Bharat Rakshak

BADAUN (WESTERN UP): The juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case has just been declared a minor by the Delhi juvenile justice board, triggering angry protests. The board had relied on a certificate provided by the government primary school in Badaun where the boy had been admitted as a child to reach that conclusion.

At the boy's village, though, no one — not the school authorities, the mother or neighbours — seems to have a clear idea about the exact age of the person now commonly referred to as 'Accused No. 6'.

"Humein din taarikh ki nahin pato hai," his mother said in khari boli, a dialect spoken in these parts of western Uttar Pradesh. "I have no idea regarding either the day or date of admission. I just went to the school and told the teacher that this is my child, he is five years of age, write down his name. They started teaching him after that."

Sitting inside a small, decrepit structure they call home, she said she isn't even sure if her youngest child is two or two-and-half years old. "No one among us poor is literate. Only those who live in the cities care about such things." Though some reports earlier said the boy had left his village 11 years ago, his mother on Thursday insisted it was not that long back. "This is the house he left six years ago," she said. These days, apart from his parents, there are five other siblings who crowd the hut.

There seem to be bizarre ways here to ascertain age. One of the teachers who has been with the school since 2002 said, rather matter-of-factly, "If a child is able to hold his left ear with his right hand over the head, he has attained the age of six."

Father's word

One thing that is known is that the accused had been admitted to this school sometime in July 2002, going on to study for a year-and-half. But the school's headmaster is equally unhelpful. "On the day he joined, we asked the boy's father when the child was born and we were told it was either 'six or seven' years ago." Based on this, the principal then decided on his own to put June 4, 1995 as the date of birth of the boy. That would make Accused No. 6 precisely 17 years, 6 months and 12 days old at the time of the horrific incident on December 16.

"I had assumed it to be seven years," the headmaster, whose name TOI is withholding, said. "I checked the entry in the register personally before I went to the juvenile justice board for my deposition." When asked why he didn't insist on documentary proof, the man laughed loudly. "Nobody does," he said. "This has been the practice here. Nobody carries any age certificate and we believe what parents tell us. We enter (in the admission register) whatever information we are given."

That register is now out of bounds, at least for journalists. A new teacher is in charge at the school these days and he has locked up all documents pertaining to the accused. When TOI tried getting in touch with him his phone was switched off, he was not in office and had even skipped a headmasters' meet at a nearby centre.

Back in the village of the accused, not much has changed. In these places hospital deliveries are still rare and one accepted document for the proof of someone's date of birth is the endorsement by the village pradhan. But the present village pradhan isn't too happy either. "No one in the past two years has come to me to attest their child's date of birth," he said.

Juvenile age is 16, says Centre

New Delhi: Ignoring the advice of the Justice J.S. Verma panel, the Union home ministry plans to lower the juvenile age limit from 18 years to 16, and to introduce stringent punishment in rape and sexual assault cases. The MHA may take this up with the women and child development ministry soon. The Verma panel strongly recommended against lowering the age limit.

As reported in this newspaper on Wednesday, the MHA on Thursday placed a draft note before the Cabinet seeking its views on promulgating an ordinance on new rape laws. Top officials said the Cabinet informally gave its go-ahead to bring in an ordinance.

Defending the panel’s recommendations, Prof. Shanta Sinha, chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, argued “it will be difficult to reduce the age bar as In-dia has signed and ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child where the age limit for juveniles has been fixed at 18 years”.

MHA ordinance awaits PM’s nod

Prof. Sinha further said that she would write to the home ministry opposing the ministry’s move to lower the age of juvenile from 18 to 16 years.

Top government officials said that the Cabinet has informally given a go —ahead to the MHA’s move to bring the ordinance for fresh rape laws.

“We have been asked to be ready with the ordinance,” an MHA official said. The Prime Minister is expected to take a final call soon.

The ministry is moving quickly to prepare a draft of the Ordinance which will be vetted by the law ministry for a final clearance. Parlyes are being held in this regard since less than three weeks are left for the Budget session of Parliament to commence.

varunkumar wrote:

Juvenile age is 16, says Centre

New Delhi: Ignoring the advice of the Justice J.S. Verma panel, the Union home ministry plans to lower the juvenile age limit from 18 years to 16, and to introduce stringent punishment in rape and sexual assault cases. The MHA may take this up with the women and child development ministry soon. The Verma panel strongly recommended against lowering the age limit.

Defending the panel’s recommendations, Prof. Shanta Sinha, chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, argued “it will be difficult to reduce the age bar as In-dia has signed and ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child where the age limit for juveniles has been fixed at 18 years”.

Prof. Sinha further said that she would write to the home ministry opposing the ministry’s move to lower the age of juvenile from 18 to 16 years.

The sixth key accused in the infamous Delhi [ Images ] gang-rape case might have got reprieve from the Juvenile Justice Board which declared him as a “minor”. But back in his native village Bhawanipur-Nagla in Uttar Pradesh [ Images ]’s Budaun district, none including Raj Mohammad’s mother Anisa see any fairness in the verdict, which may allow him to go scot free from the clutches of the anti-rape law.

“All I was asked at the school when I took him for admission was his age, and I said six or seven years; the school teacher must have mentioned some date of birth on that basis; how would I know what he wrote”, recalls the illiterate mother, who has no support from her husband Bajruddin, who is mentally challenged. Evidently, the date of birth entered in the school records (June 4, 1995) was guess work by the school head-master.

Her statement is corroborated by nearly everyone in the village.

“That is the common practice in all villages. Who remembers the actual date of birth after six-seven years of birth, because rarely a child is sent to school before that age?”, observed Vijay Pal, a local farmer.

Another villager Noor Mohammad also confirmed, “It was the school head-master who entered my child’s age after I gave him a rough idea of the boy’s age.”

Neither the people of this Bhawanipur-Nagla village nor the school teachers find anything wrong with the system.

“What can we do other than putting together the information provided by the parent about their child’s age in the form of date of birth? After all there is no system of issuing birth certificates in these rural areas. You have to depend on whatever the parent tells you and because he or she would rarely remember the exact date or month or even year, we are left with no other option,” a school staffer said on condition of anonymity.

While declining to be identified, several members of Raj Mohammad’s locality were not ready to believe that he was below 18 years of age on December 16 last when he indulged in the most heinous crime.

“Raj Mohammad has brought a very bad name to this village where no one has even been accused of theft or robbery. I am sure he is more than 18 years, as he was definitely 11-12 years when he went from here sometime in 2005 or 2006”, asserted an elderly neighbour who did not wish to be named.

Even Raj Mohammad’s mother Anisa was sure, “He left this place at least six years ago, never to show his face again; and according to my estimate he was around 11-12 years old at that time.”

The frail woman -- perhaps in her late thirties, is a mother of five younger children including two daughters, and was living under a thatched decrepit shelter and earns a meagre Rs 80-100 a day working in the fields belonging to land-owners.

“Initially my son used to send me Rs 600 every month; but this was discontinued after the first year. For sometime I heard of him from another village boy who had met him in Delhi, but then that boy also did not come again and since then I have no trace of him.”

She went on to add, “Now for the past few years, I had presumed him dead, until a policemen came here to break the news about the boy’s involvement in that filthy act.”

According to her, “he never did anything to provoke me to even slap him; I think he got spoilt in bad company in Delhi.

hnair wrote:^^^ only for trials, not for marriages

(I think the Central Cabinet (reco to President? dont know how) can do a specific waiver in this horrid case, as is done in other countries. I suspect they are waiting for some dramatic moment, when "all hope is lost" in bringing this perv back to justice track)

On the petitioner submitting that the juvenile accused in the Delhi gangrape case could not be put to retrial if the proceeding before the Juvenile Justice Board was over, Justice Kabir said the outcome of the PIL would not make any difference to the ongoing case.

"Even if the 2000 (Juvenile Justice) Act is struck down, it will not apply retrospectively," Justice Kabir observed, while refusing out-of-turn hearing to the PIL filed by advocate Vinay K. Sharma.

The advocate has challenged some of the provisions of the Act which shielded even those facing charges of committing "horrendous and brutal" crimes.

Sharma has sought urgent hearing of the petition as the Constitution bars a second trial for the same offence. If the proceedings before the juvenile justice board was over, his prayer for subjecting the juvenile to trial as an adult would have no meaning, the lawyer contended.

In his petition, Sharma has sought a direction from the court for trial of juveniles in grave cases like that of rape and murder "under the normal law".

To buttress his argument that the gravity of the crime should be considered while giving the benefit to an accused for being a juvenile, Sharma pointed to a spate of serious crimes committed by juveniles in the recent past.

"The spate of crime against women reveals how the fundamental human rights of women are being trampled upon," the petitioner said.

The petitioner said it was expedient in the present state of affairs for the court to take cognisance of serious offences that have been committed by juveniles across the country against women and strike down the 2000 Act.

Pointing to statistics of crimes committed by juveniles, the petitioner said the figures showed that the objective of reform envisaged under the Juvenile Justice Act was not being fulfiled.

Chargesheet filed

The Delhi Police filed the chargesheet against the minor accused in the December 16 gangrape and murder case before the Juvenile Justice Board on Thursday. The board has posted the matter for hearing on February 14.

The chargesheet was filed in sealed covers. Charges against the juvenile include rape, murder, unnatural sex and joint liability.

According to sources, the copy of the chargesheet and other documents has been supplied to the accused.

Earlier, the Juvenile Justice Board presided by Principal Magistrate Geetanjali Goel, refused to conduct bone ossification test of the accused. The board said he will be tried as a juvenile as his school certificate shows him as a minor. As per the school certificate, he was born on June 4, 1995 and hence he was 17 years and six months old at the time of committing the crime.

The juvenile, who was described as the most brutal of the six accused by the Delhi Police may walk free by June this year. Section 16 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides that a juvenile can only be kept at the special home till he attains 18 years of age and he cannot be sent to jail thereafter.

hnair wrote:^^^ did not say "waiver as per law"

The cabinet Friday allowed capital punishment for those convicted in extreme cases of sexual assault and a minimum prison term of 20 years for gangrape, as it approved an ordinance to strengthen laws to help fight sexual crimes against women.

The ordinance implements many recommendations of the Justice J S Verma panel that was constituted after the December 16 gangrape of a 23-year-old woman in a bus in Delhi. The three-member committee had suggested several changes and additions to laws to check crimes against women.

However, it had not recommended the death penalty, saying a strong case had been made before the panel that "it would be a regressive step to introduce death penalty for rape even where such punishment is restricted to the rarest of rare cases".

But the ordinance, cleared by a special meeting of the cabinet, allows capital punishment in cases of aggravated sex crimes leading to death or a persistent vegetative state for the victim, with the minimum punishment being 20 years in jail. The ordinance must now be promulgated by the President.

"The cabinet, after due deliberations, decided to request the President to promulgate the Ordinance on Criminal Laws, 2013," Law Minister Ashwani Kumar told The Indian Express.

"The ordinance contains provisions of the bill which is pending in Parliament as well as the recommendations of the Justice J S Verma committee. The approval of the ordinance in an utmost expeditious manner is in response to the sensitivities of the people felt in the aftermath of the gruesome incident that happened on December 16," he said.

The Home ministry issued a list of recommendations of the Verma committee that had been accepted in full and some that were only partially accepted. Some recommendations have been rejected as well (see box).

Among suggestions of the Verma panel not accepted is doing away with the provision for obtaining sanction for prosecuting a police or armed forces personnel in areas where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is in force in cases of sexual crimes. The government has also rejected the proposal that sought to fix criminal responsibility on the leader of a force for a sexual crime committed by a subordinate. ( Verma Commission unnecessarily waded into ASFPA)

The decision to issue an ordinance was taken despite reservations at the highest level of the government about the propriety of such a move so close to the Budget session of Parliament which begins February 21.

Sources told The Indian Express that the government has decided to withdraw from Parliament the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2012, and introduce an amended bill which will be a copy of the ordinance. The Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2012, introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 4, 2012, is pending with the standing committee.

Many clauses of the ordinance are similar to the bill and a section in the government felt that issuing an ordinance on an issue pending in Parliament could be a breach of the legislature.

Sources said the ordinance provides for a new crime of gangrape, which will be punishable with a minimum prison term of 20 years provided it is proved that more than one person was involved in the crime. ( Actually it should have been life Imprisonment. and IPC should be amended to mean life Imprisonment as not less than 20 years and if commuted from death sentence then natural life without parole. But some movement.)

Anyone convicted for throwing acid will be jailed for a minimum of 10 years that may extend to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 lakh.( this was much needed . Now we need to regulate trade in acid as it has been severely misused)

A man who rapes his estranged wife during separation can be jailed for seven years while those convicted for the new crimes of stalking, voyeurism and intentionally touching a girl or woman with sexual intent will get a minimum jail term of one year.
(here estranged means legally estranged or period of separation allowed by court before actual divorce)
The ordinance also provides for an amendment in the Indian Penal Code to define trafficking, which will be punishable with a jail term of no less than seven years and may extend to life imprisonment. Employment of trafficked persons will also be a penal crime now.

Public servants who knowingly don't act to prevent rape or refuse to take cognisance of a rape case will be jailed for between one and five years. The ordinance also says that a rape victim's moral character can't be questioned during trial.
( It was already thought of. Evidence Act amendment is more significant)
However, the government has not accepted the Verma panel recommendation about paying compensation to victims of sexual assault. It has also not accepted the panel's suggestion to keep rape gender-specific to women.


Home ministry sources told The Indian Express that the ministry plans to write to the Ministry of Women and Child Development, suggesting an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act to lower the age of juveniles who can be tried for crimes committed by them to 16 years from 18.(Proviso would have been sufficient. I hope consent age may not be reduced for having sex else girls at tender age would be exposed to further abuse)

ramana wrote:Still why ordinance and not an act of Lok Sabha. Am not satisfied for it can be undone by some other cabinet ordinance.

If everything is implementable by GO why have a Parliament? And why was the need to act after the horrific gang rape? Could have done this earlier?


I think the UPA doesn't want to face the Lok Sabha.

ramana wrote:Still why ordinance and not an act of Lok Sabha. Am not satisfied for it can be undone by some other cabinet ordinance.

If everything is implementable by GO why have a Parliament? And why was the need to act after the horrific gang rape? Could have done this earlier?


I think the UPA doesn't want to face the Lok Sabha.

Prasad wrote:How is one type of rape different from another? 20 years for gangrape vs 7 years for rape of an estranged wife? WTF ?

NEW DELHI: A fast-track court here on Saturday framed charges against five accused in the December 16 gang rape case and put them on trial on various counts including conspiracy to abduct the 23-year-old girl and sexually assault and murder her.

A fresh offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code was added by the court against them for abducting the girl with the intention to compel and force her to "illicit intercourse".

The court, which fixed February 5 for starting the trial, also charged them with murder of the paramedic girl under section 302 (murder) of the IPC which entails the maximum punishment of death penalty.

Additional sessions judge Yogesh Khanna concluded that there were facts prima facie to suggest that the accused, along with another juvenile associate, conspired to deceitfully induce the girl and her male friend to board the vehicle believing it to be a chartered bus for raping the victim and committing other offences.

The accused bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Akshay Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The sixth accused, which the police in the chargesheet claimed to be most brutal among them, has been declared "minor" by the Juvenile Justice Board, which will try him.

However, the fast-track court in the order described the juvenile as an "associate" of the five accused, who committed gang rape in furtherance of the conspiracy and "in furtherance of common intention".

The girl had died in a hospital in Singapore on December 29 last year.

The court has farmed charges under section 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 376 (2)(g) (gang rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 396 (murder in dacoity), 201 (destruction of evidence), 120-B (conspiracy), 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 365 ( kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), and 412 (dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity) of the IPC.

The ordinance is a complete betrayal of the people's faith. We are alarmed at the complete lack of transparency displayed by the government in proposing an ordinance as an emergency measure. We call upon the president not to sign such an ordinance," was the general opinion of woman activists at a press conference here.
They also wondered why such a measure was necessary when Parliament would convene for the budget session in about 20 days.

The cabinet Friday approved an ordinance for enhanced punishment in cases of crimes against women, including sexual assault, acid attacks, voyeurism and trafficking.

The women also complained that the cabinet had not paid adequate attention to the recommendations of the Justice JS Verma committee, set up to examine laws that relate with sexual crimes and any changes necessary.

"It is an absolute mockery of Justice Verma's panel's recommendations. We were alarmed to see the ordinance as it ignored many recommendations of the that committee. The government has stealthily passed this ordinance without sharing it with the public and without actually debating and discussing it. All the recommendations than can actually strike at the heart of impunity have been dropped," Kavita Krishnan, secretary, All India Progressive Women's Association (AIPWA) said.

Some women said they would take to the streets in protest, once again, just as they had protested after the brutal gang raped of the physiotherapy student gang raped in the national capital Dec 16.

"We will be holding protest, likely from Monday at 2pm, but we are yet to finalise it. We would definitely continue to agitate. How can the union cabinet, in just a few hours, sit and cheery-pick what JS Verma and his team strenuously worked on for a whole month?" asked Krishnan, adding that the government acted stealthily, passing the ordinance without sharing it with the public and without debating and discussing

The watch, developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, can be used to alert authorities and family members if the wearer is in danger.
The wearer can send a message to the nearest police station or chosen relatives by pressing a button. The GPS system will pinpoint the location.The watch will also feature a built-in camera that can record for up to half an hour.
According to the Wall Street Journal blog India Real Time, a prototype watch will be ready by mid-year and will cost between $20 and $50 (£13 to £32). The government has held initial talks with state-run telecom equipment maker ITI Ltd about manufacturing the watch, it said

Theo_Fidel wrote:Thanx for that post.

For instance the womens inheritance law was made retrospective.
I think the domestic violence act was used retrospectively so the courts maybe open to it.

Hmm! I still don't see that as being GOI explicitly prevented from trying it. There is no explicit prohibition of 'retrospective' changes to the 'law in force'. There maybe no precedence for criminal law. The interpretation will be up to the courts?

Theo_Fidel wrote:
An issue that our 'leaders' are ignoring is the horrific imbalance in sex ratio that is going to wash over us soon. Most of NI is now down below 80 women for 100 men. Some 20% of our men will never be married. They don't have a hope. What happens to them does scare me. Right now they are migrating enmass to SI & WI. Sooner or later they are going to compete for women in those areas as well. But millions more will remain in NI doing god knows what!

The question for the nation is: Should we allow the cold print of a law, the Juvenile Justice Act, framed for children committing crimes like pick-pocketing, bicycle theft, etc, be used unthinkingly to benefit, by exempting from prosecution under criminal law, those committing heinous crimes such as rape and murder, which cannot be committed unless the culprit knew what he was doing.

Also, the Act is not in complete consonance with these conventions and rules. The Beijing Rules 4(1) describes the concept of age of “Criminal Responsibility” as for which there are various factors which have to be considered in deciding when and at what age would a juvenile be held criminally responsible for his/her actions. These factors include but are not restricted to moral and psychological development, individual discernment and understanding, seriousness of the offence involved, record and previous history of the juvenile, etc. Furthermore, there is no blanket ban or prohibition in not holding the juvenile accused accountable for his offences.

Theo_Fidel wrote:OK. So we really are without hope in this case. Just have to make sure this does not happen again. Lowering the age and enacting adult behavior exemptions like other countries have had to do is a good start.

It is easy for me to say this but we should do anything vigilante like to the Juvenile. We must be a society of laws and follow them. There is no hope for us otherwise.

123. Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament
(1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require
(2) An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance
(a) shall be laid before both House of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassemble of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and
(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President Explanation Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause
(3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void

KATIHAR: A local court on Saturday awarded capital punishment to a 25-year-old man for strangling to death his three-and-a half-year-old niece after raping her. The heinous incident took place at Bhains diara musahar tola under Barari police station in Katihar district on January 24, 2013. The trial process and delivery of judgment was completed within six days, a record of sorts in this part of the country, said Katihar SP Kim.

The court of district and sessions judge (DJ), Katihar, B N Pandey, awarded death sentence to Sanjay Rishi after he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC on the charge of strangling his niece to death.

The DJ's court, which also declared Rishi guilty of raping his niece, sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 376 of IPC in the same case. The capital punishment order would be sent to Patna HC for approval. SHO Krishna Kumar Diwakar lodged the FIR against Rishi on the basis of the statement of the girl's father, Tetar Rishi, on January 24. A chargesheet was filed against him within 24 hours of the incident. The court of the chief judicial magistrate, Raghvendra Muni Tripathy, took cognisance of the case on January 27. The trial in the case started on January 28.

kenop wrote:When crime isn’t minor

The question for the nation is: Should we allow the cold print of a law, the Juvenile Justice Act, framed for children committing crimes like pick-pocketing, bicycle theft, etc, be used unthinkingly to benefit, by exempting from prosecution under criminal law, those committing heinous crimes such as rape and murder, which cannot be committed unless the culprit knew what he was doing.

Also, the Act is not in complete consonance with these conventions and rules. The Beijing Rules 4(1) describes the concept of age of “Criminal Responsibility” as for which there are various factors which have to be considered in deciding when and at what age would a juvenile be held criminally responsible for his/her actions. These factors include but are not restricted to moral and psychological development, individual discernment and understanding, seriousness of the offence involved, record and previous history of the juvenile, etc. Furthermore, there is no blanket ban or prohibition in not holding the juvenile accused accountable for his offences.

Indian Express had a story from the native village of this accused. The message was clear: the age is based on estimates of the date of birth given by the parents.

kenop wrote:Indian Express had a story from the native village of this accused. The message was clear: the age is based on estimates of the date of birth given by the parents.