Court awards 7yr-6 month jail term to woman over fake FIR of gang rape
: The court of the special judge SC/ST Act on Monday awarded a seven years and six months prison term to a woman for lodging a fake FIR of gang rape against two men.
Imposing a fine of ₹2.1 lakh on the woman, aged around 24 years, the court directed the state government to recover ₹2 lakh compensation that was given to the woman after the gang rape FIR was lodged in June 2021.
This was the first installment of the ₹8 lakh total compensation which is awarded to a Scheduled Caste victim of gang rape.
The court also suggested several measures to the state government to ensure such cases of fake FIR are not repeated.
'Instances of lodging fake FIR by misusing the special sections of the SC/ST Act are increasing,' the court said in the order.
Both the victims Rajesh Kumar and Bhupendra Kumar Vishwakarma had to spend three months in jail. During the course of the trial, Vishwakarma died.
Additional district judge Vivekanand Saran Tripathi, who is also special judge SC/ST Act, passed the order on Monday.
Government advocate Arvind Kumar Mishra represented the state government in court.
The court awarded two sentences to the woman. The first prison term is of six months under Section 182 of the IPC and a fine of ₹1000. This section is related to giving false information to a public servant with an intent to cause them to use their lawful power against any person.
The court awarded a second sentence of seven years under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of ₹2 lakh. This section deals with falsely initiating criminal proceedings against an individual.
'Both the prison terms will run separately and a fine of ₹2.1 lakh has been imposed,' the court said.
The court also suggested that the government should not award first instalment of the total compensation of ₹2 lakh to the victim after she lodges the rape FIR.
The court suggested that 50% compensation must be awarded to the victim after the police validates the crime and files a chargesheet in court, said Manoj Tripathi, district government counsel (criminal) .
THE CASE
The woman lodged an FIR at Zaidpur police station in Barabanki district on June 29, 2021.
In the FIR, she accused Rajesh Kumar and Bhupendra Kumar Vishwakarma of gang raping her in the adjoining Bakshi Ka Talab area on several occasions between January 2021 and June 2021.
As Bakshi Ka Talab (BKT) falls in Lucknow district, the case was transferred to the BKT police station on May 9, 2022.
Naveena Shukla, the then circle officer, BKT, started the probe on July 14, 2022. She submitted the final report in the court on September 7, 2022, closing the case stating that the gang rape charges were fake.
She suggested in the report that the woman had levelled fake gang rape charges and also suggested action against her.
However, the woman challenged the final report in court.
Thereafter, the trial began in the court which ended this month and the final order was delivered on Monday.
SUGGESTIONS BY COURT
When an FIR of rape/ gang rape is lodged, the police must also mention that how many such FIRs the complainant or her family members have lodged against anyone.
The police must also mention whether any application related to rape charges has also been given by the victim in any police station.
Police must provide such details to the court during the trial of the case.
Police should also take the help of AI tools in finding such facts.
No compensation should be given to the victim after lodging an FIR. The compensation should only be given after the chargesheet is filed in court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay high court rejects discharge plea of teacher accused in Rs 295 crore SBI loan fraud case
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court rejected the discharge application of Kanchan Satpute, a Pune-based teacher and wife of the prime accused, Anil Satpute, in a money laundering case involving M/s Duplex Industries Ltd. The case, amounting to Rs 295 crore, was registered by the CBI ACB after it was argued that funds were allegedly routed to Kanchan's personal account or withdrawn in cash. The high court Judge, Madhav Jamdar, while rejecting Kanchan's discharge application, stated that there was enough material on record from witness statements and documentary evidence to proceed against her. The court upheld a Special CBI Judge's earlier order refusing to discharge her from the case. She faced charges under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Amit Munde, special counsel for the CBI, argued before the court that the accused, Kanchan, was a personal guarantor to the assets of her husband for the bank loan and that economic offences posed a serious threat to public money. Kanchan, who was also a film producer, was accused of actively participating in the alleged diversion and laundering of funds sanctioned as loans by the State Bank of India (SBI) to M/s Duplex Industries Ltd. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo between 2009 and 2013. According to the CBI, her proprietorship concern, Nishad Audio Visuals, received approximately Rs 5.08 crore in diverted bank funds through a complex web of transactions involving other entities, including R.K. Enterprises. The CBI's forensic audit revealed that large sums were transferred from M/s Duplex Industries Ltd. to R.K. Enterprises, which subsequently moved Rs 1.75 crore to Nishad Audio Visuals. From there, the funds were allegedly routed to Kanchan Satpute's personal account or withdrawn in cash. Forensic auditors identified the transactions as deliberate acts of fund diversion. Representing Satpute, Advocate Sagar Tilak argued that Satpute was being implicated solely because she was the wife of the main accused, Anil Satpute. He maintained that the funds received by her company were loan repayments from M/s Duplex Industries Ltd., in which her husband and father-in-law were directors. The defence also claimed that the funds extended to the company were legitimate loans totalling Rs 1.99 crore. However, Justice Jamdar dismissed these claims, observing that there was no credible evidence demonstrating that Kanchan possessed the financial capacity to lend such large sums. The court noted that the CBI's investigation revealed a pattern of fund movement and withdrawals that supported allegations of criminal conspiracy and fraud.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
2015 Verka case: Cops in civilian clothes firing at vehicle occupant cannot be considered official duty, says SC
Police personnel 'surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant by its very nature bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest,' the Supreme Court observed in its April 29 order, dismissing the plea of nine Punjab policemen, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019 where it refused to quash the murder case against them in a 10-year-old alleged fake encounter case. 'The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective, cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those 'done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty',' the detail SC order uploaded recently reads. According to the case, on June 16, 2015, a police team, travelling in a Bolero, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i20 on the Verka-Batala road in Amritsar, Punjab. After giving a brief warning, they allegedly opened fire on the car using pistols and AK-47 rifles, killing driver Mukhjit Singh, alias Mukhha. The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claimed to have seen the shooting and raised an alarm that drew locals to the spot. The complaint alleged that after the firing incident, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parmpal Singh arrived at the scene with additional personnel and ordered the removal of the vehicle's registration plate. Hearing the matter, the division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored the charge of 'destruction of evidence' against DCP Parmpal Singh, observing 'actions taken under the guise of official duty, but aimed at obstructing justice, cannot be deemed related to police duty'. The court also clarified that 'no prior sanction is required to prosecute DCP Parmpal Singh and the other police officials for their alleged actions'. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of the complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. 'An act that is per se directed to erasing a potential exhibit, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. The test consistently applied by this Court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of Section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognizance. The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice as held by this Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar,' the SC order reads. 'The part of the impugned order of the High Court dated 20.05.2019 that set aside Criminal Complaint No. 112 of 2016 and the summoning order of 17.08.2017 in respect of Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh, is set aside. Proceedings against the respondent stand restored, to be continued in accordance with law,' the order reads. In the separate petition by the rest of the eight officials, the court said, 'The contention that the death, even if established, resulted from a mistaken identity and therefore attracts no culpability is a matter of defence; whether the petitioners acted in good faith, or whether they fired at all, are questions of fact that can only be resolved on evidence at trial. At the stage of summoning or of framing of charges the Court is not expected to weigh the probative value of the materials in microscopic detail but merely to see whether the facts, taken at their face, disclose the commission of an offence. The order of the Magistrate summoning the petitioners, and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges, proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. No error of law or perversity of approach is shown. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.' After the victim's family reached the court, Parmpal Singh was summoned into the case. Besides, Parmpal Singh, eight other police personnel had challenged the HC order of May 20, 2019, wherein the court refused to quash the case registered against them, in the Supreme Court. Human rights activist and lawyer Sarabjit Singh Verka said, 'The SC order was uploaded on June 15. The order has opened the doors for justice the victim's family has been seeking for a decade.' G Nageswara Rao, then Inspector General of Police (Crime), Punjab, headed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into FIR No. 242 dated June 16, 2015, registered under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Based on the findings, the SIT concluded that the allegations made in the FIR against the deceased, Mukhtjit Singh, alias Mukha, relating to offences under IPC section 307 and the Arms Act, were not substantiated. Instead, the SIT recommended filing a police report under section 173(2) of the CrPC for offences punishable under Section 304, read with Section 34 of the IPC, against several police officials. These include SI Ramesh Kumar (No. 1382/GSP), ASI Joginder Singh (No. 2639/ASR), HC Ranbir Singh (No. 821/ASR), HC Rajesh Kumar (No. 3564/ASR), HC Sandeep Kumar (No. 2176/ASR), HC Jasbir Singh (No. 669/ASR), C-II Navjot Singh (No. 2895/ASR), and Ct. Satwinderjit Singh (No. 3894/ASR). The report also mentioned that the prosecution would require necessary sanctions under Section 197 of the CrPC. Additionally, the SIT noted procedural violations and recommended departmental action against other officers. 'Ct. Love Kumar (No. 3568/ASR) was found to have allowed HC Rajesh Kumar to use his issued AK-47 rifle (No. 88320625) during the incident. Both officers were recommended for departmental action for this lapse. Furthermore, MHC Baljit Singh (No. 70/ASR) was found to have permitted the misuse of a Malkhana vehicle (PB-08-BP-4613) by SI Ramesh Kumar. Similarly, HC Kanwaljit Singh (No. 1957/ASR), in charge of the Cyber/Computer Cell, misused another official vehicle, a Verna car (PB-33A-7979). Departmental action was recommended in both these cases,' the SIT recommended.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Contempt proceedings against cops 6 years after incident stayed by Supreme Court
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday stayed contempt of court proceedings initiated by Calcutta high court against seven police personnel, including three IPS officers, former Howrah police commissioner Vishal Garg, former DCP (south) Howrah V S R Anantanag and former Addl DCP Howrah Bhavna Gupta, in relation to a violent incident in Howrah district court in 2019. Senior advocates C U Singh and Biswajit Deb, appearing for the seven cops and West Bengal govt who have appealed against the May 2 order of an HC, told an SC bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan that HC could not have initiated contempt proceedings six years after the incident, in which many advocates were injured. They said HC had taken suo motu cognisance of the violent incident of April 24, 2019, in which police have registered 11 FIRs against 'unknown advocates' and had appointed a one-man judicial inquiry, which has already given its report in December 2019. HC did not initiate contempt proceedings in 2019 and hence, to initiate the same in 2025 would be barred by limitation, they argued. Appearing for the advocates and bar associations, senior advocates Maninder Singh and Sidharth Luthra drew the SC bench's attention to HC's clear findings on how the limitation clause in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, did not apply to the present case. It had said the time limitation bar applied to a person seeking to initiate contempt against others and not on the court, which itself had initiated suo motu proceedings. Justice Manmohan said even in a contempt case relating to demolition of Babri Masjid in December 1992, SC discharged all cops who were hauled up for contempt as the charges against them were not framed even after a lapse of one year. "This matter - whether HC could have initiated contempt proceedings after a lapse of five years - requires consideration," the bench said and stayed the proceedings arising from the May 2 order of the high court. However, the suo motu proceedings in the 2019 writ petition would not be affected by this stay order.
