Latest news

Showing posts with label jail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jail. Show all posts

Monday, 9 September 2013

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

JAIPUR: A division bench of the high court has asked state government to give its reply to a PIL filed by one Vinod Singhal who questioned immediate arrests in cases pertaining to Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 406 of IPC (criminal breach of trust) filed by aggrieved wives against husband and his relatives.
The petition alleges that 70% matrimonial disputes are being converted into criminal cases by misuse of the provisions of Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. It has been alleged that once such a false criminal case is filed against the husband and his relatives the police immediately arrest the accused resulting in vanishing of chances of reconciliation between the warring husband and wife.
The PIL raises a point that since the offences are non-bailable, some guidelines must be issued so as to see that no husband or his relatives are arrested on false complaints. The petitioner demands that instead of registering the FIR immediately, the police must first call the parties for conciliation and in case the dispute remains unresolved, then only action should be initiated against the guilty husband and his relatives.
It has also been highlighted in the petition that in the recent past the Supreme Court too had observed that the law made for protection of women is being misused and has asked the Law Commission of India to report as to whether the law can be made bailable. The division bench of Chief Justice Amitava Roy and Justice V S Siradhana directed that a copy of the PIL be supplied to the government advocate.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-09/jaipur/40468015_1_pil-questions-dowry-harassment-cases-division-bench

Saturday, 7 September 2013

Bombay high court questions early release of women jailed for murder

Bombay high court questions early release of women jailed for murder

MUMBAI: Can a person sentenced to life imprisonment for murder face less punishment just because she is a woman? The Bombay high court on Tuesday questioned the gender discrimination in the state government's new prison rules.

"This is a dangerous trend," a division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel said. "Reservations [for women] can be understood, but showing leniency in punishment on the basis of gender cannot be accepted."

The court asked advocate general Darius Khambata to assist the court on the matter when it hears the case on September 19. The court was hearing a plea for early release from prison by a woman convicted of murdering her husband on the basis of the rules introduced by the government in 2010.

While a woman murder convict sent to prison for life faces minimum imprisonment of between 18 years and 20 years in jail with remissions, men face 20 years to 30 years, depending on the gravity of the crime. Remissions are extra days credited for each day spent in jail.

"Prima facie, we do not see any positive discrimination [in the rules to benefit female convicts] which either improves the dignity or status of women in society," the judges said.

The court pointed out that they had observed many reports in newspapers about women committing serious crimes, including being involved in sexual assault cases. "While the new rules introduce stringent punishment for crimes against women, in the same breath someone who has wronged another woman can get off lightly because of her gender," the judges said.

The court questioned the state on the justification for such a classification on the basis of gender.

"A case-to-case-basis decision on the prison term can be taken by going into the circumstances, but a classification solely on the basis of gender is a dangerous trend," the court said. "The rules do not meet the purpose that they will not be encouraged to commit crimes. Instead, it gives a licence to women that because of their DNA they can get off easily even if they commit a serious crime."

In 2010, the state government had introduced changes to the guidelines for premature release of prisoners under the 14-year rule. According to law, a punishment of life imprisonment awarded to an accused means jail till death. Yet, depending on the severity of the crime, the rules allow a person to be released early from prison once he completes 14 years of actual imprisonment.

The new rules created a new category for women convicts. Those who had committed murder were eligible for release from jail once they had served 18 years, including remissions. If the murder was premeditated, they could be released after 20 years with remissions.
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Bombay-high-court-questions-early-release-of-women-jailed-for-murder/articleshow/22304543.cms 

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

Popular music director/anchor James Vasanthan was recently arrested for allegedly abusing his 63-year-old neighbour. Now, he is out on bail, and, he opened up to Chennai Times about his arrest. He says, "It was around 3.30 pm on Sunday when cops came into our house. Though initially I was not told about the arrest, later I was informed that I would be held. They didn't even tell me on what charge they were arresting me. Following that, I was imprisoned in Puzhal jail for two days."

He was accused by the woman for displaying indecent gestures in public. Reacting to the allegations, he says, "Some women take the sexual harassment law to their advantage and target innocent men like me. This is not the first case that has been forced on me. I know very well that this woman does everything with the support of the top cop in the city."
Trouble started for the composer when he bought a house in Palavakkam in 2011. "Since then, this neighbour is causing trouble. Her intention is to get our place which she asked us to sell to her when we first bought it. At first, she filed an attempt-to-murder case and now, she lodges a sexual harassment case. I will legally disprove all these false allegations."
James has spent nearly 48 hours in the prison. He says, "I have a positive approach to life; so, I enjoyed my stay in the jail. My wife has been my pillar of strength during this crisis. I will strive hard for justice."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/news-interviews/41237107_1_james-vasanthan-sexual-harassment-case-neighbour

Thursday, 15 August 2013

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

Popular music director/anchor James Vasanthan was recently arrested for allegedly abusing his 63-year-old neighbour. Now, he is out on bail, and, he opened up to Chennai Times about his arrest. He says, "It was around 3.30 pm on Sunday when cops came into our house. Though initially I was not told about the arrest, later I was informed that I would be held. They didn't even tell me on what charge they were arresting me. Following that, I was imprisoned in Puzhal jail for two days."

He was accused by the woman for displaying indecent gestures in public. Reacting to the allegations, he says, "Some women take the sexual harassment law to their advantage and target innocent men like me. This is not the first case that has been forced on me. I know very well that this woman does everything with the support of the top cop in the city."
Trouble started for the composer when he bought a house in Palavakkam in 2011. "Since then, this neighbour is causing trouble. Her intention is to get our place which she asked us to sell to her when we first bought it. At first, she filed an attempt-to-murder case and now, she lodges a sexual harassment case. I will legally disprove all these false allegations."
James has spent nearly 48 hours in the prison. He says, "I have a positive approach to life; so, I enjoyed my stay in the jail. My wife has been my pillar of strength during this crisis. I will strive hard for justice."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/news-interviews/41237107_1_james-vasanthan-sexual-harassment-case-neighbour

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

JAIPUR: A division bench of the high court has asked state government to give its reply to a PIL filed by one Vinod Singhal who questioned immediate arrests in cases pertaining to Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 406 of IPC (criminal breach of trust) filed by aggrieved wives against husband and his relatives.

The petition alleges that 70% matrimonial disputes are being converted into criminal cases by misuse of the provisions of Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. It has been alleged that once such a false criminal case is filed against the husband and his relatives the police immediately arrest the accused resulting in vanishing of chances of reconciliation between the warring husband and wife.

The PIL raises a point that since the offences are non-bailable, some guidelines must be issued so as to see that no husband or his relatives are arrested on false complaints. The petitioner demands that instead of registering the FIR immediately, the police must first call the parties for conciliation and in case the dispute remains unresolved, then only action should be initiated against the guilty husband and his relatives.

It has also been highlighted in the petition that in the recent past the Supreme Court too had observed that the law made for protection of women is being misused and has asked the Law Commission of India to report as to whether the law can be made bailable. The division bench of Chief Justice Amitava Roy and Justice V S Siradhana directed that a copy of the PIL be supplied to the government advocate.
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/PIL-questions-immediate-arrests-in-dowry-harassment-cases/articleshow/20980608.cms 

Monday, 8 July 2013

दुष्कर्म का मामला निकला झूठा

दुष्कर्म का मामला निकला झूठा

वरिष्ठ संवाददाता, बल्लभगढ़ :
सहायक पुलिस आयुक्त (एसीपी) सेंट्रल पूनम दलाल ने थाना सदर पुलिस को जेल अधिकारियों के खिलाफ दुष्कर्म के आरोप में दर्ज मुकदमें को रद करने के आदेश दिए हैं।
विदित हो कि 14 मई 2013 को जिला नीमका जेल के बंद दो महिला कैदियों उपाधीक्षक शाहिद खान पर बंद कमरे में दुष्कर्म करने तथा दो महिला वार्डनों पर दुष्कर्म के लिए प्रेरित करने का आरोप लगाया था। इस मामले में महिलाओं की शिकायत पर थाना सदर में भी मामला दर्ज किया गया। मामले की जांच सेंट्रल एसीपी पूनम दलाल को सौंपी गई थी। जांच के दौरान एसीपी ने जेल में करीब 65 कैदियों के बयान दर्ज किए। इस दौरान उन्होंने जेल के कर्मचारियों से भी बातचीत की। जांच के दौरान एसीपी ने जेल अधिकारियों के खिलाफ मामले को झूठा पाया। एसीपी ने अपनी जांच पूरी करने के बाद थाना सदर पुलिस को लिखित में मुकदमा निरस्त करने के आदेश दिए हैं। इसकी पुष्टि थाना सदर प्रभारी प्रशिक्षु आइपीएस अभिषेक जोरवाल ने भी की है।

http://www.jagran.com/haryana/faridabad-10538273.html 

Saturday, 6 July 2013

What India’s New ‘Anti-Rape’ Bill Actually Says

What India’s New ‘Anti-Rape’ Bill Actually Says

NEW DELHI–After clearing the Lok Sabha or lower house of Parliament earlier this week, a bill to toughen India’s laws on sexual offenses is being debated in the upper house on Thursday.
The bill, which will amend India’s penal code and laws of criminal procedure and evidence, was drafted in response to widespread street protests after the fatal gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi in December.
Among the significant provisions of the bill, seen by India Ink, are longer sentences for sex offenders, a broader definition of rape and punishments for other sex crimes like stalking and voyeurism.
Here are some of the bill’s crucial changes:
– Women’s rights advocates and victims of sexual offenses have long accused a male-dominated police force of refusing to register complaints by women, and even facilitating a monetary settlement or brokering a marriage between victims of rape and the accused.
The bill lays down punishment for police officers who fail to record the initial complaint, known as the first information report, of a woman who alleges she was attacked with acid, assaulted by a man who intended to molest her or “outrage her modesty,” stripped naked or raped. Such officers can receive jail terms of six months to two years.
– The bill creates a separate offense to address acid attacks, common in South Asian countries, especially by men who are spurned by women they express an interest in.
Under the bill, those convicted of throwing acid on a woman, causing “permanent or partial damage or deformity,” or maiming or disfiguring her, will be punished with prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life and a fine.
With an eye to the rehabilitation of the victim, the bill says the fine should be paid to the woman as compensation.
– The bill defines sexual harassment, which includes “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures,” a demand for sexual favors and showing pornography to a woman who does not want to see it. Those convicted of harassment can receive prison sentences of up to three years.
Making “sexually colored” remarks is also included in the definition of sexual harassment, for which the bill prescribes a prison sentence of up to a year.
– The bill criminalizes the forced stripping of women, or disrobing, in public spaces or in private confines, with a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of seven. Under the current law, disrobing a woman is not a separate offense.
– One of the more controversial provisions in the bill is the section on voyeurism, which seeks to punish men who watch or photograph women who are conducting a “private act,” such as bathing, using the toilet or having sex.
The bill lays down a punishment of three to seven years in prison for those convicted of voyeurism more than once.
Voyeurism is not a separate offense under the current law.
– The bill creates another new, and much-debated, offense: stalking. This provision deals with men who follow a woman and establish contact with her or attempt to do so “to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest” by the woman.
E-stalking, or monitoring of a woman’s activities online, such as browsing or checking of e-mail, has also been made punishable.
A man convicted of stalking once can be sentenced to a term of up to three years, and if convicted again can receive a sentence of up to five years.
– The bill expands the definition of rape to include not just penovaginal intercourse but the insertion of an object or any other body part into a woman’s vagina, urethra or anus, and oral sex.
This responds to a longstanding demand of women’s rights groups. The issue of rape by different means was highlighted in the Delhi gang-rape case, where an iron rod was inserted into the young woman’s body.
Prison sentences for rape can range from seven years to life. The current law allows courts to hand down a sentence of less than seven years for “adequate and special reasons,” a provision omitted in the bill.
– The bill raises the age of consent for sex to 18. This means that intercourse with a woman under 18 is statutory rape and courts conducting rape trials cannot consider whether the woman consented to having sex. It also, in effect, criminalizes consensual sex with women under 18, a subject of much controversy.
– The bill does not make marital rape an offense, ignoring a longstanding demand of women’s rights advocates.
– The bill takes a tough stand on rape by public servants. Under the current law, when a rape is committed by a police officer or prison staff, those convicted can be punished with sentences ranging from 10 years to life.
The bill clarifies that imprisonment for life means the convict must remain in prison till the end of his natural life.
The bill also allows women to bring a complaint of rape against members of the armed forces.
– When a rape leaves a woman dead or in a “persistent vegetative state,” the bill demands a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum punishment of death. This is the first time that the death penalty is being prescribed for sexual offenses in India, which, unlike nearly all European nations, retains the death sentence, but uses it only in the “rarest of rare cases.”
– The bill increases the minimum punishment for gang rape from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years, and the maximum punishment to life imprisonment.
– The bill provides for life imprisonment or death for repeat offenders convicted of rape and gang rape.
– The bill makes procedural changes to address concerns that women are uncomfortable or intimidated by male police officers, or are treated with insensitivity when they approach police stations to register complaints of sex crimes.
The bill requires that all initial reports involving sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, stalking, rape and gang rape be taken by women officers only.
– In order to ensure speedy trial, the bill requires that rape trials be completed “as far as possible” within two months from the time the police file charges against the accused.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/what-indias-anti-rape-bill-actually-says/