Anyway, can YOU send an order to YOUR MP via SMS to reduce juvenile age to 16 years , and make it effective from 1-jan-2010? So that we can get that Amar Akbar Anthony (name changed) hanged?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Oct 2013 17:21

Well its too late for that. my MP is about to be thrown out.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 06 Oct 2013 17:51

chaanakya wrote:Well its too late for that. my MP is about to be thrown out.

You can still send him order via SMS. He may give the copies of SMS to new MPs who comes.

Or you can send your order to any MP of his party who can later forward it to the new MP in your constituency.

Or you can later resend to the new MP once again. SMS is now only 10 paise.

The orders sent by voters to MPs via SMS have tremendous constitutional and religious value.

Change of MP is minor event and doesnt reduce the value of your order sent to MP via SMS.