Search This Blog

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

SOUMYA RAPE AND MURDER CASE- ACCUSED ACQUITTED OF MURDER AND CONVICTED ON RAPE - SUPREME COURT


കേരളത്തെ വല്ലാതെ പിടിച്ചു കുലുക്കിയ ഒരു മരണമായിരുന്നു സൌമ്യയുടെത്. ഓടുന്ന ട്രെയിനില്‍ ഒരു പെണ്‍കുട്ടിയെ ബലാല്‍സംഗം ചെയ്തു ഒടുവില്‍ അവള്‍ മരണപ്പെട്ട സംഭവം. .... വിചാരണ കോടതി വധശിക്ഷക്ക് വിധിച്ചത് ഹൈക്കോടതി ശരിവച്ചു. പക്ഷെ സുപ്രീം കോടതി കൊലപാതകക്കുറ്റം പ്രതിയാണ് ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പ്രോസിക്ക്യുഷന് തെളിയിക്കാനായില്ല എന്ന കാരണത്താല്‍ കൊലക്കുട്ടത്തില്‍ നിന്ന് പ്രതിയെ ഒഴിവാക്കി. ബലാല്‍സംഗം എന്ന കുറ്റത്തിന് മാത്രമായി ശിക്ഷ ചുരുക്കി.

The Supreme Court has acquitted Govindachami, the accused in Soumya Rape and Murder case, of Murder charges while upholding the conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape. Partly allowing the Appeal preferred by the Accused Govindachami, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit has set aside the death penalty and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 

Prosecution Case The incident occurred when 23-year-old Soumya MG was travelling in Ernakulam-Shornur passenger train No. 56608 on 1 February, 2011, back home from Kochi to Shornur. Accused Govindachami, who noticed Soumya travelling alone in the ladies’ compartment, trespassed into it as the train left Vallathole Nagar and caught hold of her with the intention to commit rape and robbery. As a result of the scuffle, she was dropped out of the moving train. The accused, too, sprang out of the moving train at Vettikattiri Desom at Vallathole Nagar and returned to the place where Soumya was lying in a daze. He shifted her to a nearby lonely place and, placing her in between two railway tracks, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and also took away her mobile phone, worth Rs 1600. She was found later after co-passengers alerted the Railways authorities and was admitted to the Medical College Hospital in Thrissur immediately. However, she succumbed to her injuries on 6 February, 2011. The Trial (2011) The accused was tried at a fast track court in Thrissur. 

Convicting the accused for causing rape and murder and awarding him death penalty, the trial court judge K Raveendra Babu observed: “The victim was dazed even at the time of dropping. The accused committed the rape on the victim after the fall. The entire offence was extremely brutal in character and carried out in a domain manner. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the accused deserve nothing less than the extreme penalty of death. Lesser penalty is inadequate. If a lesser penalty is given, the society may lose faith in the efficacy of the justice system.” The court observed: “The bad antecedents of the accused and his subsequent conduct indicate that he is a menace to the society and is incapable of rehabilitation. The extreme depravity with which the offences were committed and the merciless manner in which rape was committed brings the case within the category of rarest of rare case which merits the death penalty.” Read the Trial Court Judgment here. 

An appeal preferred by the accused was heard by the Kerala High Court Bench comprising Justice TR Ramachandran Nair and Justice B Kemal Pasha, which confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court. Justice Pasha who authored the judgment, while confirming death penalty, observed: “The murder of the girl in these circumstances makes this a case of extreme culpability. The manner in which the girl was raped, robbed and murdered, the approach, and the method adopted by the accused disclose the traits of outrageous criminality in the behaviour of the accused and his premeditated action. This approach of the accused reveals a brutal mind-set of the highest order. The accused is proved to be a dare criminal.” Read the High Court judgment here. 

The accused preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court and the criminal appeal was finally heard by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on 8 September, 2016. There was a huge media outrage when the Bench, during the course of hearing, expressed doubts with regard to Soumya’s ‘jump’ from the train. Reserving the judgment, the Bench remarked: “The court is convinced that Soumya was raped. The court also understands that she died due to head injury. However, it should be clarified whether Soumya was pushed from the train or whether she herself jumped from the train.”

However, today the Supreme Court pronounced its order. The Court acquitted the accused of murder charges. But the court confirmed the conviction on charges of rape and awarded life imprisonment.

Download the Judgment of Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment - Soumya/Saumya Rape and Murder case

The Judgment of High Court of Kerala (Appeal)
download

Courtesy - Live Law





SOUMYA RAPE AND MURDER CASE- ACCUSED ACQUITTED OF MURDER AND CONVICTED ON RAPE - SUPREME COURT


കേരളത്തെ വല്ലാതെ പിടിച്ചു കുലുക്കിയ ഒരു മരണമായിരുന്നു സൌമ്യയുടെത്. ഓടുന്ന ട്രെയിനില്‍ ഒരു പെണ്‍കുട്ടിയെ ബലാല്‍സംഗം ചെയ്തു ഒടുവില്‍ അവള്‍ മരണപ്പെട്ട സംഭവം. .... വിചാരണ കോടതി വധശിക്ഷക്ക് വിധിച്ചത് ഹൈക്കോടതി ശരിവച്ചു. പക്ഷെ സുപ്രീം കോടതി കൊലപാതകക്കുറ്റം പ്രതിയാണ് ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പ്രോസിക്ക്യുഷന് തെളിയിക്കാനായില്ല എന്ന കാരണത്താല്‍ കൊലക്കുട്ടത്തില്‍ നിന്ന് പ്രതിയെ ഒഴിവാക്കി. ബലാല്‍സംഗം എന്ന കുറ്റത്തിന് മാത്രമായി ശിക്ഷ ചുരുക്കി.

The Supreme Court has acquitted Govindachami, the accused in Soumya Rape and Murder case, of Murder charges while upholding the conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape. Partly allowing the Appeal preferred by the Accused Govindachami, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit has set aside the death penalty and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 

Prosecution Case The incident occurred when 23-year-old Soumya MG was travelling in Ernakulam-Shornur passenger train No. 56608 on 1 February, 2011, back home from Kochi to Shornur. Accused Govindachami, who noticed Soumya travelling alone in the ladies’ compartment, trespassed into it as the train left Vallathole Nagar and caught hold of her with the intention to commit rape and robbery. As a result of the scuffle, she was dropped out of the moving train. The accused, too, sprang out of the moving train at Vettikattiri Desom at Vallathole Nagar and returned to the place where Soumya was lying in a daze. He shifted her to a nearby lonely place and, placing her in between two railway tracks, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and also took away her mobile phone, worth Rs 1600. She was found later after co-passengers alerted the Railways authorities and was admitted to the Medical College Hospital in Thrissur immediately. However, she succumbed to her injuries on 6 February, 2011. The Trial (2011) The accused was tried at a fast track court in Thrissur. 

Convicting the accused for causing rape and murder and awarding him death penalty, the trial court judge K Raveendra Babu observed: “The victim was dazed even at the time of dropping. The accused committed the rape on the victim after the fall. The entire offence was extremely brutal in character and carried out in a domain manner. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the accused deserve nothing less than the extreme penalty of death. Lesser penalty is inadequate. If a lesser penalty is given, the society may lose faith in the efficacy of the justice system.” The court observed: “The bad antecedents of the accused and his subsequent conduct indicate that he is a menace to the society and is incapable of rehabilitation. The extreme depravity with which the offences were committed and the merciless manner in which rape was committed brings the case within the category of rarest of rare case which merits the death penalty.” Read the Trial Court Judgment here. 

An appeal preferred by the accused was heard by the Kerala High Court Bench comprising Justice TR Ramachandran Nair and Justice B Kemal Pasha, which confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court. Justice Pasha who authored the judgment, while confirming death penalty, observed: “The murder of the girl in these circumstances makes this a case of extreme culpability. The manner in which the girl was raped, robbed and murdered, the approach, and the method adopted by the accused disclose the traits of outrageous criminality in the behaviour of the accused and his premeditated action. This approach of the accused reveals a brutal mind-set of the highest order. The accused is proved to be a dare criminal.” Read the High Court judgment here. 

The accused preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court and the criminal appeal was finally heard by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on 8 September, 2016. There was a huge media outrage when the Bench, during the course of hearing, expressed doubts with regard to Soumya’s ‘jump’ from the train. Reserving the judgment, the Bench remarked: “The court is convinced that Soumya was raped. The court also understands that she died due to head injury. However, it should be clarified whether Soumya was pushed from the train or whether she herself jumped from the train.”

However, today the Supreme Court pronounced its order. The Court acquitted the accused of murder charges. But the court confirmed the conviction on charges of rape and the imprisonment of 7 years.

The Judgment of High Court of Kerala (Appeal)
download

Courtesy - Live Law





Saturday, September 10, 2016

Supreme Court Directions regarding FIR

The Supreme Court of India in Youth Bar Association of India Vs Union of India and Others has issued 10 important Guidelines on First Information Report. The Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and C.Nagappan has issued the following Guidelines

(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word ‘sensitive’ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
(j) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.
(k) The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15th November, 2016.
Courtesy Live Law

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Rajasthan high court quashed rape case FIR on marriage with victim.. Against the supreme court judgment.

The HC judgment, giving scope to conciliation brought about by marriage between the accused and the victim, is in direct violation of a Supreme Court verdict that leaves no scope for compromise and mediation in a rape case.

The Rajasthan High Court’s latest Judgment on a rape case goes against the Supreme Court ruling which states that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, there can be no question of compromise or mediation.

The court’s decision to quash all proceedings against a rape accused who filed a joint petition and appeared with the victim as a wedded couple, is against the SC verdict calling any compromise as ‘thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility’.

The apex court Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant had categorically stated in respect of cases where the rape accused marries the victim, that, “sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her, which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, or any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. We are compelled to say so as such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the élan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility”.

In this case, the victim and the accused filed a joint petition to quash the FIR filed earlier. The two claimed that the girl was forced by her parents to lodge a complaint, as they were against the relationship. It was out of her desire that she had entered into matrimony with the accused, the victim claimed.It was also pleaded that she has no grievances, whatsoever, against the other petitioners as well.The two provided documentary proof, including marriage certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

Taking cognizance of the candid disclosure by the girl that she has married the accused out of volition and that the latter has not committed any offence, whatsoever, and also the revelation that she was forced to file the FIR, Justice PK Lohra ordered quashing of the FIR and all proceedings, including investigations in the case, against the accused.

The Rajasthan High Court’s Judgment, giving scope to conciliation brought about by marriage between the accused and the victim, is in direct violation of the Supreme Court verdict, which leaves no scope for compromise and mediation in a rape case.

The Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on July 1, 2015, pronounced that any sort of compromise in a heinous case like rape is illegal against the spirit of justice. The apex court verdict had stated, “The dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay.  There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour, which matters the most. It is sacrosanct.”
Courtesy
Live Law

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Transgenders can submit gender option in Civil Service Examination. .told UPSC by Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court has directed the Union Public Service Commission to take necessary steps to include ‘Transgender/Third Gender’ as a gender option in the application form for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination.
WPC  5994.2015 dated 22.8.16