Author : Kurma Bhanu Chandra Jyothi, Sri Padmavati Mahila Vishwavidyalaya.
To The Point:
Coming to the point, in 2002, Bano, who was 21 years old and five months pregnant woman, was gang – raped in the Dahod district of Gujarat during the post-Godhra communal riots. Seven of her family members, including her three years old daughter were also killed by riots.
In 2017, the Bombay high court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the 11 convicts.
After spending 15 years in jail, one of the convicts, Radheshyam shah approached the Gujarat Hight court seeking remission of his sentence.
However, the high court rejected his plea on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction. When matter moved in appeal to the Apex Court, the court held that the remission application had to be decided by Gujrat government as the offence took place in the state.
Accordingly, under the remission policy the convicts were released by the state Government in 2022.
Use of Legal Jargon:
* *Criminal Appeal: * The case fundamentally involved criminal appeals, challenging the premature release of convicts sentenced for the heinous crimes committed during the 2002 Gujarat riots. This involved appeals under various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically those related to appeals against acquittal or conviction.
* *Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: * A central argument revolved around the violation of Bilkis Bano’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), arguing that the premature release of the convicts jeopardized her right to safety and security, and amounted to a violation of the principles of justice and fair trial.
* *Section 432 of the CrPC: * This section deals with the power of the state government to remit sentences. The legality and propriety of the application of this section in the context of the convicts’ release were heavily debated. Arguments centered on whether the remission was granted in accordance with the established legal framework and guidelines.
* *Rule of Law: * The case raised fundamental questions about the rule of law, arguing that the premature release undermined public confidence in the justice system and sent a wrong message about the seriousness with which the state treats heinous crimes against women.
* *Victims’ Rights: * The case highlighted the importance of victims’ rights, particularly the right to be heard and the right to a sense of justice and closure. The lack of consultation with Bilkis Bano before the release of the convicts was a major point of contention.
* *Due Process: * The legal arguments touched upon the principles of due process, questioning whether the process of remission followed the established legal procedures and whether Bilkis Bano was afforded the opportunity to be heard before a crucial decision affecting her life was made.
* *Ratio Decidendi: * The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case will establish a ratio decidendi – the binding legal principle – that will guide future cases involving similar issues of remission of sentences in heinous crimes and the rights of victims.
* *Habeas Corpus: * While not directly invoked in this specific case’s main arguments, the underlying principle of habeas corpus (the right to challenge unlawful detention) is relevant to the broader context of ensuring the rights of victims and preventing arbitrary state action.
* *Contempt of Court: * The Supreme Court’s response to the Gujarat government’s actions could potentially involve considerations of contempt of court, if the court finds that the government’s actions disregarded its previous orders or judgments
To The Proof:
There’s no single piece of “proof” for the Bilkis Bano case (often referred to as Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India) in the way there might be for a mathematical theorem. The case rests on a body of evidence compiled over many years, including:
* *Bilkis Bano’s testimony and statements: * Her accounts of the events of March 2002, including the rape and murder of her family members, formed the core of the prosecution’s case. These statements were given at various stages of the investigation and trial.
* *Testimonies of other witnesses: * Other survivors and witnesses who were present during the Godhra riots and the attack on Bilkis Bano’s family also provided crucial evidence.
* *Forensic evidence: * This could include DNA evidence, medical reports documenting Bilkis Bano’s injuries, and potentially other forensic findings from the crime scene. The specifics of the forensic evidence used are not always publicly available due to privacy concerns and the sensitive nature of the case.
* *Police investigation reports: * The investigation conducted by the Gujarat Police (initially) and the CBI (later) documented the evidence gathered, witness statements, and the investigative process.
* *Court documents: * This includes the chargesheet, trial transcripts, judgments from various courts (including the Supreme Court), and any appeals filed. These documents are the official record of the legal proceedings.
* *Media reports and documentation: * While not considered legal proof, contemporaneous media reports from the time of the incident and the subsequent legal battles can provide context and corroborating information. However, it’s crucial to critically evaluate the reliability and potential biases of such sources.
Abstract:
The present case in the hand “Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs union of India and others “ is that in 2002, Bano, was 21 years old and five moths pregnant, was gang-raped in the Dahod district of Gujarat and seven members of her family members, including her three old years old daughter was killed by rioters. The trail was started in Gujarat, but in the year 2008, the case during was transferred to Maharashtra, a sessions court in Mumbai and the accused was convicted under the sections 302 and 376 (2)(e)(g) read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and after 15 years of the punishment one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah approached the Gujarat High Court asking the relief of remission of his sentence and the court rejected his peal on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction and the matter moved to the appeal to the Apex court and the court held that the matter should be decided by the Government of Gujarat as the offence took place in Gujarat and accordingly Government of Gujarat released the 11 convicts under the remission policy in the year 2022. Disappointing with the decision of the appellant apex court Bilkis Bano approached the Supreme Court challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts and the court stated that punishment given to convicts is to reform them and to give a chance to realize their crimes and mistakes, but a woman deserves respect in the society and the acts which discriminate women cannot be tolerated and they should be punished.
The Supreme Court quashes the remission of 11 convicts and held that the Gujarat Government has no power to approve the remission petition of the 11 convicts because the trail of this case was held in Maharashtra, a sessions court in Mumbai and they were sentenced by the decision of the Mumbai sessions court and Gujarat Government has no powers to release the 11 convicts and Supreme Court directed the convicts, who were given premature release in August 2022, to surrender in prison within two weeks.
Case laws:
- Sarat Chandra Rabha vs. Khagendranath Nath: The Supreme Court explained the meaning of remission, stating that it doesn’t wipe out the offense or conviction but only affects the execution of the sentence.
- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs. Prem Raj: The Supreme Court held that the powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India are absolute and cannot be fettered by any statutory provision.
- Laxman Naskar v. Union of India: The Court discussed factors to be considered before granting remission, such as the nature of the offense, potential for future recurrence, and socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
- Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the presiding judge’s opinion in deciding remission applications, stating that it enables the government to make an informed decision.
Conclusion:
Hence, I conclude that the decision given by the supreme court is absolutely correct, but the decision which is given by the appellant apex court that the premature release of the 11 convicts is decided by the government of Gujarat and the 11 convicts who released by the remission policy is not aggregable. As per my ideology when the matter was trailed and the punishment was pronounced by the trail court and the convicts are under the punishment even, they appeal for remission then court should not give scope to the government to approve the remission petition I disagree with the decision of the appellant apex court and I strongly agree with the decision of the supreme court by quashing the remission petition of the 11 convicts.
FAQ:
– What was the court’s verdict?
The Supreme Court initially convicted 13 accused in 2008, with 11 receiving life sentences. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the 11 convicts in 2017.
– What led to the controversy surrounding the case?
In August 2022, the Gujarat government granted remission to the 11 convicts, allowing for their early release. This decision sparked widespread criticism and protests.
– What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the remission?
The Supreme Court held that the Gujarat government was not the appropriate authority to grant remission, as the trial was held in Maharashtra. The court quashed the remission and directed the convicts to surrender to the authorities within two weeks.
– What is the significance of the Bilkis Bano case?
The case highlights concern about the handling of rape cases and the granting of remission to convicts. It also raises questions about the role of the state government in granting remission and the need for transparency in such decisions.
