Sunteți pe pagina 1din 26

1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY


VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

Nirbhaya case analysis

SUBJECT

Legal language and legal writing

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Prof. Mr. Aravind Nath Tripathi

Name of the Candidate: B. Rajasekhar


Roll No. 2016020
Semester: 2ndsemester

Acknowledgement

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my respected professor,


Prof. Mr. Aravind Nath Tripathi for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project
2

regarding Nirbhaya Case Analysis and sincere thanks for the continuous support of my
study and related research, for his patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. His
guidance helped me in all the time of research. I could not have imagined having a better
advisor and mentor for my research.

Table of contents

Introduction ..4
Facts of the case5
Would her death and suffering go in vein?............................................11
3

Is nirbhaya case accused a really a juvenile?.........................................12


Role of government..14
Criminal law amendment act 2013....15
Improvement in legal system..16
Public discussion about violence against woman..17
Indias Daughter..17
Safety measures taken by public transport of woman..18
Recommendations of the Justice Verma committee..21
Conclusion 23
Bibliography23

Introduction

Rape and the issue of violence against women in general have been endemic to Indian
society, with high profile cases capturing national and international attention for brief bouts
of time before dying down and becoming part of common place history. This is an ironic
phenomenon, considering the majority of the population religiously worships female
goddesses who represent courage, prosperity, and power. Currently, it is estimated that
4

ninety-three women are being raped in India every day. The National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB) in India has reported data about rape cases since 1971. From 1971 to 2011, the
number of reported cases increased from 2,487 to 24,206 (National Crime Records Bureau
2013). First Information Reports (FIRs) filed for rape in 2012 showed an increase of 3% from
the previous year. In 2012, 24,923 cases were reported, of which only 15% went to trial and
only 2% led to conviction. Although such statistics are published, the actual number of rapes
is far from being recorded, since the unreported figure is extremely high. The general
consensus is that the current levels of violence reported through national and local law
enforcement record represent a minimum of actual violence against women cases. Hence,
the issue of violence against women, and more specifically, rape, is far more ubiquitous than
it appears. As the Diwan the company became responsible for administrtion of civil justice
and land revenue. 1764 and 1772 collection of revenuewas under indigenous machinery. Two
native prominent Mohamed Reza Khan and Raja Sitab Roy appointed as companys Diwan at
Murshidabad and Patna respectively.

At both the places of twwo seperate English officers were appointed to supervise the work of
Indian officers. The English servants of the company misused their power and posotion to
meet their selfish ends, which ultimately led to the exploitation of the people of Bengal and
encouraged corruption, bribary and misappropriation.

Under his plan Bengal area has been divided into 36 districts, each having an English official
called the Collector
5

Facts of the case:

In 2012, a case of rape occurred that made international headlines and stirred an
unprecedented uprising in Indian society. At around 8:30pm on December 16, 2012 a twenty
three year old female college student named Jyoti Singh, i.e. Nirbhaya,1 and her friend were
waiting for a public bus in South Delhi after attending a viewing of Life of Pi. A bus with
tinted windows eventually stopped, whereupon a young boy persuaded the pair to board the
bus with the promise of transportation home. At that fateful moment, Nirbhaya was violently
assaulted and raped by six men; these perpetrators were Ram Singh, the main accused bus
driver (age 35); his brother, Mukesh Singh (age 29); Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym
instructor (age 18); Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller (age 19); Akshay Thakur, unemployed (age
28), and Mohammed Afroz, a juvenile at the time of the crime who was called Raju for
anonymity (age 17). In an attempt to defend Nirbhaya, her male companion was severely
beaten up by the assailants, as well. Three hours later, a Police Control Room (PCR) van
picked up Nirbhayas naked body and her injured friend lying under a flyover, and
immediately rushed them to a hospital. While Nirbhaya and her friend were in the hospital,
three of the accused, including the principal suspect Ram Singh, were arrested on December
17th. On the 18th, a fourth arrest was made. It took three more days to arrest the juvenile and
the final perpetrator, on December 21st. It became known that the boy who had persuaded
Nirbhaya to enter the bus was the one who suggested to the others that they throw her and her
friends naked bodies onto the street and run them over. The male friend was given treatment
and Nirbhaya underwent emergency surgery after not only getting raped, but also having her
intestines pulled out of her body. She was put on a ventilator and was labeled as being in
critical, but stable, condition. However, her health drastically worsened; Nirbhaya suffered
from internal bleeding and cardiac arrest, thus prompting her transportation to Mount
Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore on December 26th. Physicians confirmed further internal
bleeding and multiple-organ failure. Finally, in the early hours of December 29th, Nirbhaya
was pronounced dead as a result of multiple-organ failure.

Victims
6

Jyoti Singh was born and raised in Delhi while her parents were from a small village in the
Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh. Her father sold his ancestral land to educate her, and worked
double shifts to continue to pay for her schooling. In an interview he related that as a youth
he had dreamed of becoming a school teacher, but at that time education was not considered
important and girls were not even sent to school. "Attitudes are changing back home now, but
when I left 30 years ago, I vowed never deny my children so sending them to school was
fulfilling my desire for knowledge." He said that he put his daughter's education above that of
even his two sons. "It never entered our hearts to ever discriminate. How could I be happy if
my son is happy and my daughter isn't? And it was impossible to refuse a little girl who loved
going to school.

In compliance with Indian law, the real name of the victim was initially not released to the
media, so pseudonyms were used for her by various media houses instead, including Jagruti
("awareness"), Jyoti ("flame"), Amanat ("treasure"), Nirbhaya ("fearless one"), Damini
("lightning", after the 1993 Hindi film) and Delhi braveheart.

Awindra Pratap Pandey, the man who was attacked, is a software engineer from Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh, who lives in Ber Sarai, New Delhi; he suffered broken limbs but survived.

Delhi police registered a criminal case against the editor of a Delhi-based tabloid, Mail
Today, for disclosing the female victim's identity, as such disclosure is an offence under
section 228(A) of Indian Penal Code. Shashi Tharoor, then a union minister, suggested that if
the parents had no objection, her identity could be made public, with a view to showing
respect for her courageous response by naming future laws after her, but Tharoor's remark
created controversy. Speaking to a British press reporter on 5 January, the victim's father was
quoted as saying, "We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything
wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give
courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my
daughter." Indian law forbids revealing the name of a rape victim unless the family agrees to
it and, following the news article which published the father's reported quote and the victim's
name, some news outlets in India, Germany, Australia, and the United States also revealed
her name. However, the following day Zee News quoted the father as saying, "I have only
said we won't have any objection if the government uses my daughter's name for a new law
for crime against women that is more stringent and better framed than the existing one."
During a protest against the juvenile convict's release on December 16, 2015, the victim's
7

mother said that the victim's name was Jyoti Singh and she was not ashamed of disclosing her
name.

Arrest

Police found and arrested some suspects within 24 hours of the crime. From recordings made
by a highway CCTV vehicle, a description of the bus, a white charter bus with a name written
on it, was broadcast. Other operators identified it as being contracted by a South Delhi private
school. They then traced it and found its driver, Ram Singh. Police obtained sketches of the
assailants with the help of the male victim, and used a cell phone stolen from the two victims
to find one of the assailants.

Six men were arrested in connection with the incident. They included Ram Singh, the bus
driver, and his brother, Mukesh Singh, who

were both arrested in Rajasthan. Ram and Mukesh Singh lived in Ravidas camp, a slum in
South Delhi. Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym instructor, and Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller, were
both arrested in Delhi. A seventeen-year-old juvenile from Badayun, Uttar Pradesh, was
arrested at the Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi. The juvenile had only met the others that day.
Akshay Thakur, who had come to Delhi seeking employment, was arrested in Aurangabad.

According to reports, the group had been eating and drinking together and "having a party"
earlier in the day. Although the charter bus which Ram Singh drove on weekdays was not
permitted to pick up public passengers or even to operate in Delhi because of its tinted
windows, they decided to take it out "to have some fun". A few hours before committing the
gang rape, the attackers had robbed a carpenter. The carpenter was 35-years old Ram Adhar
who boarded the bus which was being driven by Mukesh Singh. The juvenile convict had
lured him into the bus saying it was going to Nehru Place. He was then beaten up, robbed of
his cellphone and 1500 in cash. After robbing him, the group dumped him at the IIT
Flyover. Ram reported about the group in the bus robbing him to three police constables
Kailash, Ashok and Sandeep who were passing nearby. They however refused to take action
saying that the crime scene wasn't under their purview as they were from the Hauz Khas
police station and he will have to report the incident to the Vasant Vihar police station.
8

Shortly after the attacks, Gupta said he accepted his guilt and should be hanged. Mukesh
Singh, who was placed in Tihar Jail after his arrest, was assaulted by other inmates and was
kept in solitary confinement for his own protection.

Ram Singh was presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18 December 2012. He
refused to participate in an identification process. Investigation revealed a history of frequent
drinking that resulted in "blinding rage", "bad temper", and quarrels with employers, that had
led friends to call him "mental". On 11 March, Ram Singh was discovered hanging from a
ventilator shaft in his cell at about 5:45 am. Authorities said it was unclear whether it was a
suicide or a murder.

Trail:

The male victim, Awindra Pratap Pandey, testified in court on 19 December 2012. Pandey
recorded his statement with a sub-divisional magistrate at the Safdarjung Hospital on 21
December, in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of police.

On 21 December, the government promised to file the charge sheet quickly and seek the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the perpetrators. Following public outrage and a
demand for a speedy trial and prosecution, on 24 December, the police promised to file the
charge sheet within one week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs met
on 27 December to discuss the issue, and Union Home Secretary R. K. Singh and Delhi
Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar were summoned to appear. The Delhi High Court
approved the creation of five fast-track courts to try rape and sexual assault cases. The first of
the five approved fast-track courts was inaugurated on 2 January 2013 by Altamas Kabir,
Chief Justice of India, in Saket court complex of South Delhi.

On 21 December, the Delhi High Court reprimanded the Delhi police for being "evasive" in a
probe status report providing details of officers on patrol duty in the area covered by the bus
route. A further court hearing on the matter was scheduled for 9 January 2013. The following
day, the Delhi Police initiated action against three Hauz Khas police station personnel for
alleged inaction of an alleged robbery committed against the carpenter by the occupants of
the bus in which the gang rape and assault occurred. On 24 December, two Assistant
Commissioners of Police were suspended for failing to prevent the gang rape incident.
9

Juvenile defendant

The juvenile defendant whose name according to some reports was Mohammed Afroz, was
declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board
(JJB), which relied on his birth certificate and school documents. The JJB rejected a police
request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his
age.

On 28 January 2013, the JJB determined that he would not be tried as an adult. A petition
moved by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking the prosecution of the minor
as an adult because of the extremely violent nature of his alleged crime was rejected by the
JJB. The minor was tried separately in a juvenile court.

A verdict in the case was scheduled to be announced on 25 July, but was deferred until 5
August and then deferred again to 19 August. On 31 August, he was convicted of rape and
murder under the Juvenile Justice Act and given the maximum sentence of three years'
imprisonment in a reform facility, inclusive of the eight months he spent in remand during the
trial. The juvenile was released on 20 December 2015.

Adult defendants

Five days after Jyoti's death, on 3 January 2013, the police filed charges against the five adult
men for rape, murder, kidnapping, destruction of evidence, and the attempted murder of the
woman's male companion. Senior lawyer Dayan Krishnan was appointed as the special public
prosecutor. Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Pawan Gupta denied the
charges. Some of the men had confessed earlier, however their lawyers said that their clients
had been tortured and that their confessions had been coerced.

On 10 January, one of their lawyers, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the
victims were responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public
transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night.
He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a
respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect." He also
called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to
protect the woman".
10

The Delhi police filed a charge sheet against the defendants on March 13 in the robbery of
Ram Adhar.

The four surviving adult defendants went on trial in a fast-track court. The prosecution
presented evidence including witness statements, the victim's statement, fingerprints, DNA
testing, and dental modelling. It completed its case on 8 July.

Conviction and sentencing


CHARGE

On 2.2.2013, the accused person were directed to be charged for the offences u/s 120-B IPC
and under section 365 / 366 / 307 / 376 (2)(g) IPC / 377 IPC read with section 120-B IPC.
Further the accused persons were charged for the offences u/s. 396 IPC read with section
120-B IPC and / or u/s. 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC ; further u/s. 395 IPC read with
section 397 IPC read with 120-B IPC and also u/s. 201 IPC read with section 120.

On 10 September 2013, the four adult defendants were found guilty of rape, murder,
unnatural offences and destruction of evidence. All four men faced the death penalty, and
demonstrators outside the courthouse called for the hanging of the defendants. The victim's
father also called for the defendants to be hanged, stating, "We will get complete closure only
if all the accused are wiped off from the face of the earth." Lawyers for three of the four
stated that their clients intended to appeal the verdict. The four men were sentenced on 13
September to death by hanging. Judge Yogesh Khanna rejected pleas for a lesser sentence
saying the case has "shocked the collective conscience of India", and that "courts cannot turn
a blind eye to such crimes". The victim's family was present for the sentencing and her
mother expressed satisfaction over the verdict saying, "We were waiting with bated breath,
now we are relieved. I thank the people of my country and the media." After the verdict was
delivered, the people waiting outside the courtroom applauded.

On 13 March 2014, the Delhi High Court found all the defendants guilty of rape, murder,
unnatural offences and destruction of evidence. With the verdict, the High Court confirmed
death sentence for all four men convicted in September 2013. The court noted that the crime,
which stirred widespread protests over sexual crimes against women in the country, fell into
the judicial system's "rarest of rare category" that allows capital punishment. The lawyers of
11

the four men said they would appeal to the Supreme Court. On 15 March 2014, the Supreme
Court of India stayed the execution of two of the four convicts, Singh and Gupta, to allow
them to make their appeal against their conviction on 31 March. This was further extended by
the court to the second week of July. On 2 June, the two other convicts, Sharma and Thakur,
also asked the Supreme Court to stay their execution to allow them to make an appeal of their
convictions. On 14 July, their execution was also stayed by Supreme Court. As of December
2014, two years following the attack, the Supreme Court has not yet handed down their
decision. On 27 August 2015, Vinay, Akshay, Mukesh and Pawan were convicted of robbing
Ram Adhar and were later sentenced to 10-years imprisonment

Would her death and suffering go in vain?

Based on the immediate response, there seemed to be a hope and will to change the violent
culture in India and bring the issue of crimes against women in India to the forefront of
national political and social agendas, but the long-term effects appear to be less apparent.
Immediately after news of the gang rape spread, protests erupted in Delhi and all over the
country. The public in Delhi was so ignited by the tragedy that police resorted to tear gas to
control the crowds. In the initial weeks, Hang the rapists was the vociferous cry of the
Indian media. Nothing less than capital punishment would assuage the collective horror and
anger of the populace. The incident became a global phenomenon within a matter of days; in
the United States, media coverage of this case surpassed that of a domestic rape case that
occurred at Steubenville High School in Ohio earlier that year. In fact, Over 1,515 articles
appeared in the United States alone within the two-month period following the incident
(Rowchowdhury 2013). Celebrities were compelled to take to their Facebook and Twitter
accounts to voice their condemnation of the attack, and started campaigns to end crimes
against women on their own. In the political sphere, two Commissions of Inquiry, the Justice
Verma Committee and the Usha Mehra Committee, were constituted as a direct consequence
of the rape and subsequent outrage about the incident, their purpose being to seek public
opinion as to how the then-current anti-rape laws should be amended. The Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act 2013 was passed as a result of the Verma Committee Report three months
after the rape. This act encompasses over a dozen amendments in different laws, including
12

the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act.
Moreover, the government launched the Nirbhaya Fund project designed to ensure the safety
of women using public transportation by setting up emergency buttons, GPS technology, and
CCTVs in major cities across the country. Clearly, the response to this Delhi gang rape case
was rare and unprecedented. Perhaps there was a buildup of social tension that finally
exploded when this rape happened. Perhaps it was the sheer brutality of the event, but there
were cases before and even shortly thereafter that were equally appalling. For example, there
was, in the following year, the horrific abduction and gang rape of a five-year-old named
Gudiya, who was kidnapped from a residential area in Delhi, kept in a room for two days, and
then raped repeatedly by two men. Similar to Nirbhayas case, foreign objects were inserted
into her body, producing infection; surgeons took out three pieces of candles and a 200 ml
plastic hair-oil bottle from inside her (Talwar 2013, 70). Yet, with the exception of a single
protest, this story faded away in the media within a few weeks after the incident occurred.
While it is terribly tragic that this disturbing event did not receive as much media coverage, it
may be due to the fact that in the Nirbhaya case, the victim left behind a diary called The
Story of My Life in which she chronicled her dreams and ambitions and embodied the ideals
of the modern-day Indian woman (Talwar 2013, 26). She mentioned some of the normal
aspirations she had, typical of those of a young woman in an increasingly modernized India:
the wish to own a Samsung smart phone and a fancy car when she earned and saved up
enough money. It was as if she, a physiotherapist in training who was trying to break away
from her economically depressed background, was a reflection of the entire younger
generation, and this truly resonated with the people. As aforementioned, similar cases have
occurred in the past and even after the Nirbhaya case that have simply blurred into history but
the amplified reaction to December 16, 2012 is indeed an outlier that needs to be reviewed.
The gang rape in Delhi, India seemed to stop the country in its tracks and became a dire
signal for attention to the epidemic of crime against women in India. The overwhelming
response to this particular case was quite obvious and unprecedented (Nigam 2014;
Rowchowdhury 2013; Drache & Velagic 2013; Talwar 2013). This paper investigates whether
the passion and action exhibited by the Indian public (including the media), as well as the
federal government, is a true reflection of social change, as indicated by changing attitudes
towards women in India. What exactly is social change? According to Bicchieri and Mercier
(2014), social change occurs through the establishment of a new positive norm. The common
features of norm creation/change are: collective change of factual beliefs and attitudes,
collective decision to enact change, realization of a social dilemma, and coordinated action.
13

The first step is to ensure actors recognize there are problems with the status quo through the
use of legislative interventions and media campaigns (Bicchieri & Mercier 2014).
Consequently, based on the immediate reaction to the Delhi rape case, it is possible that the
apparent shift in attitudes may have led to social change. Despite the various responses to the
case and the sheer brutality of the violence, it is apparent there needs to be some other factor
to create social change, this being the cultivation of a more positive attitude towards women.
After describing the facts of the case, I address the theories behind factors that influence
violence against women and social and attitudinal change in the literature review. The
research design explains how I determine whether collective attitudinal change has happened
by looking at various aspects of society that contribute to the general social atmosphere.
These include newspaper coverage of women involved in rape cases before and after the
Nirbhaya tragedy, enforcement of the Criminal Amendment of 2013 and other laws, actions
of womens movements, and public opinion polls. Next, using the constructs of social change
and attitudes towards women described above, I explain how the data I have collected allow
me to assess whether responses by various actors in society have contributed to collective
attitudinal change, and if so, to what degree. Finally, I conclude that while an overwhelming
response to the gang rape seemed to signify that India was moving towards social progress, a
comparative data analysis of crime statistics, implementation of the legal reform, and
newspaper rape coverage demonstrates that the case was not just another random
phenomenon, but it was not exactly a harbinger of overhauling social change, either.

Is Nirbhaya case accused really a juvenile?


Even his mother isn't sure Age of juvenile Appropriateness of punishment Bone test may
fail to nail juvenile offender According to JJ rules 2009, a test by a medical board can only be
established after there is no verification or unavailability of three documents school leaving
certificate, panchayat or municipal certificate or a matriculation certificate. Sudhanshu
Ranjan, author of 'Justice, Judocracy and Democracy in India', says under JJ rule number 12
documentary evidence of age gets priority over the medical test. "The reasoning was that the
medical test is not foolproof either and there is a possibility of variation of two years above or
below the real age. So documentary evidence is to be relied upon unless it is shown to be
forged. The Supreme Court in Hari Ram's case upheld this provision.'' According to the
juvenile's school leaving certificate, he is short of 18 years by a few months which puts him
14

in the category of juveniles who can be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection
of Children) Act 2000 which defines anyone below 18 years as a juvenile. According to the
police, he was the "most brutal" among the six accused of the Delhi gang-rape. If tried under
the JJ Act, he may be let off within a few months as the maximum punishment under the Act
is imprisonment of three years but the child has to be kept in an observation home
and is entitled to get bail. Ranjan added police have not relied on the school leaving
certificate and instead moved Juvenile Justice Board for the test. Former chairperson of Delhi
child welfare committee Raj Mangal Prasad said that in most cases documentary evidence
was accepted by JJB till there was reason to believe that it was forged. Prasad said that the
bone test was not reliable as it could only narrow done the age of the person by some years.
"In my years in CWC I also found that medical tests were done casually. JJB is given
enormous discretionary powers. They can even reduce the age of the juvenile keeping in
mind the evidence before them," he added.

Role of government.:-
As always government role was very uneven. Though it pretended a lot to be fair in this case.
Many new laws were made and few were amended. The culprits were prisoned but again no
decision was made. Like other cases it too went in pending files. Five Fast track court were
also set by delhi government for rape and sexual harassment cases. Even government
supported the girls family financially. A handsome amount was given to her family but is this
all enough insuring the justice.
Rahul kanwal , chief editor of headlines today tweeted that including Rahul Gandhi around
350 MPs were missing in action when lok sabha passed anti rape bill. Shows how much our
MPs care for NIRBHAYA.
On one side government pretends to be so caring for girls after this case but when anti rape
bill was actually passing that day 350 MPs including Rahul Gandhi who is said to be our
would be prime minister was not present. He did not even gave it a thought of presenting
dere on this important day when finally something was happening in a favour of girls.
This was the crucial role which our government or our MPs played.
we will keep alive bravery of our brave daughter if we perpetuate the day as NIRBHAY
DIWAS. Fearless to report , record, investigate & punish tweeted social activist kiran bedi.
She demands NIRBHAY DIWAS in memory of jyoti pandey or NIRBHAYA , victim of delhi
15

gang rape. In her interview with zee news she clearly says that every single person of police
either constable or DCP,SSP should commit to people that they take the responsibility of
inquiry of their complains. People should not afraid anymore for complaining against the
crime, that day only poliyicians will come to know how many cases are not yet being
reported. After this step government will get to know how much girls were in fear that they
do not report for the crimes that took place with them.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, an Indian legislation passed by the Lok Sabha on
19 March 2013, and by the Rajya Sabha on 21 March 2013, provides for amendment
of Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on laws
related to sexual offences. The Bill received Presidential assent on 2 April 2013 and deemed
to came into force from 3 February 2013. It was originally an Ordinance promulgated by
the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, on 3 February 2013, in light of the protests in
the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.

This incident generated huge international coverage and was condemned by the United
Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, who called up the
Government of India and Delhi to do everything in their power to take up radical reforms
and the like to make womens lives safer and secure.[i]

There had been widespread demand by the public as well as various human rights groups and
womens organisations to change or amend the existing law relating to sexual offences. A
graver punishment for the accused was demanded for committing such a heinous crime.

In a meeting at UN Women, Justice Verma stated that, to ensure its success, it is important
that the Act be implemented with dedicated human and financial resources, and clarity in
roles and responsibilities. A law is only as good as the systems and individuals that
implement them. Mindsets and attitudes need to change so women can truly be respected
equally and value in society.
16

Improvements in legal system:

The outpouring of anger and grief following the rape and murder gave rise to hopes for
change in India. The government responded with the passage of several new sexual assault
laws, including a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for gang rape, and six new fast-
track courts created solely for rape prosecutions. As an indicator of the scope of the problem
of rape prosecution, the "Nirbhaya" case was the only conviction obtained among the 706
rape cases filed in New Delhi in 2012. Between 16 December 2012 and 4 January 2013,
Delhi police recorded 501 allegations of harassment and 64 of rape, but only four inquiries
were launched. However, it appears that the "Nirbhaya" case has had an effect on the
willingness of rape or molestation victims to report the crime; police records show that during
the final nine months of 2013 almost twice as many rape victims filed a police report and four
times as many allegations of molestation were made. A recent report released by the National
Crime Records Bureau shows that 95 percent of the cases brought to the police were
classified as a crime. However, there is a large backlog of cases with fewer than 15 percent of
those charged tried in 2012, leaving 85 percent waiting to come to trial.

On 16 December 2013, the one-year anniversary of the rape was commemorated in London
with a public memorial to honor the victim. Speakers included Meera Syal, whose parents are
from New Delhi. Speaking of the anger that was expressed at the time of the rape, she said,
"We need to hold onto that anger and demand that the Indian Government enforces all the
promised changes of its recent Criminal Law Amendment Act, which changed laws to expand
the definition of rape and incorporated new offences including acid attack, sexual harassment,
voyeurism and stalking". She also said that activists need to act in solidarity with other
organisations to stop violence against women and girls around the world.

Following the incident the government set up the Nirbhaya Fund to address violence against
women. The Fund is administered by Department of Economic Affairs of the finance
ministry. However, as of March 2015, very little of the funds have been spent to ensure
women's safety.
17

Public discussions about violence against women

Observers agree that Pandey's ordeal has brought a change to public conversations about
women's issues, with men joining in the discussions as well. A young woman who had taken
part in the protests at the time of the rape said a year later, "A welcome change is that the
taboo on discussing rape and sexual violence has been broken. The protests brought debates
and discussions to our homes." She also said that since the rape and protests the media is now
providing coverage of sexual violence. However, she saw "absolutely no change in the rape
culture and related brutality. The streets are not safe. Teasing [Eve teasing] and catcalling or
worse are to be found everywhere. Sexual harassment in public places as well as inside the
home is still rampant." She added, "I do acknowledge, however, that a year is too less to undo
what patriarchy has done over centuries. It is too embedded in our homes, our institutions and
in our laws. The police may be a little more receptive, but it is not out of a sense of duty but
out of the fear of censure"

India's Daughter

India's Daughter (2015) is a documentary film directed and produced by Leslee Udwin, and is
part of the BBC's ongoing Storyville series. It was scheduled to be broadcast on International
Women's Day, 8 March 2015, in India on NDTV 24x7 and in UK on BBC Four. On 1 March,
it was revealed that the filmmakers had interviewed one of the rapists while he was being
held in the Tihar jail. Soon, the news was picked up by Indian media outlets. The Indian
government blocked its broadcast in India by obtaining a court order on 4 March. The BBC
said it would comply with the order and did not broadcast the film in India. In the UK
however, the BBC moved the transmission forward to 4 March, and it was shown on that
date. The film was also uploaded on YouTube and soon went viral with various shares on
social media. On 5 March, the Indian government directed YouTube to block the video in
India and YouTube complied with the order. The film has generated a great deal of
controversy in both India and worldwide.

Because India does not permit a rape victim's name to be published the victim was called
"Nirbhaya", which means fearless, because of her efforts to fight off her rapists and her
insistence on making a detailed statement to the police before she died. However, following
the death of their daughter, the parents were quoted in several media articles as saying they
had no objections to using their daughter's name. In the film the father states he is "happy" to
18

reveal her name, Jyoti Singh Pandey, and on 5 March the father was quoted as saying he
thought "everyone should watch the documentary, which showed 'the bitter truth' about
attitudes to women in India". Even still, on 6 March, the news outlet The Hindu ran an article
"Father objects to revealing gangrape victims name in 'India's Daughter'" in which they
quoted the father as saying that he planned to take legal action because her name was used.

The film's director and producer Leslee Udwin said that it was the courage and bravery
shown by the unprecedented numbers of men and women who protested the rape and murder
that inspired her to make the film. Speaking in an interview, Udwin said:

Courageous and impassioned ordinary men and women of India braved the December freeze
to protest in unprecedented numbers, withstanding an onslaught of teargas shells, lathi
charges [baton charges] and water canons, to make their cry of enough is enough heard. In
this regard, India led the world by example. In my lifetime, I cant recall any other country
standing up with such commitment and determination for womens rights.

Speaking of the film, Pandey's father, Badrinath Singh, said that the film "holds up a mirror
to society" and that the showing of the film is important "so that the struggle that my
daughter was part of continues." Singh said that since the death of their daughter "every girl
on the street is like a daughter" to him and his wife and that people need to understand that
sons need to be taught to respect women. Speaking on 5 March, Singh said:

My wife and I brought up our children with the sole intention of making them good citizens. I
can proudly say that we have achieved that. Our daughter has shown society its true face. She
has changed the lives of many young girls. She remains an inspiration even after her death.
She fought back those devils. We are proud of our daughter

Safety measures in public transport for woman


Some measures taken by the Government f the safety of woman in Delhi are as follow:
19

Installation of GPS devises on all public buses


Verification of the crew of all public transport vehicles, including owners of chartered
buses
Appointment of lady police officers
Increasing the number of PCR vans
Police verification of school bus staff
CCTV camera at various places in Delhi. At present, CCTV cameras are operational
at 34 markets and four border check posts in Delhi.
The Government announced in 2013 that verification needs to be done by the Delhi
on all passenger driver vehicles and after that transport department would issue
public service badge to them.

New anti-rape law comes into force


President Pranab Mukherjee has given his assent to the Anti-rape Bill which provides
for life term and even death sentence for rape convicts besides stringent punishment
for offences like acid attacks, stalking and voyeurism.

Mukherjee accorded his assent to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill-2013 on


Tuesday, brought against the backdrop of the country-wide outrage over Delhi gang-
rape case, and it will now be called the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, an
official release said on Wednesday.

The law, passed by Lok Sabha on March 19 and by Rajya Sabha on March 21, has
replaced an ordinance promulgated on February 3.

It amends various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the Indian Evidence Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

With an aim of providing a strong deterrent against crimes like rapes, the new law
states that an offender can be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 20 years, but which may extend to life, meaning imprisonment
for the remainder of the convict's natural life and with a fine. It has provisions for
20

handing out death sentence to offenders who may have been convicted earlier for such
crimes.

The law, for the first time, defines stalking and voyeurism as non-bailable offences if
repeated for a second time. Perpetrators of acid attack will attract a 10-year jail.

It also defines acid attack as a crime besides granting a victim the right to self-
defence. It also has provisions for imposing a minimum 10-year jail term for
perpetrators of such acts.

The law has fixed age for consensual sex at 18 years. Pranab Mukherjee has given his
assent to the Anti-rape Bill, providing enhanced punishment for rape, making stalking
and voyeurism criminal offences and fixing the age of consent for sex at 18.

"The President of India has accorded his assent to the Bill on April 2 (Tuesday) and it
will now be called the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013," said a statement by
the union home ministry on Wednesday.

The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha March 19, and by the Rajya Sabha March 21.

The Bill incorporates suggestions of the Justice JS Verma Committee, formed after
the brutal Delhi gang-rape of Dec 16 last year, to make anti-rape laws stronger.

It provides for rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 20 years, extendable to life


imprisonment, to those convicted for the offence of gang-rape, and also defines and
PW57 Dr. Sachin Bajaj along with Dr Dheeraj examined the complainant vide MLC .
21

Recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee: 10-point cheat-sheet.

o Punishment for Rape: The panel has not recommended the death penalty for
rapists. It suggests that the punishment for rape should be rigorous
imprisonment or RI for seven years to life. It recommends that punishment for
causing death or a "persistent vegetative state" should be RI for a term not be
less than 20 years, but may be for life also, which shall mean the rest of the
person's life. Gang-rape, it suggests should entail punishment of not less than
20 years, which may also extend to life and gang-rape followed by death,
should be punished with life imprisonment.
o Punishment for other sexual offences: The panel recognised the need to
curb all forms of sexual offences and recommended - Voyeurism be punished
with upto seven years in jail; stalking or attempts to contact a person
repeatedly through any means by up to three years. Acid attacks would be
punished by up to seven years if imprisonment; trafficking will be punished
with RI for seven to ten years.
o Registering complaints and medical examination: Every complaint of rape
must be registered by the police and civil society should perform its duty to
report any case of rape coming to its knowledge. "Any officer, who fails to
register a case of rape reported to him, or attempts to abort its investigation,
commits an offence which shall be punishable as prescribed," the report says.
The protocols for medical examination of victims of sexual assault have also
been suggested. The panel said, "Such protocol based, professional medical
examination is imperative for uniform practice and implementation."
o Marriages to be registered: As a primary recommendation, all marriages in
India (irrespective of the personal laws under which such marriages are
solemnised) should mandatorily be registered in the presence of a magistrate,.
The magistrate will ensure that the marriage has been solemnised without any
demand for dowry having been made and that it has taken place with the full
and free consent of both partners.
22

o Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure: The panel observed, "The


manner in which the rights of women can be recognised can only be
manifested when they have full access to justice and when the rule of law can
be upheld in their favour." The proposed Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2012,
should be modified, suggests the panel. "Since the possibility of sexual assault
on men, as well as homosexual, transgender and transsexual rape, is a reality
the provisions have to be cognizant of the same," it says. A special procedure
for protecting persons with disabilities from rape, and requisite procedures for
access to justice for such persons, the panel said was an "urgent need."
o Bill of Rights for women: A separate Bill of Rights for women that entitles a
woman a life of dignity and security and will ensure that a woman shall have
the right to have complete sexual autonomy including with respect to her
relationships.
o Review of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act: The panel has observed
that the "impunity of systematic sexual violence is being legitimised by the
armed forces special powers act." It has said there is an imminent need to
review the continuance of AFSPA in areas as soon as possible. It has also
recommended posting special commissioners for women's safety in conflict
areas.
o Police reforms: To inspire public confidence, the panel said, "police officers
with reputations of outstanding ability and character must be placed at the
higher levels of the police force." All existing appointments need to be
reviewed to ensure that the police force has the requisite moral vision. The
panel strongly recommended that "law enforcement agencies do not become
tools at the hands of political masters." It said, "Every member of the police
force must understand their accountability is only to the law and to none else
in the discharge of their duty."
o Role of the judiciary: The judiciary has the primary responsibility of
enforcing fundamental rights, through constitutional remedies. The judiciary
can take suo motu cognizance of such issues being deeply concerned with
them both in the Supreme Court and the High Court. An all India strategy to
deal with this issue would be advisable. The Chief Justice of India could be
approached to commence appropriate proceedings on the judicial side. The
23

Chief Justice may consider making appropriate orders relating to the issue of
missing children to curb the illegal trade of their trafficking etc.

o Political Reforms: The Justice Verma committee observed that reforms are
needed to deal with criminalisation of politics. The panel has suggest that, in
the event cognizance has been taken by a magistrate of an criminal offence,
the candidate ought to be disqualified from participating in the electoral
process. Any candidate who fails to disclose a charge should be disqualified
subsequently. It suggested lawmakers facing criminal charges, who have
already been elected to Parliament and state legislatures, should voluntarily
vacate their seats

o
24

Conclusion

India is known for a lot of things. The positive ones are its culture, diversity of religion,
cricket prowess, beautiful scenic beauty. But often, a few incidents take place which make
these positive factors take a backseat in foreign, and even domestic public opinion. The
Nirbhaya incident was the spark which ignited the fire of negative public opinion about India.

It was recently printed in Sex Roles, a journal analysing womens issues, gave academic
backing to something we all Indians are aware of. It highlighted how beliefs that blame
women for their victimization, in turn, provide legitimacy to violence against women.

Almost non-existent implementation of government schemes for betterment of womens


situation is one of the main reasons for the dire situation of women in India. Although the
same callous attitude is visible in a lot of places, it affects the problem of women more. This
is because the callous attitude is not just administrative or political, it is rooted in society and
morality.

To maintain law and order in society, the people must feel that they are safe in their day-to-
day life. To avoid anarchy in society, for smooth functioning of society and to Government,
to maintain faith in the administration of Government, it is necessary to prevent the repeated
offending incidents of any type otherwise its repetition would lower down the faith in
Government and its administration by resulting depression to law-abiding persons and would
be resulted in boosting the criminals to commit these type of and other wrongful activities, if
they come to know the way to get rescue from possible punishment. The strength of
Government is to get the support from people permanently, continuously which is its basic
need and that can mostly be get from having faith in Government that it would do something
for society and to prevent the offending incidents by adopting the punitive mode of
punishment. The women is the major and half part of our society which supports its health as
25

is necessary to maintain the faith of each family, member of family of our society.

It is very unfortunate for us that Nirbhyas death motivated us to incorporate certain


provisions in the light of arrival of such elements deteriorating the health of society..
1. On 12.12.2012, Judicial Committee headed by Justice J. S. Varma, Former Chief Justice of
India with other eminent jurists was appointed by Government of India to suggest the
amendments in criminal law to deal with sexual assault cases. The report was suggested
indicating the root cause of failure of government and police but did not forward lowering the
age of juvenile from 18 to 16. In addition to the inquiry headed by Justice Usha Mehra,
Former Judge, Delhi High Court on 26.12.2012 for determination lapses and responsibility in
relation to incident and for suggesting measures for safety of women in National Capital. On
1.1.2013, Task Force was established under the head of Union Home Secretary to look into
the safety of women. On 3.2.2013, Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 was issued
for amendment in Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code under the
signature of Hon. President, Pranab Mukharjee wherein death penalty was provided in cases
of rape. On 12.12.2015, Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice Bill.

Bibliography :
http://legalcasehouse.blogspot.in
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

http:// www.dnaindia.com
26