SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23.01.2014
SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 24 OF 2014
Decided On : 28-03-2014
(2006) 5 SCC 475; (2011) 6 SCC 405 – Relied upon
W.P. (C) No. 231 of 2010 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Freedom of choice of marriage – Inherent aspect of Article 21 – Societal change through education and awareness stressed. (Para 14)
(c) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 357A – Victim compensation – Interim compensation – Adequate compensation as well as interim compensation must be awarded by courts. (Para 19, 20)
(2011) 13 SCC 262; (1996) 1 SCC 490; Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum; (1994) SCC (Crl) 1163; (2000) 2 SCC 465; SLP (Crl.) No. 5019/2012; (2001) 21 BLD 465 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357B – Compensation payable by the State Government under Section 357A shall be in addition to the payment of fine to the victim under Section 326A or Section 376D of the IPC. (Para 24)
(e) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Registration of FIR is mandatory. (Para 26)
2013 (13) SCALE 559 – Relied upon
(f) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 357C – All hospitals, public or private, are statutorily obligated to provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under Sections 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or Section 376E, IPC. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
A news item was published in the Business and Financial News dated 23.01.2014 relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year old woman of Subalpur Village, P.S. Labpur, District Birbhum, State of West Bengal on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2014 on the orders of community panchayat as punishment for having relationship with a man from a different community.
The Supreme Court took suo motu action.
Finding of the Court:
The incident could have been avoided.
Result: Suo motu petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI. –
1) This Court, based on the news item published in the Business and Financial News dated 23.01.2014 relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year old woman of Subalpur Village, P.S. Labpur, District Birbhum, State of West Bengal on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2014 on the orders of community panchayat as punishment for having relationship with a man from a different community, by order dated 24.01.2014, took suo motu action and directed the District Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal to inspect the place of occurrence and submit a report to this Court within a period of one week from that date.
2) Pursuant to the direction dated 24.01.2014, the District Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal along with the Chief Judicial Magistrate inspected the place in question and submitted a Report to this Court. However, this Court, on 31.01.2014, after noticing that there was no information in the Report as to the steps taken by the police against the persons concerned, directed the Chief Secretary, West Bengal to submit a detailed report in this regard within a period of two weeks. On the same day, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General was requested to assist the Court as amicus in the matter.
3) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Chief Secretary submitted a detailed report dated 10.02.2014 and the copies of the same were provided to the parties. On 14.02.2014, this Court directed the State to place on record the First Information Report (FIR), Case Diaries, Result of the investigation/Police Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’), statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code, Forensic Opinion, Report of vaginal swab/other medical tests etc., conducted on the victim on the next date of hearing.
4) After having gathered all the requisite material, on 13.03.2014, we heard learned amicus as well as Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel for the State of West Bengal extensively and reserved the matter.
Discussion:
5) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned amicus having perused and scrutinized all the materials on record in his submissions had highlighted three aspects viz. (i) issues concerning the investigation; (ii) prevention of recurring of such crimes; and (iii) Victim compensation; and invited this Court to consider the same.
Issues concerning the investigation:
6) Certain relevant issues pertaining to investigation were raised by learned amicus. Primarily, Mr. Luthra stated that although the FIR has been scribed by one Anirban Mondal, a resident of Labpur, Birbhum District, West Bengal, there is no basis as to how Anirban Mondal came to the Police Station and there is also no justification for his presence there. Further, he stressed on the point that Section 154 of the Code requires such FIR to be recorded by a woman police officer or a woman officer and, in addition, as per the latest amendment dated 03.02.2013, a woman officer should record the statements under Section 161 of the Code. While highlighting the relevant provisions, he also submitted that there was no occasion for Deputy Superintendent of Police to re-record the statements on 26.01.2014, 27.01.2014 and 29.01.2014 and that too in gist which would lead to possible contradictions being derived during cross-examinations. He also drew our attention to the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code. He pointed out that mobile details have not been obtained. He also brought to our notice that if the Salishi (meeting) is relatable to a village, then the presence of persons of neighbouring villages i.e., Bikramur and Rajarampur is not explained. Moreover, he submitted that there is variance in the version of the FIR and the Report of the Judicial Officer as to the holding of the meeting (Salishi) on the point whether it was held in the night of 20.01.2014 as per the FIR or the next morning as per the Judicial Officer’s report, which is one of the pertinent issues to be looke
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.