The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant bail on medical grounds to self-styled Godman Asaram Bapu, convicted for raping a 16-year-old at his Chhindwara Ashram in Rajasthan in 2013.

The Apex Court observed that the trial was going on in the matter and listed the case for further hearing in January.

The Counsel representing Asaram told the Court that the self-styled Godman was getting old and suffering from many ailments. 

He said the petitioner needed treatment for his deteriorating health and illness, which was not possible in jail. The Counsel further said that the slow pace at which the trial was going on in the case, it looked like it would never end.

Jodhpur Police had arrested Asaram from his Ashram on August 31, 2013.

On April 25, 2018, the Jodhpur Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment, after finding him guilty of raping a 16-year-old at his Chindwara-based Gurukul or Ashram.

Besides Asaram, his two accomplices, including Hostel Warden Shilpi and Hostel Director Sharat were also sentenced to 20 years in prison for their involvement in the case. 

A man, who had been convicted of raping his daughter for two consecutive years, has been sentenced to death by a sessions court in Bahraich on Tuesday.

Nitin Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (FTC) Rape and POCSO Act, pronounced the decision in case. According to the complainant, the victim’s mother, her 15-year-old daughter was sleeping at night, during which the father raped her. When she reached the spot after hearing the victim weeping, she was told the whole incident.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 23 in a village under the police station of Sujauli. The woman, a resident of police station Sujauli limits, filed the case on August 23, 2021, accusing her own husband of misconduct with her minor daughter.

The mother has also alleged that the father has been raping her for years. Not only this, he had threatened to kill the daughter if she resists.

Sant Pratap Singh and Special Public Prosecutor Santosh Singh, Special District Government Advocate POCSO, produced nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. On the basis of the victim’s medical report, DNA test report, and convicting the accused, the court sentenced the accused to death.

Also Read: Delhi air pollution: Delhi Government says it took steps required to control air quality situation in affidavit submitted in Supreme Court

While pronouncing the sentence, the court said that the guilty should be hanged till death.

Sant Pratap Singh, Special District Government Advocate, said that the judge, while giving a new name to the daughter, has asked the District Legal Services Authority to take action to get compensation.

The DM directed that the aggrieved party should be given proper compensation. While directing the SP, the DM said that if the aggrieved party needs any kind of protection, then it should be provided.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Gujarat government’s appeal against the Gujarat High Court order, granting two-week furlough to rape convict Narayan Sai, son of self-proclaimed godman Asaram Bapu.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna observed that furlough can be granted even without a reason once the convict has served a stipulated number of years in judicial custody. The bench added that the purpose of furlough is to allow the prisoner to continue with family life and integration in society. It was further observed that the grant of furlough is not an absolute right though granted even without a reason, the interest of the convict has to be balanced with the public interest.  

“They have a mass following of persons who have loyalty to them. In view of the circumstances, we allow the appeals and set aside the interim judgment and order of the High Court,” said the bench.

The bench observed that the proviso to Rule 3 (2) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 provides that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough “every year” after he completes seven years of actual imprisonment.

The bench, however, noted that the Jail Superintendent had given a negative opinion for grant of furlough by elaborating that the convict was using a mobile phone within the jail premises and tried to make contact with the outside world. It was further observed that threats have been issued to the investigating team and witnesses on the behest of Sai, offered bribe to public officials.

Godman Asaram Bapu and his son were arrested on a complaint by two sisters for allegedly raping them on different occasions from 1997-2006. Thereafter, multiple incidents of sexual assaults and unnatural sex were noted against the father-son. On April 26, 2019, Sai was convicted under Sections 376, 377, 323 and 506, read with 120B.

The state of Gujarat had challenged the order of the Gujarat High Court, wherein Sai was ordered to be released on furlough for a period of two weeks, observing that the convict has already undergone more than seven years of incarceration. The bench presided by Justice Nikhil S. Kariel further observed that in 2020 the convict was released on furlough for a period of 2 weeks by Gujarat High Court and there was nothing in the order to show that any untoward incident had taken place after the applicant had been released on furlough. The High Court contrary to what was observed by the apex court observed that no illegal activity was reported during the time the convict had been released in the month of December 2020. Though the High Court granted furlough to Sai, upon request made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, a three-week stay was granted. Meanwhile, the state approached the apex court.

The Gujarat High Court has given orders for release of a rape convict after the victim said that she has got married to and started living with the accused and even gave birth to his two children.

has noted that the alleged victim admitted that she, on her own, married, started living with the accused and even gave birth to his two children ordered the release of a rape convict.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay has heard an appeal where the challenge is made to the judgment and passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 15.07.2021 . The conviction is under Section and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The sentence awarded is rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years. Fine is also imposed and in default thereof, simple imprisonment is imposed.

The Court said that the glaring aspect of the matter is that because of legal requirement needs to be called as evidence of “the victim”,  she on her own, because of her wish had walked out of home and she started living with the present appellant and with that relation she has given birth to two children, one on 29.06.2019 and second on 22.01.2021.

“Neither the mother nor the father of these two children disowns their birth nor paternity and still the father is convicted inter alia under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is ordered to undergo RI for 10 years,” the Bench noted.

The Judge further held that the Sessions Court is also conscious of this fact, since even in the operative part of the judgment, it is noted that since these two persons are staying as husband and wife, any compensation / assistance received from any of the Government(s) need to be refunded.

It is under these circumstances, the Court finds that the present appellant need not be continued in custody any further. Further, wider issues about sustainability of convictions in the cases with such factual background may also require scrutiny by the Court, which may be gone into at a later stage.

Also Read: Delhi High Court seeks response from Delhi govt, Child Rights Commission, Delhi Police on beggars

Therefore while observing that ends of justice would meet if the sentence is suspended during pendency of the appeal the Judge ordered that the sentence imposed on the applicant by the Special Judge (POCSO) and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 15.07.2021 , shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.

“The applicant needs to be released on bail without any condition, however with a view to see that procedurally there is no difficulty for him, it is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.100/-,“ the order reads.

New Delhi: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed an appeal for leniency and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed on a convict accused of raping a 69-year-old woman.

A division bench of Justices B. Veerappa and E.S. Indiresh observed that the court cannot remain a mute spectator and allow injustice being done to women, generation after generation.

According to the bench, time warrants the courts to act as guardians and protect Dharma in order to protect the safety of women, as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and deal with the violators including rapists sternly and severely with iron hands.

The court observed that a woman’s body is not a man’s plaything and he cannot take advantage of it in order to satisfy his lust, and the society will not tolerate such things anymore. Such attack by the accused, who was almost the age of the victim’s grandson, was that of a cruel animal.

The court noted that rape is violative of the victim’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the Courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanizing act, is an unlawful intrusion into the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman.

The court noted that such an act is a serious blow to the woman’s supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity as well. It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries, but, leaves behind a scar on the most cherished position of a woman, i.e., her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity.

-India Legal Bureau

New Delhi: The Gauhati High Court has rejected an appeal for leniency filed on behalf of a person convicted for raping a 20-year-old girl.

Justice Rumi Kumari Phukan said that rape is a serious blow to a woman’s honour and a crime against the whole society. Nasiruddin Ali was convicted under section 376 of the IPC and the trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 9 years.

The girl worked in a private hospital as a daily wage earner. It was stated by the prosecution that at around 10 pm on November 26, 2009, the victim left the Digboi Charali market on foot to return home. When she reached the Digboi club, the accused forced her into the bathroom of a nearby swimming pool and raped her.

The accused argued before the court that it is not lawful to punish him on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim. Citing the evidence on record, the court said that the victim’s statement alone can be accepted as the actual statement of the incident. This is supported by the defence’s statement as well as of other evidence on record. It was also observed that the victim had no enmity / dispute with the accused person. There is also supporting evidence in this case.

The bench dismissed the appeal filed against the conviction saying:

“The sanctity of a woman is violated as soon as such a crime occurs. Whereas in a civilized society honour or prestige is a basic right, no member of society can conceive of the idea that he can create hollowness in honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only hopeless, but also malleable. This effort by a person to gain youthful excitement and momentary pleasure has a devastating effect on the victim’s entire body and mind.”

The court added that it should also be kept in mind that such crimes reduce a woman’s dignity and endanger her reputation. Courts are aware that rape is a violation of the fundamental right of the victim found under Article 21 of the constitution. 

The bench said that injury is not a mandatory condition to decide whether rape has been committed. The victim’s conduct is noteworthy, who immediately after the incident told the people around, police and officials of the Digboi club about the incident. The GD entry and the FIR were lodged the very next day without delay. At the same time, there was no difference in the statement of the victim.

Read Also: Magistrates can’t order investigation u/s 156(3) after cognizance of an offence is taken by him

However, the court has reduced his sentence to seven years imprisonment considering the fact that he has been in jail since he was sentenced and he also has his family including 5 children.

Read the judgment here;

India Legal Bureau