Tag: #Murder

LIFE IMPRISONMENT TO MURDER CONVICTS AFTER DEATH CONCLUDED TO BE HOMICIDAL

Posted on

-Report by Pranav Mathur

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 8th of February 2023, dismissed a criminal appeal against the decision of the Trial Court preferred by two murder convicts in the case of Mansa @ Mansu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court deliberated upon various issues commonly deduced before arriving at a judgment, such as the question of the crime being a homicide, whether the requisite mens rea can be reasonably ascertained, etc., with the help of various decisions of the Apex Court.

FACTS:


The two appellants were on a motorcycle when they arrived at the residence of the deceased. He was sitting on a platform at the house directly in front of his own. The appellant riding pillion fired three shots at the deceased, after which he fell, and eventually died due to excessive bleeding and the shock that accompanies it. The mother of the deceased witnessed the entire ordeal. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead. The appellants were arrested after the passage of some time. The motorcycle and the pistol used were seized from the appellants. Both of them abjured guilt and signified their willingness to take the case to trial.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS:


The primary contention of the appellants was the presence of one sole witness; the mother of the deceased. All the other witnesses to the incident were hearsay. The mother of the deceased was regarded as an interested witness and hence unreliable. The appellants further pointed towards contradictions and omissions present in her statements. Major contradictions arose between her and the medical examiner who conducted the post-mortem related to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. It was further contended that the appellants lacked any real motive to kill the deceased, and hence cannot be said to have committed a crime in its truest legal sense. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satveer and Ors. and Sunil Kundu and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand were some of the judgments relied on by the appellants to strengthen their case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:


The respondent contended that the Trial Court had correctly relied on the statements of the mother of the deceased when it came to the conviction of the appellants, as they were backed by the FIR and additional medical evidence. Other witnesses have also corroborated her story, proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Cases like Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal was quoted by the respondent.


COURT’S CONTENTIONS AND THE JUDGMENT:


The Court took into consideration whether the crime was homicidal or not. Upon the perusal of medical documents, the details of injuries, the post-mortem report, and other medical evidence, the Court concluded that the death was indeed homicidal. The Court opined that the mother of the deceased, and the other witnesses, including the son and the nephew of the deceased, cannot be considered unmeritorious witnesses due to their closeness with the deceased as their statements corroborated medical evidence. Due to circumstances of the investigation procedure, the recovery of the pistol from one of the appellants could not be proved, as had been observed rightly by the Trial Court itself, however, in the Apex Court case of State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan and Anr., it was held that the non-seizure of the alleged weapon does not adversely hamper the case of the prosecution.


The appellants took the defence of alibi which could not be corroborated with other Defence Witnesses, affecting the appeal that they had filed, as it could not be ascertained that the appellants weren’t at the scene of the crime at the time when it occurred. The common intention of both the appellants was proved by their cooperation in carrying out the crime.


Based on these considerations, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision of life imprisonment being awarded as punishment for the crime of murder as punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XQacfD

EXTRA MARITAL AFFAIR LED TO MURDER

Posted on

-Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Arun Chauhan v State case convicted the accused of the murder of his wife and his son’s tuition teacher on the account of having an extramarital affair.

Facts:


The appellant was convicted of the murder of Akash. The appellant took the deceased to an under-construction site and stabbed him with a knife. The deceased was the tuition teacher of the appellant’s son and he had a feeling that his wife was having an extramarital affair with the teacher. He murdered the man on 15th November 2014. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine by the trial court in 2019. In this case, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the trial court. The major injuries sustained by the deceased were enough to cause death. The body of the deceased was found later by someone and after verification, he was identified. The appellant was arrested. He was charged under Section 302 IPC i.e., murder. The appellant also murdered his wife but he admitted that crime.

Appellant’s Contention:


The plaintiff’s claim was that there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty of such a heinous crime. He further claimed that there was no existing rivalry between them and his kids used to visit the deceased home to take tuition. The reason given for the murder was vague. It was that the court had made a wrong decision based on insufficient proof and reasons. It was further asked that the appellant should be left free. The plaintiff also killed his wife on the same day and accepted the crime.

Respondent’s Contention:


The State claimed that the chain of events are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the appellant. The witness gave their testimony and all statements lead to the fact that after suspecting the extramarital relationship the appellant planned to kill both.

Judgement:


The Judges after hearing all the witnesses came to the conclusion that the reason for the murder is clear as the appellant first killed his wife and later that same day the deceased. The evidence was also sufficient as testified by the witnesses. The knife was also recovered and the blood stains on the appellant’s clothes were sufficient to hold him liable. The injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. The murder was hence proved without reasonable doubt. The court refused the challenge and held the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife and the deceased.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3x7vnyM

Loopholes in Rape Law in India

Posted on

The present article is written by Aayukta Sharma student of BBA LLB from NIMS University Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Introduction

Lord Macauley drafted Indian Penal Code which came into operation in 1862. It is almost a century-old codified law. Timely amendments were also made during the functioning. No commendable amendment has been made to date. There are many loopholes in the existing law that need amendments for the smooth functioning and delivery of justice on time. One such law which is in need of amendment is for “Rape” which terribly lacks provide justice and has massive loopholes. A loophole is an omission or ambiguity in a legal document that allows the intent of the document to be evaded. Loopholes can exist during the outset of the law or due to the changes in society and its trends. The existence of loopholes in generality is due to unforeseeable circumstances or changes in course of conduct. 

Rape as a social issue and crime

Rape is the most heinous crime and barbaric in nature. It has been compared with murder by Justice Arjit Pasayat. He says –

“While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female.” 

It clearly defines rape as worse than murder. After the murder, a person dies and the soul is released but after rape, if the rape victim survives, it becomes very difficult to erase that black spot of harassment and sexual assault from her soul.

The unlawful sexual intercourse with the woman forcefully or under threat of injury to her or any other person. In any of the circumstances where sexual intercourse happens where the consent is not free consent can be termed as rape. Consent is the core concept of it. 

Sexual intercourse at the time of sleep, unconsciousness, or intoxication is also rape irrelevant of the fact the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary. Which states that in those conditions where the person is not in the state to communicate the consent is deemed as no consent. 

There are many terms that have undergone change after the amendment of 2013. Before 2013, “sexual intercourse” meant “penetration of male sexual organ into female genitals only”. Later courts interpreted sexual intercourse as “mere slightest or partial penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse”. 

It is laid down that there is no requirements of injuries on the private parts of the women to constitute a rape

Rape laws are not gender-neutral

Rape defined in the Indian Penal Code,1860 under section 375 says- “A man is said to commit rape”, “……with a woman” is said to commit rape. The definition and description under the law frame men as the criminal and woman as the victim always. It is true in the male dominating society that the men are the sexual offender, they showcase their power they dominate the woman. Women are one of the oppressed groups. It is a general perception that rape is done for the sexual satisfaction of the person.

“Rape” is something that is always projected on the female population. The word “victim” under the rape law has always been associated with women. There is a need for a gender-neutral law in India. The issue of gender neutrality in rape laws was first raised by Delhi HC. However, the court went beyond its mandate to opine on the issue of gender neutrality as well. It observed that the men who have been sexually assaulted or harassed must have the same protection as female victims. 

JS Verma committee who was behind the Criminal Amendment Act,2013 also suggested that the rape law should be gender-neutral but the suggestions were not entertained at all.

The custodial rape case of Mathura

After the Mathura rape case, there was a drastic change in the way people looked at rape, a turn in the perspective of rape’s definition and consent of sexual intercourse when an Adivasi girl from Mathura was brutally raped in Desai Ganj Police Station of Maharashtra by a policeman.

The Session court reached the conclusion, back in 1972 that the girl was habitual of sexual intercourse hence, rape could not be proved. In 1978, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said, there were no marks of injury found on the girl’s body, the absence of them makes it consensual. 

The courts stressed the fact that the depth of the penetration of male organs is immortal. The essential conditions of rape are penetration and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration will constitute an attempt to rape and not rape.

Marital rape

Tracing down the origin of the word “rape”, it is derived from a Latin word “rapio” which means “to seize”. Looking closely, it means forcible seizure of someone irrespective of the relations with that person. The exception of the statute has become a misery for wives. The exception states that “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape”. The statute has been contrary to itself, one side it covers all the aspects and ingredients of the brutality of rape. On the other side, it gives the man advantage of becoming the husband who can rape his wife above the age of fifteen anytime. Here, inserting the exception, the law fails to acknowledge the facts that she is a woman before she became a wife. It violates Article 21 of The Indian Constitution, “Right to life”, which contains the “right to live with personal dignity”. Her dignity as a woman is snatched away with the exception of marital rape in the statue.

One of the reasons for marital rape is the traditional role assigned to the married women in our society, she is tagged as “Pati-vrata stri” which means faithful, pure, and obliged women. Thus, she is obliged to follow her husband’s direction fully and fulfill his every wish without questioning and denying it. 

Statute of Paedos

It is also an unjust law on the age factors, as it states the consent of the girl under the age of sixteen is not eligible for the consent of sexual intercourse which was extended to eighteen years after the amendment. This means even if the girl aged eighteen gives consent to sexual intercourse, it will still be considered rape. The law states, “her consent is no consent” and gives a reason that she is incapable of understanding the consequences of the act. 

Conclusion

The law needs to get updated with the changes in society. IPC does not recognize Marital rape as a crime, even in the latest Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 it did not make any provision related to it. Law pre-assumes that in marriage, the wife has consented to all kinds of matrimonial obligations to her husband including sexual intercourse. So, without any specific legal provision in the statute, it is almost impossible to stop this perversion of marital rape. Its high time to make the rape law gender-neutral, which is the need of the society and demand of article 14.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Supreme Court Dismissed the Bail Application of Former IGP Zahur Haider Zaidi

Posted on

The Supreme Court dismissed the bail application filed by suspended IGP Zahur Haidar Zaidi on Tuesday i.e. on 15 of June 2021, related to the custodial death of an accused in the case of gang rape and murder of a 16-year-old schoolgirl in Shimla in 2017. The Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the bail application of former IGP Zaidi.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the former IGP submitted that there is no case of murder made out against the accused. Only a case of the disappearance of evidence of offence under section 201 IPC is made against him.

The case is related to the custodial death of an accused, who was arrested in a case of alleged gang rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Shimla in 2017. Haider Zaidi was arrested on 29th August 2017, after CBI probe into the investigation.

-Report by Muskan Chanda