A lot of criticism against me has appeared on the net regarding the judgment in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 13 S.C.C. 705: A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1231 (which can be seen online) in which the sentence of imprisonment of the 3 gangrape accused was reduced. Hence an explanation is called for, which is given below :
(1) It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone.
(2) Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years. However, there is a proviso to that provision which says that for special and adequate reasons the Court can give lesser punishment.
(3) The trial Court and High Court had awarded 10 years sentence to the 3 accused. We took recourse to the proviso and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the 3 and a half years which the accused had already served, and a fine of 1.5 lacs (Rs 50,000 to be paid by each accused) which had to be paid to the woman victim.
(4) The reasons for doing so were these :
(a) The parties had themselves filed a joint application before us that they had compromised the matter, and the victim would be satisfied if instead of making the accused undergo further imprisonment some compensation was awarded to her.
(b) The incident was of the year 1997 i.e. about 15 years old, and both the accused and the victim had got married (not to each other). The victim was poor and had 2 children, and by getting some money she could better look after her children.
(c) It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment. They had already undergone 3 and a half years imprisonment. Making them undergo further imprisonment would not help the victim, whereas by giving her some money we could help her feed her children
(1) It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone.
(2) Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years. However, there is a proviso to that provision which says that for special and adequate reasons the Court can give lesser punishment.
(3) The trial Court and High Court had awarded 10 years sentence to the 3 accused. We took recourse to the proviso and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the 3 and a half years which the accused had already served, and a fine of 1.5 lacs (Rs 50,000 to be paid by each accused) which had to be paid to the woman victim.
(4) The reasons for doing so were these :
(a) The parties had themselves filed a joint application before us that they had compromised the matter, and the victim would be satisfied if instead of making the accused undergo further imprisonment some compensation was awarded to her.
(b) The incident was of the year 1997 i.e. about 15 years old, and both the accused and the victim had got married (not to each other). The victim was poor and had 2 children, and by getting some money she could better look after her children.
(c) It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment. They had already undergone 3 and a half years imprisonment. Making them undergo further imprisonment would not help the victim, whereas by giving her some money we could help her feed her children
What a weird and perverse judgement. This judgement would make even the Khap Panchayats proud of their judgements. Arun Jaitley is correct when he says that only the low-achievers prefer to become judges and hence we get substandard judges and very banal judgements. What a shame that we still have this ex-judge pontificating his views on everything, even things are not even remotely related to. Send this judge to Gulags for his anti-women judgements. Modern India does not need such anti-women judges and their
ReplyDeletestone age judgements. Still this immortal is calling us idiots.
Oh Really?? Read his landmark Judgemnt of Death Penalty on Honour Killings. He wrote " Hang these feudal Barbouns,". See his another landmark Judgement on Rehabiliton of Sex workers.
DeleteThese 2 were his landmark judgements of empowering women.
Regarding this case what else could the bench had done if both accused and the victim COMPROMISED outside the court?? Their lawyer in the prayer wants less punishment and compensation so as he do.
Also read his master piece "On Womens Emancipation" on his blog.
Sounds to me as if the earlier comment was posted by the judge himself.
DeleteDo you really think Katju J is afraid of speaking his mind and will post anonymously? Really? Let's not over reach Sherlock and throw everything at the man hoping something will stick. You can blame him for anything, but not this!
DeleteThis is definitely Katju. It could be seen from very poor phrasing of the statements. Not only that there are also many other statements posted by him.
DeleteThayoli
The Victim herself have come for settlement for her family's survival. Therefore it is not wrong.
DeleteTo Anonymous of 1/5/2013: Nothing wrong? Don't you see how the judicial system unwittingly becomes a victim itself when courts indulge in usurping the law by their arbitrary actions?
DeleteTo Anonymous of 1/3/2013: You wrote "... what else could the bench had done if both accused and the victim COMPROMISED outside the court?" Whatever the two parties involved may have compromised outside the court, the court was under no obligation to take cognizance of their agreement and felt compelled to reduce the sentence under the law.
The consenting judge was clueless about his authority and certainly about his responsibility towards the law of the land. What was he thinking? Presiding over to dispense judgement under Sharia law?
Thank you for your clarification, Justice Katju, we had understood that. I can understand that the woman needed money more.
ReplyDeleteI think the outrage was over dangerous people let loose among the population again. Perhaps the question is if gang rape is a crime against the victim alone or a demonstrated threat to women at large.
I don't understand law, but as a woman, it is not a desirable thought that gang rapists roam free, but then I admit 10 years feels inadequate to me too.
On the other hand, I hear you say that 15 years had passed since the incident, and imagine it would be a matter of closure for the woman. Not easy for a married woman to live with a continuing reminder of being violated.
It is a mess.
I understand why you did what you did. I wish you hadn't anyway :(
I don't know much about law. But AFAIK, in a criminal case, the society is the affected party and the victim is a witness to the crime. Thus, there should be no settlement between the victim and the accused. Any settlement should be on the lines of a plea bargain (a reduced sentence possibly) but completely based on the technical strength of the case and not on the witness's economic condition.
DeleteThe settlement as pronounced by Justice Katju is only possible in a civil case where the affected party is only the victim and the state has no say in the matter. Thus, this seems to be a gross mix of two very different court proceedings and hence, seems illegal.
Why should monetary compensation be paid to a victim of rape? Is it a reward for being raped? Does it mean a rich man can buy a woman's dignity by paying her money? How can monetising victimhood be beneficial for other potential victims or in crime prevention? How much money can a person pay to get off with a murder?
DeleteLol that's the most idiotic invention ever..society is nothin but a wanker
DeleteDoes law ban consensual sex? So we have to be very careful, unlike other crimes, when judging rape. Many consensual sex can be termed as rape once the woman resorts to blackmail. However rape is an heinous offence, especially the gangrape variety. Once proved death sentence should be imposed swiftly. There is no other way.
ReplyDeleteAlong with castration, first.
DeleteJustice Katju's explanation stinks.
He could do the best thing. Get off the bench and let someone else decide, especially when he wants to call 90 per cent Indians stupid.
To summarize your defense in 1 line - If victim is poor, needy then then a rapist can buy a commuted judgement. Why not slap a heavier fine and a longer sentence to make an example out of the perp?!
ReplyDeleteYou sure you are retired, right?! Thank Heavens!
I second that!! So if the rapist is rich, he can rape as many people he wants and compensate it with money. Rape is worse than murder. In murder the victim is dead and can feel pain no more, but is rape the victim dies a 1000 death every day along with the family. And Anonymous, yes, Thank Heavens, he is retired!!
DeleteCorrect. You cannot ask for rape money on the lines of rape money. Rape is a more horrendous crime and the victim of the rape lives thousand deaths. If you cannot understand this, ask the women coming out of
DeleteAbhishek Manu Singhvi's court chamber. The only consoldation for them would be the hope that they could one day become the likes of Justice Katju.
Karan Dutt
Justice should be given from victim's standpoint. If the victim feels getting a compensation is enough,it is ok. If the victim feels punishing the accused is only acceptable then judgement should be given accordingly.... If 100 persons think 100 different ways ,we can not have 100 different judjements!!!!!! Judgement should always come from victims standpoint....it should be justice for the victim...not for third person wish.....
DeleteNo, justice gyan sudha did not concur initially with your view. I could now see, after witnessing all I-know-everything rhetorics from you over the past year as chairMAN of PCI, your writ all over the judgement. This is exactly this kind of judgements that encourage anyone with Rs 50,000 to prey on the Women. They know they have judge Katju, with all his practical wisdom, come to their rescue. Shame on you and your judicial wisdom. No wonder "Law is an Ass" In India. What can you expect in a country where even the constitution was copied from other countries. What better can you expect from the guardians of this plagiarised constitution.
ReplyDeleteMay be the Delhi gang rape victim did not wish to live to see such judicial pronoun cements from our "learned judges."
Learned Judge? No wonder concepts like Khaps prosper in this nation. This guy was probably let go off by the keepers of an asylum - he was affecting both the inmates and doctors adversely.
DeleteDear Anonymous'
DeleteYou have to respect the Constitution and your country. However if you cant just leave the country and go away . If you are already staying in a foreign country then SHUT UP !!!!!
You are spot on in saying that Indian constitution was plagiarised from multiple sources. You can see many of the passages are just out of context. You just hit the nail on the head. If they were to write another one, I am sure they would only use Wikipedia for that purpose. That's the best they will able to find to plagiarise again.
DeleteYour comment on Indian constitution is stupid. Even the original , thinking men's constitution - the US constitution is misused with Right to Arms etc. So, even the best thought out constitution can be misused.
DeleteYes Indian constitution is PLAGIARISED. Still Indians behave as if it was an original document. It is far from original. Indian constitution stinks with ill/semi-literate passages. Time to junk it and rewrite new one (without the support of wikipedia please).
DeleteChakkili
Those who are openly contemplating our constitution, better see where you stand.
Deleteat least our constitution makers analyzed all the other constitutions and made the best out of it. And if the cherished goal of the founding fathers and the constitution makers to build an integrated and united India is not getting fully realized then its not their mistake. Surely, we are responsible for it.
and for your kind information, Constitution is just a language of law and order, and I am sure people like you won't go altering the language for a better change.
And dear Chakkilli or whoever you are, better see where you stand before ridiculing something for no reason and if real emotions were hidden behind those words of yours, then why don't you start writing something. Hopefully, you will make a history and we will get a better future !
Katju and progressive judgements on women, you must be joking Katju. With this one judgement you have thrown the POOR woman into the wolves. Rajiv Gandhi said he was taking India to 21st century while he was leaving the Muslim women into stone age. You are not a tiger that you portray yourself to be. You are a mere mongrel with the tiger skin. It's high time you stopped preaching to the converted.
ReplyDeleteRichard Anilkurup Archer
One of the reasons to incarcerate violent criminals such as rapists is to prevent them from committing their crimes on other victims. When you released the convicts after time served did you take into consider whether they had expressed adequate remorse, were they adequately rehabilitated and finally were you satisfied that they would not be a further danger to society?
ReplyDeleteYour judgement here http://indiankanoon.org/doc/70963/ is surprisingly silent on the above issues.
Maybe victims should also be allowed to sue in civil courts to recover damages so that convicts do not have to be released later in lieu of money paid to the victims.
Do you have any knowledge if the convicts you released have reoffended?
P.S. Have you suspended your twitter account? Ot would be unfortunate if you have done so given the criticism of your decision in Baldev Singh.
ReplyDeleteAll I want to ask with due respect "Have u Lost it"..??
ReplyDeleteU cannot just give judgments randomly,come on sir its our nation n our people,u got that place to save us n give justice not to teach compromises..
I am also bothered by the idea that it is a court's responsibility to figure out an income for someone. What would she do if she hadn't been raped? How would her new husband and she provide for two kids?
ReplyDeleteWith this logic, if rapists choose desperately poor women, they can get away with lesser sentences even if caught. It does not seem to be a good idea for women at large.
You sick pervert. Tell your mother/wife/sisters that they could better their lives and their lives made more comfortable by undergoing a GANG RAPE to better the prospects for her children and herself. Tell them that Justice Katju will ensure that JUSTICE is DELIVERED. Sorry for being such a Katju. I apologise for being such a mango-man to say this to you.
DeleteRuchi Sanyal
Dear Wandering Light (rightly so), while I agree that the woman deserved the money, it should have been provided to her WITHOUT REDUCING THE SENTENCE OF THE OFFENDERS!!!! This is not a contract where there can be a situation of compromise. It is the duty of the STATE to take care of the poor family, because we are a WELFARE STATE. Further, if it was felt that the woman should be compensated, the fine should have been OVER AND ABOVE the sentence and not an ALTERNATIVE!!!!
Delete(1) It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone.
ReplyDeleteHow does this matter? This has got nothing to the final judgment. You seem to be passing the buck here.
(2) Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years. However, there is a proviso to that provision which says that for special and adequate reasons the Court can give lesser punishment.
So, what was special in this case? You release a rapist and the rapist roams around the villages, cities and keeps raping many more people.
(b) The incident was of the year 1997 i.e. about 15 years old, and both the accused and the victim had got married (not to each other). The victim was poor and had 2 children, and by getting some money she could better look after her children.
How's getting married related to the judgement? If she needs money, can we not ensure that the Govt. supports her or that the society supports her. Would any women prefer getting a support through the rapist's money? It's a very poor judgement which sends out a message that 'you can rape people, spend few years in jail and come out of jail by paying couple of lakhs'. It's such a poor judgement.
(c) It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment. They had already undergone 3 and a half years imprisonment. Making them undergo further imprisonment would not help the victim, whereas by giving her some money we could help her feed her children
But it will keep the society safer,right? What guarantee that you can give that the rapists will not go around raping 2/3 year olds. On the money aspect, the Govt. and the society should support. You don't need a rapist's money to support somebody.
I completely agree with you.
DeleteFor point b)
DeleteWhy should tax payers money be spent of the victim when the crime is committed by the accused?
For point c)
even if you jail him for 10 years, what will happen after 10 years?
what a pathetic judgement...I feel sad for India and the Judicial system..! I am ashamed to call myself an Indian citizen.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Deletewill these kind of Judgement not encourage corruption, citing this judgement the rich rapists will try to negotiate with the victim and the judge.
ReplyDeleteIt actually horrifies me when Mr. Katju even come forward to give explanation and calls his decision of trading 7 yrs of remaining punishing in Gang Rape Case of minor at price of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on reason that "Victim agreed for the compensation instead of punishment"
ReplyDeleteDoes it mean that if Kasab was ready to pay required amount to each of the family then Katju would have released him as Victims already died and family obviously want to move on? Obviously all the families want to move on as what's done can not be reverted back. Why not all those who died be compensated for 50000 or 5 lakh or 50 lakhs each whatever Mr Katju finds right. I can offer my services to get it approved by the families. Ready to take the bet?
A new definition of law by the person who is heading press council that a rich can buy a settlement legally via NO Apex Court but Supreme Court heading by Mr. 90% Idiot Katju.
Now coming over basics of justice and why concept of punishment exists?
1. Retribution: Sentence must be proportionate to the crime.
A minor of just 15 years is considered worth 1.5 Lakhs because she is poor otherwise even abusing rich can bring you a penalty of crores.
Deterrence: To the individual - the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment and to the general public - potential offenders warned as to likely punishment.
Does it make the criminal deterred if he earns more than 10 lakhs each year and can get away by raping a minor at just 1.5 Lakhs (only if he gets caught, note that only less than 22% cases get proven)?
Does it make the society deterred as it clear that someone who might be earning crores, can freely rape a girl daily if she is in Rs32 per day boundary? Isn't it encouraging rapes?
Denunciation: Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries
Needless to say that trading a sentence for a price sends what message and what kind of social boundaries it creates between rich and poor. Coming from "Supreme Court", it completely shatters any hope.
I can be on and on but I am in state of shock that this is coming from a Supreme Court Judge who is Heading Press Council of India. No wonder he never been able to take action over paid media in faour of society and works for those who are in power
Appreciate your issuing a clarification. However, I am compelled to share my views on the matter.
ReplyDelete1. 15 years without final verdict on rape case is a clear case of justice delayed.
2. The victim is poor she could have been pressurised into filing the joint petition by the perpetrators. Perhaps the very reason rape is an uncompounable offence.
3. The need for financial help could have been addressed through an NGO seeking donations
4. 3.5 years of jail time is very low when we see that rapes continue and the brazenness of the perpetrators is only increasing because the machinery is not providing quick action and swift justice
This is a time to set right precedence and not provide an easy exit route for rapist with lesser punishment.
Regards
Priya
Regarding - Your observation in point 4 - . 3.5 years of jail time is very low when we see that rapes continue and the brazenness of the perpetrators is only increasing because the machinery is not providing quick action and swift justice
DeleteThe same will happen if the serve the full term of 10 years
I do not wish but what if katju
Deletewas a woman and same peril would fall on him would he understand that better then!!
Just a speculation...
What Mr. Katju really means to say is that it was 15 years ago when even judges did not consider gang-gapes that seriously, thus leading to a punishment of 3.5 years in jail when the minimum expected was 10 years. The discount of 7.5 years for a payment of 50k must have been really hilarious for the rapists.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, are you allowed to write 'Justice' before your name even after you have retired? Just curious.
So anyone can rape a poor lady and give a hefty compensation to get out of jail? Does the court encourage such behavior? It does not matter whether another judge agreed or not. It is your views that we are discussing here. Pathetic. Thank God, you are retired. From now on plz dont preach on any subject. We now know that you fall under the 90% category in your assessment.
ReplyDeleteSuch a shame, you are for the society.
ReplyDeleteKatju Sir....your silence on Owaisis speech is deafening. Satyam -selective- Bhruyat?.
ReplyDeleteAs head of Press Council how do you explain medias silence on this? Arent Hindus
Justified in beleiving that Media will not alert them on threats to their existence
and beleive in Social Media more? By your silence you have shown on which side your loyalities
lie.
I feel , Sir,your logic is rather disputable.
ReplyDeleteBecause the victim was anxious for a compromise and asked for a decent amount to alleviate her penury, does not have to ipso facto render the punishment provided by law unnecessary.
Here perhaps the punishment and the crime has to be seen apart and separately from the compensation or financial assistance to the victim.
Does the judgement send the message that as long as a tidy sum is provided to the victim and one can rape and gang rape hapless woman?
Sir, coming back, I strongly feel you and the fellow judge erred and erred badly in this matter.
ReplyDeleteHow about fining the accused as well as sending them to longer prison term! I think that was one of the options>
ReplyDeleteExactly!
DeleteJustice Katju.. yes.. this judgement could have been avoided and now we believe it is such judgement that have caused the escalation of rapes in our country. Not only have you delayed justice but you let lose potential rapists back into the society since they paid for it. You set a very bad example by it. Ideally you could have put them in jail for 10 years and also make them pay the victim. A fine would be a good deterrent for future rapist.
ReplyDeleteYou have not only failed and disappointed the victim of this heinous crime, but you have failed the entire nation. Drifting the blame on a fellow judge exposes your mental bankruptcy, you rightly deserve a place in your 90% category.
ReplyDeleteWouldnt a heftier fine along with imprisonment been a better idea? Does anyone who can pay off 1.5L therefore have the right to rape a poor woman? How is this even logical? How can you even sit and write a whole essay to justify this?
ReplyDeleteWouldnt a heftier fine along with imprisonment been a better idea? Does anyone who can pay off 1.5L therefore have the right to rape a poor woman? How is this even logical? How can you even sit and write a whole essay to justify this?
ReplyDeleteReducing the sentence was wrong decision on society. Compensating the women could have been taken care of by some women welfare organisation. There are so many government funds for what. It's the State which should ensure well being of the victim, if that was the only reason for her compromise
ReplyDeleteJudiciary system work in according to what is mentioned in law. No comments about that. Another thing that this is not single rape case in nation but there are thousands of such cases, no one cares about. Most of the peoples curious or #JustAsking or commenting here have no knowledge of law and related subject, neither have they ever been done anything productive out of their laptop, PC, Mobile, Social networking sites and internet connection. Around 99% of peoples commenting have reached here through a link on twitter, and trust me you Mr/Miss/Mrs reeding this you know nothing about law, tell me have you ever done anything realistic to mention out of internet?
ReplyDeleteSo does that disqualify any of these 99% readers from having an opinion or seeking answers to their questions?
DeleteAnd isnt the blog intended for the same, reach out to as many people as possible !
He he right!
DeleteThe Judgement is very much flawed in its basic thinking itself. What to do Mr.Katju.. we have to live in this country tolerating all these things including such judgements..
ReplyDeleteThis is why aliens don't talk to us. Absolutely no sign of intelligence. Shame
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be an apologist for the 3 accused in this case, with this judgement you just paved the way for Khaps to rape/gang-rape women and pay them off when they have no choice because of poverty, the accused know this and you just helped them. No Wonder rapes still continue, and don't tell me you could not have done better.
ReplyDeleteThe delay in judgement always forces the victims to compromise.. like you said, the victim was poor, the police and the laws are only made to harass her further, and the judiciary does not help.. Any common man/woman will settle for a compensation..
ReplyDeleteInstead of exercising the provision for "for special and adequate reasons" the court could have taken a hard stance, made accused serve his sentence and asked the government to pay the compensation for failing to protect that woman and also failing to give her justice on time.
It is judgments like these that have empowered the rapists of this country. 3.5 years is a joke for any crime let alone rape.
Bad judgement in law and worse to offer a remorse-less explanation.
ReplyDeleteI dont know what the proviso says... But if you think you had to penalise monetarily, then is it mandatory to reduce imprisonment? doesnt this judgement give a message that "rape a poor woman, pay some monetary compensation and you are free"
ReplyDeletethis judgement is an encouragement for rapists
ReplyDeleteWell you sure think it's easy for the woman to move on considering the fact she was Raped read Raped at some point.it saddens me as this is the country we live an to this date you've the audacity to justify your stupid judgement in 3 pointers.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman there is no amount of money in the world that can replace the trauma one goes though post rape.
And people like you shoudnt be given platforms to addresses your village minded views
Mr. Katju,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you thought of issuing a clarification. These are some points that I would like to raise.
1) What astounds me the most is - the state did not have 1.5 lakh to pay her? And give the harshest punishment to the rapist? Who was the Home Minister in 1997, which officers were accountable? All their pensions, and all state benefits should be withdrawn immediately. And if they are still in office, MUST be named and shamed.
2)And Mr. Katju, it look's like you were a victim here - of skewed and shoddy clauses in laws - and against your better judgment, you and your colleagues took the decision.
3) I have immense respect for you. But such instances makes me feel that the system is so loath worthy - that someone like you too becomes a victim of it.
4) I would like to know what the condition of this women is now - and if 1.5 lakh really helped her. These investigations must be done to help identify flaws in the laws.
5) In the wake of the Delhi-gang rape case - The President, The Home Minister, Delhi Chief Minister, The PM - if they have ANY shame left - must resign immediately - and apologize for administrative failures. We do not won't servants who do not work. If they work well, they get our respect. If they don't, and if it is proved beyond doubt that they are incapable, they must have some self-respect and leave.
6) I recalled something I used to, and perhaps which many others recited or were made to recite in school. Something known as the “National Pledge” written by (according to Wikipedia) a gentleman called Subba Rao in 1962. Five decades later, this same pledge sounds like a myth, a joke, an optimistic arrangement of hollow words - does it have any meaning left for anyone?
INDIA IS MY COUNTRY (a country where murderers, rapists,
and scamsters have entered the parliament?)
ALL INDIANS ARE MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS (but we also indulge in
riots, picking fights, and believing in caste system?)
I LOVE MY COUNTRY AND I AM PROUD OF ITS RICH AND VARIED HERITAGE (which heritage are we talking about here - of corruption, and social injustice?)
I SHALL ALWAYS STRIVE TO BE WORTHY OF IT (how? by forever being selfish, fearful, and ignorant?)
I SHALL GIVE MY PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND ALL ELDERS RESPECT AND TREAT EVERYONE WITH COURTESY (OK, why was the girl who was raped, and lay naked and beaten on streets did not get prompt assistance?)
TO MY COUNTRY AND MY PEOPLE, I PLEDGE MY DEVOTION (and to my twitter and my facebook account?)
IN THEIR WELL-BEING AND PROSPERITY ALONE LIES MY HAPPINESS (and my well-being in my silence?)
Pathetic defense.
ReplyDelete1)If you are so morally right, why not a split decision.
2) Does passage of 15 years justify the reduction in sentence. Its the softness shown by judges like you in those days which has led to such an failure in law and order. So accept your mistake.
3)Before 15 yrs where you sure that the couples would settle peacefully. There are so many cases where women still undergo the trauma.
4) If money can replace judgement, why courts. Is this a civil case that you reduced the sentence since both party agreed with each other. Its a criminal case. So if someone kills someone else's father and if the son/daughter of the person and the killer agrees to settle, will the killer be released. Pathetic justification.
4)For a person criticizing ppl in other field, please read through your blog, look at the mirror and ask yourself "Is this explanation justified". "Have i failed this nation by such soft decisions".
If the baton holders of the legal system in our country such as your self set such a legal precedence in such cases it is scary to imagine the social consequence of this in times to come.Defense lawyers of such perverse and remorseless criminals will cite your judgement and the judgement of the bench as example to strengthen their case.You have lost your credibility on that basic point itself.Now, I shall illustrate each and every point that you have made and why a person with common sense will have problems with it- huge problems:
ReplyDelete(1) "It was a decision of a bench of two Judges...not my judgment alone."
It looks like your focus in this point is more in the fact that a lady judge contributed to the sentencing you meted out so its fine since she was a lady so the crime was belittled as a lady thought otherwise.
(2) "Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years...the Court can give lesser punishment."
The section states "Whoever- commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.Explanation 1.- Where a women' s is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub- section.Explanation 2.-" women' s or children' s institution" means an institution, whether called and orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.Explanation 3.-" hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation."
It does not outline the purview of the special and adequate reasons therefore, there definitely is a glaring loophole which the bench including yourself took the liberty of dealing with utmost lack of prudence.The very fact that you were free to use the proviso or to not use it shows that you had a choice and you chose to commute the sentence to time served.Do you really think the criminals who did this deserve only so much??
Agreed that the parties themselves had reached an 'understanding' and wanted a faster resolution but, dont you think leaning to a faster resolution would in effect set a legal precedence where the rapist(s) was let off easy? Dont you feel a little responsible in setting legal trends in the Indian judicial system that affects the society? You as a justice could have suggested to the bench to reconsider which apparently you did not do.Ultimately what is the goal of a penal code? To punish the criminal and bring them to justice or to mete out symbolic justice and commute the sentence invoking a loophole just coz the victim has had enough due to the long dragging nature of the case and the criminal obviously has his own reasons to not look forward to a punitive judgement?
(3)"The trial Court and High Court had awarded 10 years sentence to the 3 accused.We took recourse to the proviso...a fine of 1.5 lacs (Rs 50,000 to be paid by each accused) which had to be paid to the woman victim."
Yes! We know you did.
Contd...
(4) "The reasons for doing so were these :
ReplyDelete(a) The parties had themselves filed a joint application...instead of making the accused undergo further imprisonment some compensation was awarded to her."
Shouldnt you have instructed the law enforcement to look into this and investigate as there are chances of the criminal's family threatening and coercing the victim's family into coming to an 'understanding' and filing a joint application.I am not a legal expert but, couldnt you/the bench have done so?
(b) "The incident was of the year 1997 i.e.about 15 years old...and by getting some money she could better look after her children."
This is by far the most outrageous and stupid reason to having based your judgement on.Does the age of the case decrease its socio-cultural relevance or does it make the crime less heinous?? The fact that the victim was married is not relevant to the case at all! Her economic status should in now way be an agent of dilution as far as this case is concerned.Your statement suddenly feels like the decision was taken in haste, without insight and to justify the hasty judgement, illogical reasons like the marital status of the victim, the age of the case and the economic condition of the victim was used.Not to mention the legal loophole.'By getting some money'??? From whom Justice Katju...? The criminals themselves?! Dont forget that the legal system of a democracy stems from the common consciousness and ethics of a free people and I dont see any element of these in your stated reasons!
(c) "It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment...money we could help her feed her children"
Making them undergo "their complete and original sentence" would help a larger spectrum of the society: the issue of gender equality, rape and other sexual assault, the attitude towards women and THUS it would help this victim acting as inner strength and women in general who are in the risk zone of being victims of such heinous crimes.You almost sound like an indulgent elder defending a small boy.What do you mean by 'already undergone....imprisonment'?? How does that negate the importance of the original verdict or the gravity of the crime committed or the suffering of the victim.
You/the bench sir have disappointed, gravely undermined and injured very broad, important and pressing issues that Indian women, men and society at large are facing without much of help or insight from the law.You had a chance of laying a positive and deterrent legal precedence but instead you chose to be weak and retrospective.
Very sad day for India, Indian people and women at large.
Regards,
An Indian Citizen and Man just like you
He he, ur super copy paste master!!
DeleteRead in between the lines bloody moron... The person copy pasted his comments and then gave his own viewpoints. You can read cant you???
DeleteWell said Mr. Anonymous!
DeleteGood one... point by point breakup
DeleteTo the argument - if convicted rapists are released early, wont the released rapists go on the society again? Even if they serve teh full sentence of 10 years, they would still be released and go on the society.
DeleteShri Kaju Ji,
ReplyDeleteLAW by itself is not an isolated authority . it has to confirm with "Dharma" and Dharma is universal ,beyond the limitation of time and society. unfortunately you have been educated in a system which propagates nation state and its law as the final authority where "Dharma" has been beaten to pulp.
I remember your articles in Pakistan Tribune where you asked Judiciary to tone down its moral sense to accommodate politics of state .
the Manchurian candidate (Nehru) has succeeded in creating Zombies
Politicians must be singing
you are my pumpkin pumpkin ,hello honey bunny
what a Congress network
Why monetory compensation??? give justice... This is a clear case of extortion.. and such cases will rise with new draconian rape law...
ReplyDeleteWhen money speaks no one dares to check the grammar . Is Money is the ultimate heal? What if Ram Singh and company is offered to pay money to #delhirape victim and they don't have any resource then what will be the next move.......In my view court release them on bail and they go and arranged the said money by looting or begging someone.
ReplyDeleteIs this called buying justice with Money???
ReplyDeleteThis is called "Rape Money" on the lines of "Blood Money." Justice Katju, who is othewise secular, was highly influenced by Urdu/Islam that he decided to use Islamic and Stoneage Jurisprudence to support this judgement. In this process he threw the woman into the den of the wolves.
DeleteFashion Designer
What a pathetic judgement. And height of shame is you again explaining it how it is right. The worst judgement. It totally means that your view is - The rapists who have money or ready to pay money to the victim to survive / feeding herself / family, Can Get Away easily. What all needs is MONEY. Thats what your judgement says. SHAME!! You could have punished the Rapist and could have ordered GOvt. to give compensation to victim or some other way to help victim. BUT here you might have also got "Something" who knows?
ReplyDeleteThe message goes to the society as " Rape the poor & get away with few thousands " This was Not a satisfying explanation.
ReplyDeleteI think with this blog you lost some of your staunch supporters like me and lot of respect earned over the years. Sad for you but more heartbroken for the rape survivor !
ReplyDeleteDid you think you were the other 10% of the creatures that Katju was referring to until now by supporting him. You should have realised it by his outlandish behaviour, not to talk of his poor language and communication skills.
DeleteAmmu Roy Jose
The Indian Express article http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-lets-off-gangrapists-after-they-agreed-to-compensate-victim/753416/ says clearly that Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was not inclined to close the case, but the bench later (meaning she?) relented later.
ReplyDeleteIs Rs.50000/- adequate enough compensation for the crime perpetrated by each of them? Are we not going in Sharia model, kind of settle thru blood money? This happening in the new age of 2011 is shocking. The question is why the case lingered on for 15 years? Was it victims fault? Shouldn't it have been the job of state to have compensated her? Taken care of her medical, counselling expenses?
By this judgement you have raped the law
ReplyDeleteProbably there is truth in Didi's (Mrs. Mamata Banerjee) statement that "VERDICTS CAN BE BOUGHT"
ReplyDeleteThis is appearing to be a live example! Pay 1.5L and you will be acquitted of a GANG RAPE CASE!
How much for a MURDER? Is there a standard price list?
Was there any other consideration for this judgement. Mr Katju needs to explain that.
ReplyDeleteCan the Chief Justice of India recall this perverse judgement and re-hear the case? I suppose it would be possible. Katju ji can please comment.
ReplyDeleteThe victim and the GANG RAPISTS lived happily ever after this judgement. All GANG RAPISTS have justice Katju on their speed dial now.
ReplyDeleteRichard Anilkurup Archer
The Law itself is confusing,like many other laws of our contry. When it says that the minimum punishment for rape shall be 10 years imprisonment then adding various provisio to it where a learned judge can,applying better logic and reasoning, reduce the sentence. The entire sentence-MINIMUM 10 YEARS IMPRISONMENT- has no meaning. It should have been drafted --Minimum TEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT but the judge using his discretion and seeing the brutality of the crime can impart punishment up to any Number of years and even an examplary punishment-a DEATH PENALTY.
ReplyDeleteJustice Katju was weak in maths. Not that he was good in anything else incuding law. Because of his poor English language skills (his favourites are Urdu poetry), he would often confused between the words minimum and maximum. The court registrar should have explained to him that. It was not Katju's mistake the court registrar's mistake.
DeleteKalpana Nigam
I had written an article on the Baldev Singh judgment on 29 December, wherein I have already analyzed the reasons given by Hon'ble Justice Katju. I don't know whether Hon'ble Justice Katju is referring to my article in first para above (though it appears to be the case). This article is available at http://www.tilakmarg.com/supreme-court-gang-rape-case/166 which analyzes all the reason mentioned by Hon'ble Justice Katju in that judgment and also in this article. The Baldev Singh judgment was really unfortunate. In my respectful submission, Hon'ble Justice Katju should show magnanimity in accepting it.
ReplyDeletenice article sir.!!
Deletekeep it up..(y)
KATJU HAS PROVED TO BE WHAT WE SUSPECTED A PONTIFICATING POMPOUS ASS WHO WAS PRETENDING TO BE SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE BUT TURNED OUT TO BE NOTHING BUT A MEDIOCORE HOT AIR
ReplyDeleteThere are more pressing concerns for India than a rape. In India there is massive poverty, malnutrition, casteism, communalism, dowry, unemployment, farmers suicides, skyrocketing prices, lack of healthcare and good education for the vast majority, etc. Please follow my path, however idiotic it may be, to address these concerns. We will live another day to address the concerns of half of the human kind (the women). For the sake of addressing the above-mentioned concerns, the Indian women will wait. Until then, the Indian judiciary will ensure that the victims of gang rapes will be paid Rs 50,000 per rapist as rape money. The more the rapists, the higher will be the rape money. The Indian judiciary is aware of price rise and hence there will be an annual increment to this rape money adjusted to national inflation to make our women folks happy.
ReplyDeleteLet us take India forward by abolishing all social evils.
Padmini Katju
I had lot of respect of Adv. katju. It has all vanished.. would he pass a similar judgement if the victim was his family member... Ridiculous
ReplyDeleteJust wondering...if the verdict was so flawed, why not blame the state government for not filing a review petition...? And why are we making justice katju as the scapegoat! And if judiciary was capable of making right all that goes wrong...why do we need parliament in the first place. May be its the law that's wrong..which provides for a discretion to be applied in certain circumsatnces! Rather than blaming him...blame the state government and the central government for not performing their duties!
ReplyDeleteWell, you can appeal for review petition if the flawed judgement is exception. Rather every single judgement from every single court in India is flawed and it is a norm, not exception. With the judges like Katju these days, it would be exception to get a flawless judgement. These flawed judgements make the privileged class happy and they, in return, promote these third rated judges to sustain their mediocrity. Just look at a speech by Justice Arijit Pasayat (known for cheap comments of Nero on Modi) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pntMp0z0vE. If I charged him a paisa for each legal, structural, communicative mistake he made in that speech, I would have made Rs 50,000, good enough to commit a rape. No wonder our current judical system is extremely happy with mediocre judges.
DeleteSengamal Sharma
Sir, I may politely disagree the point of view you put forward, I am enormously impressed by your sincerity to answer common men like us. Salutes sir.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I don't think it's fair to use the term "the accused" in this situation anymore, as it is established in a court of law that they were guilty. So let us refer to them as rapists.
ReplyDeleteI am very confused about what the law seeks to achieve and the purpose of our criminal justice system. The rapists have moved on to find other partners (surprise, surprise), and the victim has found it in her to also carry on with life. Is it the objective of the law only to punish until we are able to forget?
The victim has chosen to be a survivor, and (apparently) could do with a few extra bucks. So keeping her financial needs in mind, it's alright to release a group of rapists so they are free to attack more women? Or will that be excusable too because they have wives?
I am not by any means a legal expert, but I can be certain of this – obliteration of memory cannot be the only objective of our courts.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteWho knows whether both the parties really reached for a compromise or anybody threatened them to do so?
In any case 1.5 lacs is too small compensation for the atrocity committed.
How to get rid of rapes from the society?
http://puratchimani.blogspot.in/2013/01/how-to-get-rid-of-rapes-from-society.html
pls share your opinion
Thanks
90 per cent of Indians are idiots
ReplyDeleteJustice Katju in your interview with Madhu Trehan you had mentioned that india is a soft state and hurting other's religious sentiments by book, art etc may lead to riot so is prohibited. Your same soft attitude reflects in this judgement too. I dont understand who invented this soft state theory. In india where misa, tada, pota, Afspa have been in practise at one time or other how can be india a soft state? Or is it a soft to powerful, rich, resourceful persons only who know how to bend the law? Does 15 year delay, victim's willingness, her poor condition, money in liu of imprisonement justify reduction in sentencing? I am personally not in favour of harsh punishment(like death) for rape as it decreases the chance of conviction but 3 and half year that too for gangrape isnt a joke? Instead of harsher punishment, if big loopholes (like proviso in this case) are taken care of, it would be better. But one thing is sure: law is an ass. Also i wont say you fool or crooked rather i would accuse you of being soft. Yes justice katju india is not soft it is justice like you who are soft.
ReplyDeleteDear Sir, I really admire your passion for awaking our India on scientific grounds.You did what you thought best in that case at that time.Of course that solution doesn't fit nowadays.But instead of digging past and finding faults,it is better to work towards a constructive solution to mitigate this social anomaly.
ReplyDeletevery progressive
DeleteWell said Mr Viroti Somasekhar...!
DeleteIf the victim needed money, was there no way to appeal to the government for the education of her children?(I am sure that would take time for the government to sanction the amount, but its already 15 years, it might have taken a year more).10 years is the minimum imprisonment, and its a gangrape. Reducing the length of punishment is acceptable if the accused has 'reformed' but reducing the number of years in exchange for money, do we need a court to give such judgement? So , equation now is let alone rape-if a man molests a girl and he is imprisoned for sometime, he can get it reduced if he has money, else he will have to serve the whole term(if at all it comes to light after a decade or more and by then intensty of the incident would have come down, and excuse would be girl has moved on because it has been so many years!)Message to people who commit crimes against women-you can go ahead because anyway if you have money, the length of punishment will be reduced if you can offer monetary HELP to her family. I feel ashamed!
ReplyDeleteAnd I can't believe that this is the clarification for the judgement given
Victim should have received compensation But accused deserved punishment as well. Reducing punishment is not an option by giving compensation of 50,000 Rs. each. They should have got life imprisonment, as it was premeditated act of crime, and three minds together decided to do it, it makes it three times more punishable.
ReplyDeleteBecause of such liberal justice (one important factor out of many) we have reached to a point that rape, gang rape are more common than pickpocketing...
Shameful judgement indeed. Did you want to send the message that it is ok to rape poor women and give them some money later? They will always need the money .. is the definition of dignity and justice different for the rich and the poor? I hope the whole law community remembers you as how NOT to deliver justice.
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarification. One of the comments here merits attention - Why can't we have provision in law where Judges, in their judgement, think monetary rewards might vitiate fairness of Justice, then they must have recourse to NGOs to seek financial assistance, and at the same time handout severe punishment to perpetrators of such crime against women as happened in this case.
Also, we need respected voices like yours on Twitter, and it was little disturbing to see comments of your detractors commenting on Twitter account. Please re-activate or clarify the circumstances and continue making a difference.
Thanks for your services.
You botched-up this case.
ReplyDeletehaha.. :D
ReplyDeleteit seems justice katju is trying to defend himself using anonymous accounts.
sir, if you don't want criticism you can approve the comments before posting them! :P
If it is not him, it is likely that his daughter is involved in posting these pro-Katju statements. Like father, like daughter.
DeleteNivedita Sharma
link is here http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-lets-off-gangrapists-after-they-agreed-to-compensate-victim/753416 ... he is thinking that rape and then pay money thats it....... what a shame mr katju..U R a Real MORONS........... ur real character is reflecting in this judgement.. u have set an example in the socity that rape and then pressurize the vicitim for compromise.. then told a compromise formula.. rapist pay and set of...... U r real Demons in society.. till now u have batted for RAPIST..u have alos batted for Sunny Leone a porn Star.. what she is doing in this this time? have u nay IDEA?? She is giving NUDE seen , Making almost porn movie here with another Porn Director Mahesh Bhatt and destroying indian socity. Mr katju if u think that u r very modern then ur biggest fool and living in foling paradise.. u r no more humen being ...... keep ur mouth shut and go in MARIANA TRENCH.... For mahesh Bhatt character see this pic. what a shame on u kathu.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!https://twitter.com/i/#!/mediacrooks/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2FdDZWNEzk
DeleteWaiting to hear your views on the case that delhi police filed against zee news for having interviewed the victim's friend. Does your court approve of shooting the messenger like this?
ReplyDeleteWaiting to hear your views on the case that delhi police filed against zee news for having interviewed the victim's friend. Does your court approve of shooting the messenger like this?
ReplyDeleteU will not get reply from Him............ He is BIAS ..Looking a new post from GOVT..So , he will defend every move of Govt............
DeleteOne wonders what yardstick the Justice used to commute the sentence from 10 years to 3.5 years. Also, how 1.50 lac rupees was deemed a fair sum in exchange for three-rapes-on-one. Didn’t realize the Justice was a strong proponent of holding down the prices, including on rape.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Justice’s actions are tantamount to whimsical pimping for the alleged benefit of both, the rapists and the victim. Fact in the matter is that the Justice, whether deliberately or naively, has caused irreparable damage to the judicial system by allowing application of financial incentive to undermine the sanctity of lawful punishment.
Wah katju sahib wah. Bahut bade jurist bante ho aur ye bhi nahin jante ki "a judge is only supposed to speak through his judgments and not thereafter". Dedh page ki judgment mein kamaal kar diya aapne!! Ab mujhe ppra vishwass ho gaya ki judge ban ne ke liye dimaag ki nahin jugaad ki zaroorat hoti hai!!
ReplyDeleteAur haan sarkaar is ka kya matlab hua?:" It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone."
DeleteDivision bench ka matlab ye nahin hoa ki aap doosre judge ki haan mein haan milayein. Agar aisa hota to phir DB bithane ka kya matlab? Kaahe Sudha ji ke peeche chup rahe hain aap?
justice katju is a sincere and honest judge comments on his judgments is not at all tenable
DeleteOMG, this is horrible? So judges can say, give your victim some money and your life is set free? If the compensation has to come and is necessary it could have come from the government??????? The guilty is of the state and not of the victim. Were you judging or playing father?
ReplyDeleteHow is this different from the blood money provision in many Islamic countries where the accused can buy freedom after murdering someone if they pay blood money to the next of kin? Yes, poor people may need money more than justice, but I thought that all prosecutions were undertaken in the name of the State and not in the name of the victim of crime. It is surely a cheapening of the Judicial System if judges must act as middlemen for hush money.
ReplyDelete15yrs lapse in delievering the judgement shows the weakness of our judiciary.The vulnerability of the victim has been used to benefit the accused.Since the judiciary is responsible for the lapse in time they should pay for the victim and not the accused.Accused should have been given a stringent punishment.What they have done now is another avatar of prostitution with the permission of judiciary.Judges have become like leaders of khap panchayat.
ReplyDeleteSHAME ON THE JUDGES FOR TREATING WOMEN AS SUCH..!!!!!!!!
Thanks for for sharing this topicDentists in Delhi
ReplyDeleteIt's sound good
ReplyDeleteHair transplantation in Delhi
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Katju,
I am not a lawyer or a jurist. But, what happened in this case is patently unfair to the state.
A rape is not only a crime against a particular person, it is a crime against society and civility. The punishment in indian law is as it is very low. In USA, the law provides long prisonment including life-imprisonment for rape. And most of the time such punishments are awarded. India has a ceiling of only 10yrs, and even that is diluted by judges?
We can't make a civilized society by being lenient on crime & criminals. Any society that has managed to bring down crime, has high rate of conviction along with harsh punishment.
You may say what ever you want in justification of your action. But, you won't find many agreeing with letting go of serious criminals in-liu of fine. Tomorrow we may have Jessica Lal Killer offering to pay fine to family & the family agreeing! Would we set free Manu Sharma? If not why not? He has served some sentence, and he was drunk when he did the crime after all.
Cases can be twisted to make rich people eligible for mercy all the time. Manu Sharma did walk out on parole without eligibility due to such disregard for fairness.
Smile is the confidence of everyone. And smile depends upon the settings and form of teeth. www.newdelhidentalclinic.com. Dental treatment is an area which has proved capable results for the outsiders who visited India and acquired their treatments done at amazing costs. With the availability of best quality facilities and most skilled surgeons in India, Indian hospitals give treatments at very low cost as compared to the cost of treatments abroad.
ReplyDelete