Life Imprisonment for Raping Daughter

Check spelling – Done « Plain text
A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam sentenced a man to life imprisonment for raping his daughter in the case of Siriya @ Shri Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on May 13, 2008 saying, “There can never be more shocking, depraved and heinous crime than when the father is charged of having raped his own daughter. He not only delicts the law but, it is a betrayal of trust. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter in whom the daughter reposes trust to protect her. Charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worse than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber.”

In this case, the father-rapist initially took the plea of false implication which was not accepted by the Trial Court. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Before the High Court, he then said that his brother wanted to grab land and property and, therefore, was tutoring the victim. The High Court, however, affirmed the Trial Court’s verdict after which the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal to it.

In this case, the mother of the victim had died about 3 years before the rape. Her father took her to purchase clothes for her and on the way back, he took her to a dilapidated house and raped her. She was about thirteen years old at the time.

Hearing her shrieks, three passers-by went inside the room and separated the father from his daughter. They then took both of them to the police station where the daughter lodged the first information report against her father.

They were both sent for medical examinations on the basis of which the doctors opined that possibility of rape could not be denied and that the father was not impotent.

The case at hand shows to what bottomless pit speed of depravation and lust a person can go down. As indicated at the threshold, the custodian of the trust has betrayed the same. The father is supposed to protect the dignity and honour of his daughter. This is a fundamental facet of human life. If the protector becomes the violator, the offence assumes a greater degree of vulnerability. The sanctity of father and daughter relationship gets polluted. It becomes an unpardonable act. It is not only a loathsome sin, but also abhorrent.

The case at hand is a sad reflection on the present day society where a most platonic relationship has been soiled by the pervert and degrading act of the father. The evidence on records clinchingly nails the appellant as the offender.

The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case.

In this case, the accused’s lustful acts have indelible scar not only physically but also emotionally on the victim. No sympathy or leniency is called for.


In another recent case in which the same two judges along with Justice M Sharma comprised the Bench, the Supreme Court had said, “The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to society’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.”

In that case, the Court confirmed a death sentence which had been awarded to a man who had raped and murdered two minor girls.

The trend seems to be towards ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the offence.

Benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act Extended

A judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered on May 2, 2008 by Justices F I Rebello and K U Chandiwal has changed the law with reference to juvenile offenders.

The ruling extends the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 to any person who was a below the age of eighteen at the time when he committed an offence.

When the Juvenile Justice Act was first passed in 1986, it defined a juvenile as a person under the age of sixteen years. This was raised to eighteen years by an amendment in 2000 which came into effect in 2001.The 2000 amendment said:

Section 2(k): ‘juvenile’ or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;
Section 2(l): ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.

In 2005, the Supreme Court held that the 2000 amendment did not have retrospective effect.

The Act was further amended in 2006. Section 2(l) was changed to read: ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.

It is this amendment that the Bombay High Court has said has retrospective effect.

This judgment was given in a case where a convict Imtiyaz Shaikh, now 30, comitted a murder in 1995 when he was 16 years and 10 months old. He has been in custody since 1995 but the benefit of the Act has now been extended to him.

Bouncy Castle Case

Sam Harris was injured while playing on a bouncy castle when he was 11 years old (in 2006). He was accidentally kicked in the head by a 15-year-old and now needs round the clock treatment.

The bouncy castle had been hired by Catherine and Timothy Perry for their triplets’ tenth birthday party. Sam got on to it after asking Mrs Perry for permission. He had earlier been playing football in an adjoining field with his father who was also made a defendant in the case which was brought by Sam through his mother, Janet Harris.

The case against Mr Harris was dismissed but the Perrys were held liable for not supervising the children properly especially in light of the fact that the castle came with instructions not to allow rough play on it or mix children of different sizes.

The High Court has given the Perrys permission to appeal. If an appeal is not pursued, Sam is to receive an interim payment of £100,000.

The Right to Education Bill, 2005

The Times of India reports that the law ministry has asked the HRD ministry to look into certain “crucial” aspects of the Right to Education Bill before it introduces the Bill so that it does not create large amounts of litigation once it becomes law.


THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL, 2005

The Right to Education Bill, 2005 is designed to put into effect the right to free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years’.

Constitutional Basis

The Preamble to the Constitution resolves to secure to all citizens of India JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

Article 45 of Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution requires the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to age fourteen but there are a number of children out of school particularly from the disadvantaged groups.

Further, Article 21A of the Constitution has made free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right.

In addition to this, Article 51A (k) says that it is a fundamental duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child/ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

Child’s Right to Free and Compulsory Education of Equitable Quality

Under this Bill, every child who has attained the age of 6 years shall have the right to participate in full time elementary education and to complete it although a child who, due to his severe or profound disability, or disadvantage, or nature of occupation of his parents, cannot be provided elementary education in a neighbourhood school, shall have the right to be provided education in an appropriate alternative environment as may be prescribed.

(It isn’t quite clear why the occupation of a child’s parents should bar his admission in a school.)

No child shall be held back in any grade or expelled from a school until he completes elementary education, except through an Order of the School Management Committee (SMC). This can only be done in the case of a delinquent child for whom all other corrective measures have been exhausted, and only after such child and his parents/guardians have been afforded an opportunity of being heard. An SMC passing such an Order must bring such Order to the notice of the Appropriate Government or local authority as the case may be, which will then give directions regarding other neighbourhood schools to which the expelled child shall be admitted for purposes of his further education

General Responsibility of the State

The State has responsibilities both towards children who have been enrolled in schools and those who have not been so enrolled. It is the responsibility of the State:
(i) To ensure the availability of a neighbourhood school for every child within a period of three years from commencement of this Act or free transportation arrangements to the nearest school or provide free residential schools/ facilities,
(ii) To ensure that every child is provided free education and parents/guardians who choose to admit their children to the nonfree quota in a school shall not have any claim on the State for providing free education to their children,
(iii) To institute and implement a mechanism for regular monitoring of enrolment, participation and attainment status of every child, and taking corrective steps wherever necessary, so that every child completes elementary education, and to make information in this regard available in the public domain, including on an on-line basis,
(iv) To ensure that children in schools receive education (a) of equitable quality, and (b) conforming to values enshrined in the Constitution, and,
(v) To ensure that economic social, cultural, linguistic, gender, administrative, locational, disability or other barriers do not prevent children from participating in, and completing elementary education.

As far as non-enrolled children are concerned, the appropriate government is required to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are either enrolled in a neighbourhood school or in special programmes in a neighbourhood school, if available, and failing that, in another school to enable them to be admitted to an age appropriate grade in a neighbourhood school as early as possible
.
The appropriate government is also required to endeavour to provide facilities for pre-school education in State and fully-aided schools for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years, if such facilities are not already being provided, through Integrated Child Development Services or other government programmes, in proximity to such schools.

If a young person has, for whatever reason, been unable to complete elementary education by the age of fourteen years but is continuing his education in a school at that age, he shall continue to be provided free education in such school till he completes elementary education or attains the age of eighteen years, whichever is earlier.

Responsibility of the Government

The primary responsibility for the provision of free and compulsory education is of the concerned Local Authority and State Government. However, the Central Government has a concurrent responsibility: it is responsible for providing financial assistance to State Governments, taking action through appropriate bodies to develop a national curriculum framework, and to develop and enforce standards for training and qualification of teachers for elementary education in a participatory and consultative manner. The Central Government is also responsible for providing technical resource support to the state governments. It is required to monitor the progress of implementation of various interventions, schemes and programmes for achieving the objectives of this Act, and taking appropriate steps in case of default. It is also required to take such other steps as the President may, by Order, specify.

Schools and Teachers

State Schools are required to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all admitted children. Aided schools which are not fully aided are required to provide such education to at least such proportion of their admitted children as its annual recurring aid bears to its annual recurring expenses subject to a minimum of 25 per cent. The Bill makes provision for how many children each category of school is required to provide free and compulsory elementary education.

Children or their family cannot be subjected to any screening procedure by a school while deciding about admission to the school at the elementary stage, nor shall the family be required to make any payment in the nature of capitation fee.

Children shall be admitted to schools as far as possible at the commencement of the academic year but this is flexible.

Every teacher has a duty to regularly attend school for its full duration, transact and complete the curriculum, report every case of non-attendance to the parent or guardian concerned in the first instance, regularly assess the learning level of each child, and to provide such supplementary instruction as may be needed by the child, regularly apprise every parent/guardian and the School Management Committee about the progress of learning development of his child/ward studying in the school, and to perform such other functions as the appropriate government or the appointing authority may specify. Default by a teacher in the performance of a stipulated duty amounts to professional misconduct, and such teacher shall be liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions this Act and/or the disciplinary rules applicable. The SMC/Local Authority is required to redress teachers’ grievances to the extent that they fall within its purview, and/or to forward them to the appropriate authority for obtaining redressal in the event that such grievances do not fall within its purview.

Content and Process of Education

The curriculum and evaluation procedures must conform to the values enshrined in the Constitution. All schools must function in a child friendly and child-centred manner, and must allow the child who is capable of forming his own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, and allow the views of the child to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Schools must build on the child’s knowledge, environment and cultural identity, particularly linguistic, and develop the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, and use the child’s mother tongue as the medium of instruction as far as possible, at least during the first five years of the elementary stage. Education should rely on activity, discovery, exploration, understanding and problem-solving, be free of fear, trauma and anxiety to the child, and evaluation should be conducted in a continuous and comprehensive manner such that it tests the child’s understanding and ability to apply knowledge rather than rote learning.

No child shall be required to appear at a public examination during the elementary stage except, if at all, at the completion of such stage. Every child who completes elementary education shall be awarded a certificate to that effect by the examining body holding public examination, or, in case no public examination is held, by the school where he completes it.

Schools may carry out standardised, non-threatening assessments of learning levels of children to enable corrective action, at such regular intervals as may be prescribed by the appropriate government.

No child shall be awarded physical punishment in any form in a school. Corporal punishment inflicted by a teacher shall amount to professional misconduct, and such teacher shall be liable to be punished in accordance with this Act and/or the disciplinary rules applicable.

Monitoring of Implementation of the Act

The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Commission for Elementary Education to continuously monitor implementation of this Act, recommend corrective measures wherever necessary, and to exercise powers and perform other functions assigned to it under this Act.

The National Commission for Elementary Education, shall consist of a Chairperson, who shall be an eminent person with proven record of service in the field of education; one member each having expertise in the fields of elementary education, development of disadvantaged groups, child development/child rights, finance, and law; and a Member-Secretary having experience/expertise in educational management.

The Central Government shall, after due appropriation made by Parliament, by law in this behalf, pay to the Commission by way of grants such sums of money as it may think fit to enable the Commission to discharge its functions.

Participation in Elementary Education

No person shall prevent a child from participating in elementary education and no person shall employ or otherwise engage a child in a manner that renders his a working child.

A child shall be admitted to Grade 1 only if he has attained the age of five years and ten months before the beginning of the academic year. Ordinarily the birth certificate and, in its absence, a declaration by the parent or guardian shall be treated as prima facie proof of the age of a child, unless the admitting authority has reason to disbelieve it. In case it is disbelieved, the admitting authority shall determine the child’s age after making an enquiry in the prescribed manner.

It is the responsibility of every parent/guardian to enrol his child or ward, who has attained the age of 6 years and above in a school, and to facilitate his completion of elementary education. If a parent/guardian persistently defaults in doing this, the SMC may direct such parent/guardian to perform compulsory community service by way of child care in the school, in such manner as may be prescribed.

The management of schools which charge a capitation fee or conduct any screening procedure for admission of children may be fined.

HIV+ Mother gets Custody of Child

Justice Gita Mittal of the Delhi High Court said, “There is no law which can deprive a mother of her child because of AIDS,” in a case where a woman’s in-laws tried to deprive her of the custody of her child after the death of her husband.

The woman, Sunita Verma, had apparently contracted the virus before her marriage. Not too surprisingly, her in-laws, Ram Gopal Verma and his wife Phoolwati, decided to say that she should not be given custody of the child because she was of ‘bad character’ and would have bad influence on the child.

The Court does not appear to have said that that fact was immaterial. It merely pointed out that the virus could be transmitted by a blood transfusion.

I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if it had been irrefutably proved that the woman had been involved in a pre-marital relationship.

Sunita Verma is, however, scheduled to have the custody her child handed over her.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/HIV-mother-cant-be-deprived-custody-of-child/305198/

What (Some) Judges Say About Rape

“A raped woman is framed socially and within the law as something broken. Neither Madonna nor whore but somewhere in between. The carrier of bad luck. There is a general but grudging acceptance that it isn’t really her fault, but if she had done something else, gone in another direction, not had that drink or worn that dress or smiled that way, it might never have happened…”
From ‘The Story of Jane Doe: A Book about Rape’ (Random House, 2003 at 118)

1982: Judge Bertram Richards said that a teenager who had been raped was “guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence” by hitchhiking home late at night.
http://www.newint.org/issue187/death.htm

1983: Judge Brian Gibbens, 76, said he had “considerable sympathy” for a 35-year-old builder who had sex with a seven-year-old girl, and added: “It strikes me as one of the kinds of accidents which could almost happen to anyone.”
http://justice.org.nz/pubs/reports/1999/family_conference/author_24.html

1986: Mr Justice Leonard, the High Court Judge in the Ealing Vicarage rape trial, said, “the trauma suffered by the victim was not so very great.” He gave the burglar who organised the raid a much harsher sentence than the two rapists and was later hauled up for placing more value on property than on person.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/nsaward08.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/08/ixhome.html

1988: Judge Sir Harold Cassel QC said that an ex-policeman was driven to indecently assaulting his twelve-year-old mentally-retarded stepdaughter because his wife’s diminished desire for sex during her pregnancy had caused “considerable problems for a healthy young husband”. He accused the woman of ‘encouraging’ the assaults although the she said, “As far as the sexual side, my husband did not go without the whole time through my pregnancy, so I do not know where the judge got his information from.”
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sue/body.htm

1991: Sir Arthur Myerson reduced rapist Brian David Huntley’s sentence because he “showed concern and consideration by wearing a contraceptive.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1263875.stm; http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~spaf/Yucks/V1/msg00061.html

1993: Judge Ian Starforth Hill described an eight-year-old victim of a sexual attack as “not entirely an angel”.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2876160.ece

1993: Judge John Prosser let a 15-year-old rapist go free ordering him to pay his teenage victim £500 “for a good holiday”.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2876160.ece

1993: Judge Smedley in a case heard at the Old Bailey explained why evidence of the victim’s distress should be disregarded: “A word of warning. If the account the complainant is giving was completely fabricated you may think she is clever, then clever enough to act out distress”.
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sue/body.htm

2003: Judge Richard Benson, a circuit judge, gave a 58-year-old father a three-year community rehabilitation order for repeatedly molesting his daughter while her mother was shopping when she was seven and eight since he thought the case was at “the more bland edge of the spectrum”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/16/law.ukcrime

2006: Judge Addison passed a suspended sentence of nine months on a swimming instructor, Ross Sweet, who sexually assaulted two eight-year-old girls on two occasions and praised him for being a good and caring teacher.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article65397.ece; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6288819.stm; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/23/njudges123.xml

2007: Judge Julian Hall said to Eric Cole, 71, who had sexually assaulted a six-year-old: “In criminal terms, what you did was quite mild.” He ordered Cole to pay his victim compensation of £250, adding: “If it buys her a nice new bicycle, that’s the sort of thing that might cheer her up.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433514&in_page_id=1766

2008: Judge Julian Hall of the Oxford Crown Court said a ten-year-old girl had dressed provocatively while letting her rapist, Keith Fenn, 24, and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, off with astonishingly lenient sentences.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21969117-663,00.html

Incidentally, rape is apparently not illegal under Nigerian law.
http://worldivided.com/2007/12/07/when-submission-becomes-a-routine/

In 1913, Rebecca West said: “I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.”

Prosecution for Obscene Writing

ABC reports that Karen Fletcher, a woman who wrote sexually explicit stories involving children is now being prosecuted for obscenity. The woman claims that she wrote the stories to deal with her own abuse as a child, and that she charged the 29 subscribers to her site so that she could run it and to ensure that children wouldn’t be able to access the material. The stories were apparently not accompanied by any pictures and this is one of the few instances where the written word alone has been attacked. The lawyers involved in the case say that the trial will probably focus on whether the stories have any literary or artistic merit.

I can see how writing such stories can be cathartic although I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to post them on the Net but posting them online seems to have more to do with bad judgment / poor taste than with criminal intent. Also, I’m not sure I understand the artistic merit argument: does it mean that if you are a particularly good writer, you can write about ‘obscence’ subjects and that if you aren’t, your writing about exactly the same subject would make you a criminal?

Although I do sympathise with the author, I hate the idea of child porn. The result is that I don’t know what to make of this particular case (other than to say that when it comes to child porn, I’m sure that there are many other people around who deserve to be prosecuted far more than Ms. Fletcher).

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4222798&page=1