PTI
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 20
People in huge number gathered at India Gate on Sunday evening to protest the release of the juvenile offender in the horrific December 16 gangrape. According to reports, the police have imposed section 144 at India Gate to avoid violence.
The juvenile convict was released and sent to an NGO at an undisclosed destination with police no longer guarding him.
The freedom for the 20 year-old convict came as parents of the gangrape victim continued their protest for the second day today along with activists protesting against his release and demanding death for him.
“We have left him with an NGO,” police sources said.
Opposing the release of the juvenile, the victim’s mother said, “Our fight is just on the issue that he (juvenile convict) must not come out. If he will come out then what is the point of hearing (by Supreme Court) or any other thing.”
“All knew that he will be released so steps should have been taken during these three years,” she said adding, “I want justice and stay on his release.”
The Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) in a dramatic move approached the Supreme Court late last night to stay his release. In their order pronounced at 2 AM, a vacation bench refused to stay his release, scheduled for today, by giving an urgent hearing and posted the matter for hearing tomorrow.
The victim’s father too expressed unhappiness with the Centre and Delhi government for showing “helplessness” on the issue of release of the juvenile.
“What hearing? But what can we do? Whatever the court is doing is right. Our government, whether Centre or state, they only listen to you when you protest and get lathicharged, else they don’t care. However, if proper hearing or verdict would have passed on this case, then we would not have seen this day,” he said.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who had filed a plea in the High Court against the juvenile’s release, pointed to the “provisions” which have to be applied before the juvenile convict is formally released.
“According to rules of the Juvenile Justice Act, he can be left out from the custody of the Juvenile Justice Board but he cannot be released as a free person till management committee appointed for the purpose decides whether he is mentally sound, whether he has socially mainstreamed and that he has reformed.”
Swamy said that media has “completely missed” the High Court’s judgement. “He can’t be released till that clearance is given. According to rules they have upto two years to decide this,” he said.
BJP spokesman Nalin Kohli said it is a social and legal issue and not a political issue, adding that people are concerned about loopholes and limitations of law.
“It’s a social and legal issue. It’s not a political issue. People are raising concerns relating to loopholes or limitations in the law which is getting such a person to be able to come out in society after serving a restricted sentence.
“The matter is pending because the change to the law has been envisaged but it has not been finalised because it is not passed by the Rajya Sabha,” he said.
Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit accused Delhi government and DCW of “doing politics” over the issue, questioning the DCW chairperson’s move to file SLP in Supreme Court over the issue on late Saturday night, hours before the juvenile’s scheduled release.
“Both Delhi government and DCW are there for many days. If you feel that the person should not be released then you had plenty of time. And when it became an emotional issue among people, then you do politics. What was the need to go to the court at 12 in the night when the High Court’s judgement had come 2-3 days ago,” he said.
His party colleague Randip Singh Surjewala termed the whole issue as “sensitive” and concerned with emotions of the people of the country and sought to know what steps were being pondered by the Centre and Delhi government to prevent its repetition.
“The convict of horrific gangrape is being released. Will Modi will take cognizance. What steps will be taken to stop such persons who may commit such crimes again,” he said.
All those who have been demanding the continued incarceration of the juvenile offender in the gangrape and murder of Jyoti Singh are within their rights to seek justice for the victim and her family. Their apprehension that the juvenile once set free might be a threat to society is justified too. Yet there are times when public emotion and the law fail to find a point of convergence. In such cases the latter must prevail. Sometimes, a flawed narrative gains precedence and goes on dictating the public sentiment.
This perhaps has been the case with the narrative in the case of the juvenile. According to the description widely circulated in the media, this youth, who is expected to walk free on Sunday (unless his release is delayed because of the Supreme Court hearing slated for Monday), was the most vicious among the six who raped and brutalised the 23-year-old para-medical student that dark night. According to most narratives in the media, then and now, he first raped the girl and then inserted an iron rod into her body before pulling out the innards with his bare hands.
Much of the emotional anger against his release is predicated on the belief that this juvenile was the most bestial of the lot and his bestiality stood out over and above that of the rest. But facts speak otherwise. There is no mention of his beast-like behaviour in any of the records that matter in the court of law – the original FIR, the police chargesheet, testimony of both the girl and her male friend and the records of the Juvenile Justice Board. Firstpost is in possession of copies of these.
So the question arises…Was the juvenile the ‘most brutal’?
The answer lies in the confidential order of the Juvenile Justice Board, the statutory body that deals with matters concerning children in conflict with law. Here’s what the order, in the possession of Firstpost, says: “It is true that the juvenile has been found to be involved in the present case, but there is no evidence on record to show that he was the most brutal or he had caused the maximum damage.”
Contrary to reports in the media, the Board in its confidential order on 31 August 2013 has recorded that among the six persons in the bus, two had engaged in the most barbaric behaviour– the prime accused Ram Singh, who allegedly committed suicide inside his cell in Tihar Jail, and his co-accused Akshaya Kumar Singh alias Thakur.
The co-accused – who along with others, excluding the juvenile, has now been sentenced to death by the Delhi High Court – said in his confession, which is also part of the 33-page chargesheet with annexures running into several hundred pages, that Ram Singh brutally assaulted the victim with a rod, resulting in an injury that led to her death within a fortnight.
Even the signed statements given by the victim and her companion do not suggest that the juvenile was the ‘most brutal’. In her first statement made before an executive magistrate on 21 December, five days after the incident, she revealed that all the six assailants, including the juvenile, had taken turns to rape her and inflict injuries.
She reiterated the same in her second statement that was recorded on 26 December 2012, when her medical condition had further deteriorated and she could answer questions only in writing or by way of gestures, that all the six accused had raped and brutalised her with the iron rod. There was no indication that the juvenile was any worse than the others.
The statement of the victim’s friend made before a judicial magistrate on 19 December 2012 was more precise. According to him, Ram Singh and Akshaya had taken the victim to the rear seat of the bus. At that time, he was in the grip of the juvenile and the other three accused.
Not only did the Board say he was not the most brutal, but went as far as to say that the minor himself had been “brutalised”.
“...there has been a lot of media publicity against the juvenile in the present case and he has been repeatedly called the most brutal of the lot (six accused, including the minor boy). The objective of having a separate legislation pertaining to juveniles gets defeated where they are themselves brutalised by being called ‘most brutal’ etc.,” the Board stated in its order.
The juvenile was charged under various provisions of the IPC dealing with gang-rape, murder, kidnapping, unnatural offences, attempt to murder, dacoity, destruction of evidence and conspiracy. The charges of robbery, wrongful confinement and destruction of evidence had also been framed against him in another case of robbing a vegetable seller prior boarding the bus.
The board cleared him of charges under sections 307/396/397 IPC but found that he had committed the offence of hatching criminal conspiracy. “...there is nothing to show that the murder was committed in committing the dacoity. Further, it is settled law that for Section 397 IPC (dacoity, with attempt to cause death) to be attracted, the offender should have actually caused grievous hurt or used a deadly weapon or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt and one person cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of the co-accused. PW6 (prime witness 6, Jyoti Singh’s friend) had stated about all six beating him with iron rod but it cannot be said to be definitively established that the juvenile while committing dacoity had used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause grievous hurt.
