Agitation erupts again over Nirbhaya�s gang-rape case

The December of 2012 saw India on the streets. It had young men and women protesting against a crime that had shook the conscience of the nation. It was a brutal gang-rape of a medical intern on a moving bus that ultimately took her life.  Jyoti Singh, or Nirbhaya as the girl came to be known, given that the identity was being concealed, was travelling with a male friend on a private bus on their way home from the cinema. She was raped by six men on the bus, one among them a minor. The culprits also beat her friend black and blue.
The 23-year-old physiotherapy student died 13 days later in a hospital in Singapore from her injuries, which including being beaten with an iron bar, raped while unconscious causing internal injuries and being thrown naked from the bus.
Three years down the line India is enraged yet again. The horror of the crime came alive and once again India took to the streets. This time it is anger over the release of one among the accused who walks free merely three years after committing the gruesome crime. Being a minor, he was given the maximum sentence for his age of three years in a reform centre in August 2013. While the death sentence was awarded to the five adult convicts, the juvenile had escaped being tried along with them, as he was six months short of 18.
Although he is now an adult, he is being handed over to a charity over fears for his safety. A petition was filed in the apex court against his release but proved futile in the face of the law. Therefore when the victim’s mother said "Crime has won and we have lost (Jurm jeet gaya, hum haar gaye)" it was remorse at the tyranny of the law. The Court, the victim’s family said, had released a criminal and today he walks free.
 Worse still, he will receive a new identity and no record of his crime will be in public domain. He will also be facilitated to start a new life: perhaps set up shop and earn a
livelihood.
 Protestors have been demanding death for him given that he was the one who had inflicted the gravest injuries on the victim that ultimately led to her death. Under cover of law, and age, the accused walks free: all set to begin a life all over again after snuffing out one that had yet to fully bloom. Nirbhaya had barely finished her education and was yet to embark on a full-fledged career. She had dreams of making it big and freeing her parents and family from a shackled existence of limited means.
 Public anger can often move mountains. In India, it has on several occasions. The anti graft movement launched by Gandhian Anna Hazare, saw people converge on the streets decrying politics and politicians. The Nirbhaya crime did and the untimely release of the accused also saw anger spill on the streets. While the law had its reasons, and provisions, the simple logic of how can one among the accused walk free stared one in the face. Against this backdrop there were demands of putting him back in jail, changing the law with retrospective effect and amending provisions that would ensure that no one in future goes scot free.
 It was a tall order but the Government stepped in and did some kind of patchwork: It brought a Juvenile Justice Bill in the Rajya Sabha and amended the law. Willy nilly because the new law while incorporating certain provisions does little to address two important factors: do away with the age bar and bring into the net Nirbhaya’s culprit who the law has helped walk free.
 After a heated debate, MPs in the House of Elders gave the nod to the proposed legislation that focuses on lowering of the age bar. It provides for lowering the age of trial from 18 years to 16 years.
 Under the new law, children between the ages of 16 years and 18 years who commit heinous crimes can now be tried as adults. This, however, will be after the Juvenile Justice Board conducts a preliminary investigation to determine the severity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and ability of the juvenile to understand the consequences of his or her actions. The Bill gives the option to a children's court to direct that the offender in such a case should complete the remainder of his or her term in a jail. 'Heinous offences' have been defined as those that carry a sentence of imprisonment for seven or more years.
 The newly passed law, however, does not allow for juveniles to be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. However, the new law will not apply to the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape as criminal laws cannot be retrospective in nature.
 There were different voices, several dissenting ones cautioning against rushing in with the legislation. Given that the focus was age centric there were doubts if the bill would serve any real purpose at all. There was a case for a more consistent approach and not what some members called a knee jerk reaction to the release of one among the accused.
  The argument that if a kid is old enough to rape is old enough to be hanged had some takers. Treating them as adults found support in several quarters.
 There is a fit case to go beyond the age limit for trying juveniles. In this age of internet and information flowing in from all sides, age is the least of the issues that society needs to worry about or peg crimes to. In any case age is notional and as Left MP, Sitaram Yechury said lowering or raising and then lowering the age is not the answer. It has to be a scientific approach and therefore there is no need to rush through the legislation.
 The new law is futuristic and did little to correct the wrong done to Nirbhaya. It did not,  perhaps could not, be applied with retrospective effect and therefore allowed an accused to walk free. Nirbhaya’s parents failed to get justice for their daughter but as her mother said that they can get some solace in the fact that another accused would not now walk free.
 Little comfort though because what India would have liked to see is Nirbhaya’s accused being punished. Like it would have a new law with more teeth and not age dependent. This seems to be the biggest lacunae in the new law. The government can sit smug in the tokenism, given that the new law except for figure juggling has achieved little
 
The writer is a senior Indian
journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])

 

Agitation erupts again over Nirbhaya�s gang-rape case

The December of 2012 saw India on the streets. It had young men and women protesting against a crime that had shook the conscience of the nation. It was a brutal gang-rape of a medical intern on a moving bus that ultimately took her life. Jyoti Singh, or Nirbhaya as the girl came to be known, given that the identity was being concealed, was travelling with a male friend on a private bus on their way home from the cinema. She was raped by six men on the bus, one among them a minor. The culprits also beat her friend black and blue. The 23-year-old physiotherapy student died 13 days later in a hospital in Singapore from her injuries, which including being beaten with an iron bar, raped while unconscious causing internal injuries and being thrown naked from the bus. Three years down the line India is enraged yet again. The horror of the crime came alive and once again India took to the streets. This time it is anger over the release of one among the accused who walks free merely three years after committing the gruesome crime. Being a minor, he was given the maximum sentence for his age of three years in a reform centre in August 2013. While the death sentence was awarded to the five adult convicts, the juvenile had escaped being tried along with them, as he was six months short of 18. Although he is now an adult, he is being handed over to a charity over fears for his safety. A petition was filed in the apex court against his release but proved futile in the face of the law. Therefore when the victims mother said Crime has won and we have lost (Jurm jeet gaya, hum haar gaye) it was remorse at the tyranny of the law. The Court, the victims family said, had released a criminal and today he walks free. Worse still, he will receive a new identity and no record of his crime will be in public domain. He will also be facilitated to start a new life: perhaps set up shop and earn a livelihood. Protestors have been demanding death for him given that he was the one who had inflicted the gravest injuries on the victim that ultimately led to her death. Under cover of law, and age, the accused walks free: all set to begin a life all over again after snuffing out one that had yet to fully bloom. Nirbhaya had barely finished her education and was yet to embark on a full-fledged career. She had dreams of making it big and freeing her parents and family from a shackled existence of limited means. Public anger can often move mountains. In India, it has on several occasions. The anti graft movement launched by Gandhian Anna Hazare, saw people converge on the streets decrying politics and politicians. The Nirbhaya crime did and the untimely release of the accused also saw anger spill on the streets. While the law had its reasons, and provisions, the simple logic of how can one among the accused walk free stared one in the face. Against this backdrop there were demands of putting him back in jail, changing the law with retrospective effect and amending provisions that would ensure that no one in future goes scot free. It was a tall order but the Government stepped in and did some kind of patchwork: It brought a Juvenile Justice Bill in the Rajya Sabha and amended the law. Willy nilly because the new law while incorporating certain provisions does little to address two important factors: do away with the age bar and bring into the net Nirbhayas culprit who the law has helped walk free. After a heated debate, MPs in the House of Elders gave the nod to the proposed legislation that focuses on lowering of the age bar. It provides for lowering the age of trial from 18 years to 16 years. Under the new law, children between the ages of 16 years and 18 years who commit heinous crimes can now be tried as adults. This, however, will be after the Juvenile Justice Board conducts a preliminary investigation to determine the severity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and ability of the juvenile to understand the consequences of his or her actions. The Bill gives the option to a childrens court to direct that the offender in such a case should complete the remainder of his or her term in a jail. Heinous offences have been defined as those that carry a sentence of imprisonment for seven or more years. The newly passed law, however, does not allow for juveniles to be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. However, the new law will not apply to the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape as criminal laws cannot be retrospective in nature. There were different voices, several dissenting ones cautioning against rushing in with the legislation. Given that the focus was age centric there were doubts if the bill would serve any real purpose at all. There was a case for a more consistent approach and not what some members called a knee jerk reaction to the release of one among the accused. The argument that if a kid is old enough to rape is old enough to be hanged had some takers. Treating them as adults found support in several quarters. There is a fit case to go beyond the age limit for trying juveniles. In this age of internet and information flowing in from all sides, age is the least of the issues that society needs to worry about or peg crimes to. In any case age is notional and as Left MP, Sitaram Yechury said lowering or raising and then lowering the age is not the answer. It has to be a scientific approach and therefore there is no need to rush through the legislation. The new law is futuristic and did little to correct the wrong done to Nirbhaya. It did not, perhaps could not, be applied with retrospective effect and therefore allowed an accused to walk free. Nirbhayas parents failed to get justice for their daughter but as her mother said that they can get some solace in the fact that another accused would not now walk free. Little comfort though because what India would have liked to see is Nirbhayas accused being punished. Like it would have a new law with more teeth and not age dependent. This seems to be the biggest lacunae in the new law. The government can sit smug in the tokenism, given that the new law except for figure juggling has achieved little The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])