This article has been written by MS. KHAN GULFASHA BANU WAHID a Second year BA.LLB Student from HVPS COLLEGE OF LAW.
On 28 February 2002 in Gujarat’s Godhra, a five-month pregnant Bilkis Bano was raped and assaulted, according to the prosecution, fourteen members of her family including her three-year-old daughter Saleha killed, by a mob in Gujarat’s Randhikpur village, when they were fleeing during the Godhra riots in March 2002. Bano had been 19, and five months pregnant at the time. After that she registered a complaint in limkheda police station; She was taken to a public hospital for examination, after which she was sent to Godhra relief camp. Her case, meanwhile, went to the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court, which ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the incident.
TRANSFER OF TRIAL
Bilkis moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of trial outside Gujarat, after she received death threats, where she submitted that she was forced to change 20 homes in two years.
In August 2004, the apex court shifted the trial of gang rape case from Gujarat to Mumbai.
In a Mumbai court, charges were filed against 19 men. This included six police officers and a government doctor.
15-YEAR-LONG WAIT FOR CONVICTION
On 21 January 2008, 13 men were convicted for conspiring to rape a pregnant woman, and of unlawful assembly, under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by CBI special court judge, UD Salvi.
Seven others were acquitted citing lack of evidence, and one person died during the trial. Eleven of them were awarded life sentence.
WHY CONVICTS ARE RELEASED?
These convicted prisoners were languishing for more than 15 years in jail, after which one (Radheshyam) approached the Supreme Court with a plea for his premature release. But the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to look into the issue of remission of his sentence.
The question here is how these convicts were released despite of such a heinous crime and do the state governments have the power to remit or release such convicts.
In Bilkis Bano’s case, statutory power and state policies have made remission of these convicts possible. The Centre had issued special guidelines to states for releasing convicted prisoners as part of the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav celebrations. But, Per the 1992 policy, rape convicts were not entitled to premature release from jail.
THEN HOW COME THESE RAPE CONVICTS ARE REALEASED?
The 1992 policy was quoted in a 2012 Gujarat High Court order. It stated that the circular “pertains to the early release of the life convicts who on and after 18.12.1978 have served out 14 clear years imprisonment”. So, Shah’s (accused) petition in the SC stated that as of April 1, 2022, he had undergone a sentence of more than 15 years and 4 months without remission, thus making them eligible for remission, especially on this ground.
The rape convicts are released as per Section 432 CrPC (statutory power of remission) and the 1992 remission policy (concerning guidelines issued under ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’
# According to the guidelines as part of ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav,’ on the occasion of the 75th independence day, those eligible for remission will include women convicts and transgender convicts of 50 years of age and above who have completed 50% of the total sentence period, male convicts of 60 years of age and above, Physically challenged/disabled convicts with certified 70% disability who have completed 50% of their total sentence period, etc.
The 11 convicts have already spent 15 years of imprisonment as part of life imprisonment, and considering other factors, they are remitted. (Sentence reduced, and they are released).
DELIBERATION:
Keeping in mind the uncertainty attached to the term life convicts and, thereafter, the hue and cry which occurs at the time of the premature release of life convicts, there is an alarming need to re-defining Life Imprisonment. There can be a division of category of offences which may fall under life imprisonment of up to 20 years in accordance with Section 57 of the IPC and Life imprisonment until death or until the convict’s natural death, as held in several cases by the Hon’ble Trial and Appellate Courts. The Hon’ble Courts shall be s sensitized to this effect and while awarding life imprisonment to an accused, be specific and clear in relation to the number of years being awarded under life sentence and some benefits to which the convicts are entitled under the Cr.P.C. (such as Section 432, 433 & 433A of the said code).
CONCLUSION
The Bilkis Bano’s case draws attention to the proposition that “Considering an act was horrific, is that sufficient to signify remission granted/pre-mature release of convicts is wrong?”
There is a larger picture attached when we talk about criminal practice. Criminal practice differentiates itself from other arenas of practice under law, where the said practice is just not confined to either winning or losing a case rather, human lives are at stake. The litigants involved in a criminal case can be the victim, the accused, and their respective family members.
The jurisprudence involved under the principles of natural justice is crystal clear that “he who does wrong must be penalized”. Keeping in mind the Bilkis Bano case, it is a sorry state of affairs considering the plight of the victim along with the accused persons that an incident which occurred in 2002 was in itself a horrific incident along with the present state of affairs, whereas after duly serving prison period (as per law) the said prisoners were ordered to be pre-maturely released, which became the talk of the nation recently. With due respect, there is no ambiguity in the law regarding the pre-mature release of convicts; hence, the said pre-mature release is justified under legal jurisprudence.
Keeping in mind the above, the release of the 11 convicts of the Bilkis Bano case, there is nothing unlawful considering the premature release of the same. The law provides for premature release after completion of 14 years and based on criterions mentioned, the state government has the authority to pre-mature release life convicts. However, considering the present scenario where the masses, including social media and news, are only deliberating victim rights & concerns at length, we must not forget that law and emotions cannot be mixed.
REFERENCE:
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening