On the eve of SC #Scrap66A , we all welcome the decision and establish that a badly drafted law can only lead to havoc in Society.
There are many such laws like 498A , Molestation ( 354) , Rape(376) also fall in that category .
The Indian constitutions article 15(3) had been misused just for Vote bank in the name of Women or caste , the way in 66A the constitutions 19(2) was misused, but in reality there is no improvement in society for what such provision was made.
There are many such laws like 498A , Molestation ( 354) , Rape(376) also fall in that category .
The Indian constitutions article 15(3) had been misused just for Vote bank in the name of Women or caste , the way in 66A the constitutions 19(2) was misused, but in reality there is no improvement in society for what such provision was made.
As per New Law if a women can term any Men as Molester or rapist without any medical evidence.
Mere on her Verbal allegations, you will be arrested and even after court trail found the same was #Fakecases hardly any Police officer or Judge will evoke CRPC340 or IPC 182.
Our Law Makers and women organizations along with some radical Feminist Ideology Electronic Media always promoted such decoration Law as Non-Bailable , lead to massive Misuse and violation of Constitution article 21-( Live & Liberty) .
Now , when SC will wake up and take corrective action against such LAW which had been made under misuse of article 15(3) by violating article 21?
Indiatimes has in its possession the formal judgment (dated 28 February 2015) pronounced in the 2012 ‘Amity rape’ incident. The incident dates back to 2012, when a girl had accused two boys of gang-raping her. 3 years later, the incident received a conclusion – the boys were free to go. During this time, the boys served 1 year in prison, and 2 years of regular criminal proceedings.
After 3 years of being labeled criminals by society, friends and family, Prashant and Milind, 2 Amity University boys have been acquitted by a trial court of allegations of raping a fellow student. The court pulled up Delhi Police and the investigating officer (IO) for carrying out a biased probe, cooking up evidence and hiding crucial information in the case which proved the innocence of the accused.
According to the police, the alleged incident took place on the afternoon of June 14, 2012. Prashant called the woman, who was his batch-mate, to Vasant Vihar to watch a movie. He was accused of giving her an alcoholic drink, driving her to a secluded place in Paschim Vihar in his Honda City car, calling his friend Milind to the spot and gang-raping her.
At face value, you can see that the testimony the girl gave was pretty damning – there was the dramatic allegation – intoxication and violently forcing a girl to submit to rape.
And just her statement was enough. Just her testimony led to investigating officers framing charges on the two boys. She also claimed that she had been treated so badly that she "had developed suicidal tendencies". Her statements were treated with even more delicacy particularly in the wake of gruesome attacks on women in the last 3 years after the infamous Nirbhaya incident.
And then her testimony fell apart.
There was no DNA evidence.
The girl was admitted at New Delhi's AIIMS Hospital for 14 days after the rape, during which NO vaginal examination was conducted. She also said that the boys who gang-raped her had washed her clean to get rid of evidence. However, there was no residual DNA on her clothes. She also made accusations of “unnatural sex” – but evidence didn’t prove it.
And what about the scene of the crime?
Police didn't actually investigate the scene of the crime, the place where she claimed she was raped.
And the violence against her?
If they had explored the place, they MIGHT have found traces of her blood that spilled when she cut her leg there. When there were no cut marks on her body, she claimed that she was beaten with an ice bag.
Which was also false - as Advocate Prashant Mendiretta, counsel for the accused, informed us. How can this ice not have melted in 42 degree temperature, in a room that had no fridge, air conditioning or even a fan? These were the conditions she described of the room she was supposedly raped in.
Psychological trauma?
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the woman was so traumatised that she initially did not report the rape but only spoke about assault. Relying on hospital records and other evidence, the court said the woman was in her senses when she was examined on June 15, 2012, a day after the alleged incident. The court also observed that it appeared that the woman, after the incident, faked psychiatric disorders and was therefore referred a senior psychiatrist at AIIMS. The woman spoke about being gang-raped by the duo only on June 28, 2012, 14 days after the incident.
The evidence that sealed her fate and saved the boys,
Cellphone records obtained show that during the time when she was allegedly being assaulted and raped, there were multiple calls made to her phone.
She spoke 1000 seconds: with her friend
She spoke 300 seconds: with her father
She spoke 400 seconds: with her mother
This is among 50-60 calls she made/received from her number.
And yet, not once did anyone raise alarm.
The cellphone tower position logs indicated movement of the cellphone. How can someone get raped, and have someone make/receive 50-60 calls from their phone?
The judge urged the police chief to frame guidelines making it mandatory for IOs to bring to the notice of the accused all evidence in a case, including those that favour the accused. "She (the IO) has betrayed the trust reposed by the public upon a police official. The aim of the police officer should be to collect evidence and not to create it...(She) committed breach of professional standards by ignoring, disregarding and withholding material evidence which pointed to the innocence of the accused," the court noted while delivering the verdict.
With inputs from Sana Shakil, TNN
Want to #StopAbuseofMen by #Fakecases ? Call 0-8882-498-498 to Join # SaveIndianFamily Movement.
Any law which allow registration of compliant on assumption should be Bailable only. Let the assumption proved in court and then Arrest them , if required for Investigation .
