25 March, 2010

Bad Effects of Divorce:- Girl Was Left By Parents after Taking Divorce At Aunt’s House and Raped by Neighbours, Cousin Since 08

A 12-year-old girl, living with her aunt’s family in Mumbai after her parents divorced and married other partners in Gujarat, was raped repeatedly for about one-and-a-half years by one of her cousins and his friends and neighbours.
The first time she was raped was in August 2008 and the ordeal stopped only a few days ago after an elderly person in the family came to know of what was happening from neighbourhood gossip. The culprits, including a 71-year-old man from the Saki Naka locality, made use of an MMS clip — of one of the assaults committed some time in 2008 — to blackmail the girl until the family elders came to know of what had been happening.
Four persons, including the 71-year-old man, have been arrested as cops are looking for the five other culprits including the girl’s cousin, Daval Bapat.
The girl has been staying in Mumbai since she was nine months old. Her parents, however, divorced in 2005 and returned to their Gujarat hometown in Bhuj district where both remarried a couple of months back. She was left in the care of her aunt (mother’s sister), Jyotsna Bapat, who stays with her younger son, Daval (24), and husband; her elder son had moved to Dubai some years back.
It was in August 2008 that Daval first raped the girl, who was studying in class VI at that time, at home after threatening her at knifepoint. The ordeal had just begun — Daval would rape her whenever his parents were not there. Later, in the same month, Daval and his friend, Raju Sharma, took her to a lodge in Kurla where they raped her. It was that day that both also made an MMS clip of their perversion.
Gradually, seven other neighbours became part of the gang that would just pick her up when they felt like it. This went on till this month, when an elderly relative (Jyotsna’s uncle) came to know of the horror. He immediately told Jyotsna and advised her to take the girl away to her maternal uncle’s place in Bhuj.
No one there was, however, told of the reason for the girl’s sudden transportation to Bhuj and things would have stayed like that if one of the accused, Raju, had not had the temerity of calling her up on Jyotsna’s mobile phone. ‘‘You come back or your aunt will face the consequences,’’ he threatened her. The girl could not take it any more; she broke down, leading to the unfolding of the horror tale.
Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 17
Second opinion sought on minor's rape
Late on Thursday evening, the Mumbai police sought a second opinion on the medical report of the Saki Naka girl who had alleged that she was raped by nine neighbours, including her cousin, over the past 18 months. The first medical report at the Nagpada police hospital has shown that her hymen was intact.
The second test was conducted by a J J Hospital team comprising gynacelogists, forensic experts as well as psychiatrists and the police offered no reason for the re-examination. The FIR had mentioned heavy bleeding from the girl's private parts after the victim was raped the first time by her cousin.
When quizzed about the dichotomy between the FIR and the initial medical report, Saki Naka senior police inspector S R Dhanedhar told TOI, "The girl said in her statement that the bedsheet was soaked in blood after she was raped by her cousin 18 months ago. The boy dumped the bedsheet in the bin but only after he is arrested can his crime be confirmed."
According to legal experts, an intact hymen does not necessarily rule out rape. Courts across India have, in various cases, said an accused can be convicted of rape—even if the victim's hymen is intact and even if no injury mark is found on her private parts—based on the victim's testimony.
Verdicts have shown that evidence given by a victim stands at a higher pedestal in a rape case. For instance, last year, the Bombay HC held a rape accused guilty on the basis of the victim's testimony though medical evidence showed otherwise. "Proof does not mean mathematical calculation or demonstration," said the court. "The court normally has no difficulty to rely upon evidence of the prosecution (victim) when her evidence is cogent, convincing and true."
Senior medical officer of the Nagpada police hospital Dr S N Dound said an intact hymen did not mean that there was no sexual abuse. His first medical report of the victim also states that she had no cuts or injury on her private parts. "But this was expected as the alleged violation did not take place recently," he added. "Even if the penis touches the vagina, it can amount to rape."
The Supreme Court, too, had held in December 2009 that "even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and the depth of penetration is immaterial". The apex court said this while dealing with a case in which a man was caught red-handed while raping a 12-year-old girl in Bhopal. The defence made much ado about the medical report that showed an intact hymen. But the SC pointed to the definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC: "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Source:-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Second-opinion-sought-on-minors-rape/articleshow/5724977.cms

No CBI probe into BSP ‘mala’ rally: High Court(Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court )

Bench Dismisses Petition Alleging Misuse Of Public Money The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking a CBI probe into alleged expenses of Rs 200 crore, including Rs 25 crore on the garland presented to UP chief minister Mayawati, during the March 15 BSP ‘maharally’ at Lucknow.
The court observed the PIL filed by a local lawyer seeking the CBI probe into the alleged misuse of public money and details of ‘unknown sources of funding’ for the rally was based on ‘‘self-assessment’’. The allegations were ‘‘unsubstantiated’’, it observed.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Amitava Lala and Justice Anil Kumar observed that the PIL filed on March 18 was based only on newspaper clippings, which have no evidence value in law. They said the petitioner could not bring on record any ‘‘substantive material’’ on which a prima facie case could be made.
The PIL argued that about Rs 175 crore of public money was spent in the ‘maharally’ and another Rs 25 crore on the garland. Opposing the PIL, UP advocate-general Jyotindra Mishra and chief standing counsel Devendra Upadhyay said there was no ‘‘substantive material’’ on record in regard to the allegations.
They said the rally organisers had paid the money spent on hiring UP State Road Transport Corporation buses for transporting BSP workers. The rent for rally ground and charges for temporary electricity connections too were paid by the organisers, they said.
‘‘The state machinery was not misused. It was used only to control law and order,’’ they added. However, they didn’t mention how much money was spent on making arrangements for the rally.
The garland issue had led to a ruckus in Parliament Parliament. The IT department too is probing the source of money for the garland. Mayawati was presented another garland worth Rs 18 lakh on March 17.

Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 16

Will free Pak prisoners without a matching gesture, govt tells Supreme Court of India

Told by the Supreme Court not to adopt tit-for-tat approach regarding release of prisoners, the Centre on Monday said three Pakistanis who had served their sentences would be handed over to Pakistani Rangers at Wagah border on March 25 without any matching gesture from Islamabad.
Commenting adversely on the Centre’s stand that Pakistan’s reluctance to reciprocate was holding up the release of 16 Pakistanis who had completed their prison term, a bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and R M Lodha on March 8 had said right to life had primacy in a country governed by rule of law and was not dependent on another country’s action. It had ordered release of the 16 Pakistanis immediately while refusing to accept the Centre’s stand that exchange of prisoners was a diplomatic process that required cooperation at both ends.
In a case identical to the one before Justice Katju’s bench, Centre informed a bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and H L Dattu about its decision to repatriate Murad Ali Ban, Mohammed Akram and Jafaria, all lodged at Central Jail, Jaipur, to Pakistan on March 25. The affidavit accompanying this information was interesting as it appeared to have taken a cue from Justice Katju’s March 8 observation. The Centre said: “Release and repatriation of Pakistani nationals who have completed their sentence is not being linked to the release and repatriation of Indian prisoners lodged in jails in Pakistan.”
However, it did not forget to remind the court about diplomatic procedure and wrangles involved in such issues. It said, “The release and repatriation of Indian and Pakistani prisoners is governed by a bilateral agreement signed by two countries on May 21, 2008. Earlier, it was being governed by a Protocol on Consular Access signed between India and Pakistan in 1982.” It added, “This agreement is an understanding between the governments, for it deals only with agreed modalities of consular access of certain kinds of Pakistani prisoners in India and Indian prisoners in Pakistan.”

Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 14

Pvt schools challenge RTE Act in Supreme Court

Say Govt Trying To Enforce Reservation, Regulate Affairs Of Unaided Institutions

Not all appear to be happy with the muchhyped Right to Education (RTE) Act making free and compulsory education for children a reality.
For, an association of schools on Monday challenged the constitutional validity of RTE Act in the Supreme Court saying the government was trying to enforce reservation and regulate affairs of private unaided and minority educational institutions in complete breach of an 11-judge bench verdict of the apex court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma issued notices, albeit reluctantly, to the Centre and HRD ministry on the petition filed by Jaipurbased Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan.
To the repeated suggestion from the bench that the petitioner would do well to move the Rajasthan high court, senior advocate Harish Salve said, “These are matters of the moment and the apex court is meant to decide such issues which has an all-India ramification.” Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution in 2002 guaranteeing free and compulsory education for children. But it became a reality after Parliament enacted RTE Act on August 26 last year and issued a gazette notification on February 16 this year putting April 1 as the date for commencement of the provisions of the act.
The petitioner, claiming to have nearly 100 members including a large number of minority schools, said private unaided schools and schools run by minority communities needed to be exempted from the ambit of the act as the 11-judge bench of SC in T M A Pai case had held that these institutions “are free to admit students of their choice and the state by regulatory measures cannot control the admissions”.
The association of schools feared that provisions of the act providing “every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education free of cost” would seriously affect private unaided and minority schools’ right to admit students of their choice.
This would also deny a child from a less affluent area with poor educational infrastructure the right to seek admission in a school functioning from a posh area, the petitioner said, objecting to the mandatory 25% reservation of seats for poor children by private unaided schools.
It also took umbrage to the legislature’s decision to treat Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and Sainik Schools on a par with private unaided schools and limiting their free seats to 25% of the total strength. “There is no justification in exempting these central government schools to the extent of 75% of their strength to admit students for free and compulsory education,” the association said.

Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 14

6 yrs on, 3 petty thieves convicted for murder of NHAI whistleblower

A Cover-Up By CBI, Real Culprits Still At Large: Satyendra Dubey’s Brother
Bloody Trail
November 27, 2003: Satyendra Dubey murdered
December 14, 2003: CBI takes over murder probe
September 3, 2004: Files chargesheet against three thieves for murder
March 22, 2010: Fast-track court convicts the trio; quantum of punishment on March 27

In what appears to be a travesty of justice, three petty thieves were convicted of murdering National Highways Authority of India whistleblower Satyendra Dubey, who had exposed corruption in the PM’s Golden Quadrilateral Project in November 2003.
Six years after his murder, a Patna fast-track court on Monday convicted all the three accused in the case. Judge Raghvendra Singh will decide on the quantum of punishment to the three convicts — Mantu Kumar, Udai Kumar and Pinku Ravidas — on March 27.
Dhananjay Dubey, brother of Satyendra, told a news agency that he was ‘‘really disappointed’’ since the three convicted people are ‘‘innocent’’. ‘‘The real culprits are still on the loose. It’s simply a cover-up by CBI. Its statement is totally false,’’ he added.
Satyendra was shot dead on November 27, 2003, in front of the circuit house at Gaya while on a cycle-rickshaw heading for his home from the railway station. He was travelling from Varanasi.
An IIT-Kanpur alumnus, Dubey was sent to Koderma in Jharkhand by NHAI in July 2003. There, Dubey got the contractor of the project to suspend three of his engineers after exposing serious financial irregularities. In fact, Dubey had the contractor rebuild six km of poor quality road, which, in effect, set the road contract mafia against him.
Dubey continued to expose corruption by writing to senior officials. He was transferred to Gaya, which he opposed since he thought his utility there was low compared to his earlier posting. In Gaya, as well, he exposed flouting of NHAI norms in the course of sub-contracting and quality control.
Faced with the possibility of high level corruption, he wrote a letter to then PM A B Vajpayee detailing the financial and contractual irregularities in the GQ project. Despite a direct request that his identity be kept secret, the letter with his identity was forwarded to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It’s believed that the letter may have reached the mafia running the highway construction projects in Bihar.
Amid nationwide hue and cry, the CBI took over the investigation of the Dubey murder case from Bihar police on December 14, 2003, and filed a chargesheet on September 3, 2004. During investigation, CBI sleuths arrested four persons, all petty thieves of Katari village in Gaya district. According to the prosecution, they assembled near the Gaya circuit house around 3.30 am on November 27, 2003, and intercepted Dubey. They robbed him and during the scuffle, Mantu shot him dead with a .315 countrymade pistol.
Of the four arrested by CBI, Shravan later turned an approver. A briefcase containing documents belonging to Dubey, including his identity card, was recovered from an abandoned well. The countrymade pistol used in the crime was also recovered by CBI. Mantu was convicted of murder, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and the Arms Act. The other two accused were convicted of murder as well. Satyendra’s murder had sparked protests across the country amid calls for a legislation to protect whistleblowers who expose corruption.
Following Dubey’s murder, there has been a degree of public pressure to incorporate a Whistleblower Law.
Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 11
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

Domestic Violence Act can be used with retrospective effect-Delhi High Court

In an important ruling, the Delhi high court has clarified that the Domestic Violence Act has a retrospective effect. This means it can be invoked even by women who were subjected to domestic violence before the Act came into force in October 2006.
Justice V K Jain, while dealing with a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act, said the Act was maintainable ‘‘even if the domestic violence has been committed prior to coming into force of the Act.’’
Setting aside the order by a lower court, justice Jain further observed, ‘‘The court needs to eschew from taking an interpretation which would not only be violative of constitutional rights but would also result in denying the benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Act to the women who have been subjected to domestic violence and are compelled to live separately on account of a man’s acts of omission or commission. Such an interpretation would at least partially defeat the legislative intent behind enactment of this Act, which was to protect women against domestic violence, to give them compensation and other suitable reliefs.’’
HC was hearing a petition filed by a woman appealing against the order of a lower court. The petitioner alleged she was forced to leave the matrimonial home because of her husband’s behaviour. While the magistrate allowed her plea and granted maintenance of Rs 6,000 per month to her, the husband appealed against it. A court held that the victim was not entitled to any relief under the DV Act because she had left the matrimonial home in 2005 while the Act came into force a year later.

Source:- The Times of India 23 March 2010 Delhi Page No. 9
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com