#India- Legal rights every woman must know #Vaw #justice #womenrights #mustshare


RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT
Under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a woman who has been raped can record her statement before the district magistrate when the case is under trial, and no one else needs to be present. Alternatively, she can record the statement with only one police officer and woman constable in a convenient place that is not crowded and does not provide any possibility of the statement being overheard by a fourth person. The police have to, by law, protect the woman’s right to privacy. It’s important for the person to feel comfortable and not be under any kind of stress while narrating the incident.

TIME DOESN’T MATTER
The police cannot refuse to register an FIR even if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the incident of rape or molestation took place. If the police tells you that they can’t lodge your FIR since you didn’t report it earlier, do not concede. “Rape is a horrifying incident for any woman, so it’s natural for her to go into shock and not want to report it immediately. She may also fear for her safety and the reputation and dignity of her family. For this reason, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police must register an FIR even if there has been a gap between the report and the occurrence of the incident,” says Tariq Abeed, advocate, Supreme Court.

POLICE CAN’T SAY NO
A rape victim can register her police complaint from any police station under the Zero FIR ruling by Supreme Court. “Sometimes, the police station under which the incident occurs refuses to register the victim’s complaint in order to keep clear of responsibility, and tries sending the victim to another police station. In such cases, she has the right to lodge an FIR at any police station in the city under the Zero FIR ruling. The senior officer will then direct the SHO of the police station concerned to lodge the FIR,” says Abeed. This is a Supreme Court ruling that not many women are aware of, so don’t let the SHO of a police station send you away saying it “doesn’t come under his area”.

NO ARRESTS AFTER SUNSET
According to a Supreme Court ruling, a woman cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. There are many cases of women being harassed by the police in the wee hours, but all this can be avoided if you exercise the right of being present in the police station only during daytime. “Even if there is a woman constable accompanying the officers, the police can’t arrest a woman at night. In case the woman has committed a serious crime, the police has to get it in writing from the magistrate explaining why the arrest is necessary during the night,” says Bhaumik.

YOU CAN’T BE CALLED TO THE POLICE STATION
Women cannot be called to the police station for interrogation under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This law provides Indian women the right of not being physically present at the police station for interrogation. “The police can interrogate a woman at her residence in the presence of a woman constable and family members or friends,” says Abeed. So the next time you’re called to the police station for queries or interrogation when you have faced any kind of harassment, quote this guideline of the Supreme Court to exercise your right and remind the cops about it.

THE DOCTOR CAN’T DECIDE
A case of rape can’t be dismissed even if the doctor says rape had not taken place. A victim of rape needs to be medically examined as per Section 164 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and only the report can act as proof. “A woman has the right to have a copy of the medical report from the doctor. Rape is a crime, not a medical condition. It is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion and the doctor can’t decide on this,” explains Bhaumik.

PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY
Under no circumstances can the identity of a rape victim be revealed. Neither the police nor media can make known the name of the victim in public. Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code makes the disclosure of a victim’s identity a punishable offense. Printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of a woman against whom an offence has been committed is punishable. This is done to prevent social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence. Even while a judgment is in progress at the high court or a lower court, the name of the victim is not indicated, she is only described as ‘victim’ in the judgement.

EMPLOYERS MUST PROTECT
It is the duty of every employer to create a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee within the organisation for redressal of such complaints. According to a guideline issued by the Supreme Court, it is mandatory for all firms, public and private, to set up these committees to resolve matters of sexual harassment. It is also necessary that the committee be headed by a woman and include 50 per cent women as members. Also, one of the members should be from a women’s welfare group.

Sources: Saumya Bhaumik (women’s right lawyer, Tariq Abeed (advocate, Supreme court)

 

#Mumbai-Your face does not merit a rape FIR #Vaw #WTFnews


Your face does not merit a rape FIR , says lady cop to victim

The bizarre reason a lady cop gave the victim before refusing to lodge FIR against her former live-in partner

December 29, 2012
MUMBAI
Akela, Mid day

“Tumhara chehra rape ka FIR karne layak nahin hain.” A woman who turned to the cops to lodge an FIR against a man who had duped her into a live-in relationship was turned away by a female police officer on the pretext of this bizarre rationale.

Rekha

The cop went on to sanctimoniously tell her that if she had truly loved the man who wronged her, she wouldn’t lodge a complaint against him, but would marry another man and live happily ever after.

Santosh Sharma
Victim and accused: Rekha (Top) and Santosh Sharma. Pics/Nimesh Dave

Before receiving such pearls of wisdom from the female cop, the complainant had even been told by a senior inspector that there was “no point” in lodging a rape case.

Rekha, (name changed) a 28-year-old resident of Malad, had moved in with her boyfriend after he promised he would marry her.

After he dumped her unceremoniously and married another woman years later, she turned to the police. For four consecutive days, police officers refused to register an FIR, saying ‘saheb chhutti par hain.”

She then met Senior Inspector Subhash Dafle, who also refused to register an FIR and assured her that all would be fine in a few days.

“Dafle told me, ‘Rape ka FIR karne me koi fayda nahin hai. Char din me sab theek ho jayega. Rapist to Goregaon- Malad me chhipa nahin hai ki use pakad layein (There is no use filing an FIR for rape. Everything will be fine in four days. It’s not like the rapist is lurking in Goregaon or Malad that we can catch him),” said Rekha.

Faced with the blunt refusal of cops, Rekha approached the Borivli Magistrate Court on December 15 with the help of lawyer Ashok Yadav.

The court then passed an order asking that an FIR be registered against Santosh Sharma under Sections 376, 406, 420 and 498 (A) of the IPC for dowry, rape, cheating and breach of trust.

But even the court’s order couldn’t convince the cops to take action.

The honourable court passed an order asking the police to register an FIR on the same day, but Kurar police turned a deaf ear. They aren’t even obeying the court’s order,” said Yadav.

Armed with the court order, Rekha met officer Jyoti Bhopale with the court order. But instead of registering the FIR, Bhopale started giving her some unsolicited advice, replete with veiled insults.

“She told me, ‘Tumhara chehra rape ka FIR karne layak nahin hai. Agar tum usse sachcha pyar karti to uske khilaf complaint nahin karti. Jao kisi aur se shadi kar lo aur khush raho (Your face doesn’t merit a rape FIR. If you loved him truly, you would not lodge a complaint against him. Go marry someone else and stay happy,” said an outraged Rekha.

False promises
Rekha met Santosh Sharma (30) at a garment shop in 2006 and they soon became friends. They started living together. Sharma even introduced Rekha to his family as his ‘wife’. Sharma would give Rekha Rs 8,000 every month. Rekha would even give part of her salary to Sharma’s father. In 2009, Sharma went abroad for a job. He then started distancing himself from Rekha, and stopped communicating with her. When he was confronted, he refused to tie the knot with her, saying that he couldn’t do so as he was a heart patient.

“Sharma told me, ‘Main heart ka patient hun isliye shadi nahin kar sakta,’” said Rekha.

In March, Rekha went to Sharma’s native district in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. She was shocked when police officers and villagers told her that Sharma had married another woman.

Sharma’s father Guru Dayal Sharma told Rekha that since she couldn’t pay him Rs 2.5 lakh in cash and give four tolas of gold, he made his son marry another woman. “Santosh swore on his mother’s life that he didn’t know me,” said Rekha.

The other side
In spite of repeated attempts, Senior Inspector Dafle of Kurar police station could not be reached for comment. “I am not aware about the court order, but I will look in to the

Cyber police station files FIR under 66A against Sagar Karnik


SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, The Hindu Dec 2. 2012

On a counter-complaint by K.V. Jaganathrao and his AI colleague held in May after a plaint by Karnik

The cyber police station at the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) on Friday registered a first information report (FIR) under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act against Sagar Karnik of the Air India Cabin Crew Association (AICCA). This was done on a counter complaint on July 3 by K.V. Jaganathrao, who, along with his Air India colleague, was arrested in May after a complaint filed by Mr. Karnik for posting provocative messages on social networking websites.

While Mr. Jaganathrao and Mayank Sharma were arrested on Mr. Karnik’s complaint in May and jailed for 12 days, no action was taken after the counter-complaint was filed in July with the cyber police station against Mr. Karnik. The FIR filed on Friday Mr. Karnik had posted derogatory comments on Facebook and Orkut, which were defamatory and insulting to the complainant.

Intra-union rivalry

Mr. Jaganatharao’s statement recorded at the cyber police station in connection with his complaint refers to intra-union rivalry between Kiran Pawaskar, former Shiv Sainik and present Nationalist Congress Party MLC, who wanted to control the AICCA, and himself and Mr. Sharma. The statement says that after differences over the elections to the AICCA, from March 2011 to June 2012, Mr. Karnik abused Mr. Jaganathrao many times on Facebook.

On November 1, 2011, Mr. Karnik said he had a gun and also said he would get Mr. Jaganathrao arrested by the cyber police station. There were other abusive words and comments on Facebook as well as an open threat to kill him, Mr. Jaganathrao said. However, Mr. Karnik, after issuing this threat, went and complained to the cyber police station in Bandra that he was being threatened by Mr. Jaganathrao, leading to the two arrests.

Mr. Jaganathrao told The Hindu that after they were released on bail, he submitted a complaint along with a dossier of web links to social networking sites, which show the abuse by Mr. Karnik, to the cyber police station in July. “The police took four months to register an FIR against Karnik, which means they have not investigated the matter properly and if there is an FIR against Karnik, why were we arrested in the first place,” he asked.

‘Lascivious and defamatory’

The first complaint against them was made by Mr. Pawaskar on July 1, 2011 to senior police officer Vishwas Nangre Patil. Later, Mr. Karnik filed an FIR on March 29, 2012 accusing Mr. Jaganathrao and Mr. Sharma of uploading lascivious and defamatory content on Facebook and Orkut against him and politicians and also threatening him with death, apart from insulting the national flag. They were charged under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 A and 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, apart from Section Two of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Meanwhile, Mr. Jaganathrao and Mr. Sharma had met Niket Kaushik, Additional Police Commissioner, in October to raise the issue of their arrest by the cyber police station. Mr. Jaganathrao and Mr. Sharma wrote to him demanding to know if any action was initiated against the police officers who allegedly did not seek the approval of their superiors to make an arrest under Section 66 A of the IT Act.

Mr. Kaushik did not respond to calls.

 

FIR Lodged against Shahrukh Khan , Karan Johar, Gauri Khan for ” Radha’ song


FIR lodged against Shah Rukh Khan

Fri Nov 09 2012 02 : 11 / Muzaffarnagar, NewsX

An FIR has been lodged at Sadar police station in Bihar‘s Muzaffarpur district on the direction of a local court against actor Shahrukh Khan, his wife Gauri Khan, Karan Johar and others for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by depicting Hindu deity Radha in an inappropriate manner.

An FIR has been lodged at Sadar police station in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur district on the direction of a local court against actor Shahrukh Khan, his wife Gauri Khan, Karan Johar and others for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by depicting Hindu deity Radha in an inappropriate manner. The police said today that the FIR was lodged last night under sections 294 (Obscene acts and songs to annoyance of others), 295 (deliberate and malicious act intended to hurt religious feelings and 295A (injuring or defiling place of worship intended to insult the religion) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Khan and others.

The Sadar police station inspector Ezaj Ahmed has been made the investigation officer to probe the case, they said. The FIR followed a complaint lodged by advocate Sudhir Kumar Ojha on November five in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate S P Singh alleging obscene presentation of the deity in a song in the film “Student of the Year“.

After hearing the case, the judge had passed an order directing that a case be lodged against the accused in the Sadar police station. The film’s actors Varun Dhawan, Alia Bhatt and Siddharth Malhotra and the Dharma Production, which produced the film in partnership with Khan’s production company – M/S Red Chillies
Entertainment, have been named as other accused in the case.

 

The posters that landed retired SIMI secy in jail #draconianlaws #ban


 

Muzamil Jaleel : New Delhi, Fri Sep 28 2012, 03:41 hrs

Cases registered 12 years ago — before SIMI was even banned — on flimsy charges and an investigation that has been rapped for loopholes left Munir Deshmukh a wanted man for years and have kept him in jail for the past 21 months. Once the SIMI national secretary, Deshmukh retired from the organisation in February 2001, seven months before it was banned.

OCTOBER 22, 2000

It was 11 months before the first ban on SIMI in September 2001 that Deshmukh had the first FIRs filed against him in two police stations in Bhopal the same day. Both FIRs related to exactly the same “incriminating” evidence — a SIMI poster.

The Taliyya police station registered an FIR that said a poster with “Students Islamic Movement of India (West) MP” written in English on it had been found pasted near Kulsum Bi’s mosque, near Budhwara, Bhopal. No individual was named. Subsequently, police alleged that posters similar to the one pasted near the mosque had been seized from Deshmukh and five other accused: Sorab Ahmed, Maulana Arsad, Abdul Razzaq, Mohd Alim and Kashlid Naim.

The seizure memo stated that on October 25, three days after the FIR, police seized five posters and 10 pamphlets from “under the bed of Munir Deshmukh” at his house, A-47, Shahpur, Habibganj, Bhopal.

The poster had “Pasbode na bano, sulah ki darkhwasth na karo, tum hi Ghalib rahoge, Navede Sehar conference 10, 11, 12 November 2000 Mukam Wadi e sehar, Dragaah Maidan ke Pas, Khajra, Indore, also written in English. The pamphlet had “Indore Chalo, Indore Chalo in bold letters”, said the FIR.

The writing the police found incriminating is actually from Verse 35 of Surah Mohammad of the Quran. The conference was primarily a religious congregation. In fact, the poster had the address and phone number of the organisers on it.

The chargesheet was filed five years later, on July 13, 2005, against the six accused under various sections of the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The second FIR against Deshmukh was registered at the Shahjahanabad police station in Bhopal. Deshmukh was again charged along with the same five other accused for a similar SIMI poster, this time near Murgi Wali Masjid in Shahjahanabad.

The police claimed to have raided Deshmukh’s house on October 23, 2000, which was two days before the raid on his house in the earlier case. The seizure memo stated the police recovered 14 posters with the Quranic verse “pasbode na bano…”, 20 pamphlets that had “Students Islamic Movement of India, MP” and “Indore chalo” written on them, and a June 2000 edition of Tehreek magazine.

The chargesheet against the six was filed on December 6 that year for “promoting communal disharmony and committing acts detrimental to national integration”.

It was never explained how the same set of posters seized on October 23, 2010, from Deskhmukh’s house turned up again at his residence two days later. And not just at his house but at those of the five other accused too.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

The day SIMI was banned, a third FIR was registered against Deshmukh, at the Habibganj police station in Bhopal under the UAPA. Inspector Girish Bore stated that he was tipped off about “SIMI activist” Munir Deshmukh “running activities from his residence”. A team raided Deshmukh’s house in the presence of two witnesses, Akhilesh Jain and Naval Singh, but didn’t find him. The FIR said that he had absconded “with the document and the campaigning material”. The chargesheet was filed on December 24, 2002. Apart from the UAPA, Deshmukh was booked under IPC sections 153 B (committing acts detrimental to national integration) and 295 A (outraging the feelings of a religious group).

According to advocate Sajid Ali of Bhopal, yet another FIR was filed in Habibgunj in 2001 against Deshmukh under the Prevention of Corruption Act, accusing him of having assets disproportionate to his sources of income. He said judge R P S Chouhan acquitted Deshmukh in that case earlier this week.

DECEMBER 11, 2010

In December 2010 — 10 years after the police first filed an FIR against him and nine years after they said he was absconding — Deshmukh was arrested. After his arrest, Deshmukh, who had been living in Hyderabad where he ran an IT firm, had another case slapped against him in Andhra Pradesh, this time for impersonation, for having documents stating his name as “Munir Ahmad”.

THE CASES IN COURT

* In the first case registered at Taliyya police station, first class judicial magistrate Rama Jayant Mittal acquitted Deshmukh and the other accused on July 10 this year.

* In the second identical poster case, first class judicial magistrate Varsha Sharma sentenced Deshmukh and the others to three years of rigorous imprisonment on August 3, 2011, for creating “unpleasantness between Hindus and Muslim community’’ after eight years of trial.

During the trial, one of the witnesses said he “does not recognise the accused”, a second witness said the police made him sign documents but didn’t know whether the documents were “blank or filled up” and a third witness said he didn’t know anything about the incident.. An appeal has been filed against the judgment.

* Ruling in the third case on October 22, 2011, R P Sonkar, additional CJM and special judge, Bhopal, threw out the charges under the UAPA but convicted Deshmukh and the others under Sections 153 B and 295 A of the IPC, holding them “guilty of committing acts detrimental to national integration and outraging the feelings of a religious group”. They have gone into appeal against this order too.

Judge Sonkar’s court held that there were evident gaps in the version of the prosecution – the original seizure memo and case diary had gone missing/were “misplaced” and most of the evidence that was filed before the judge was in the form of illegible photocopies. The prosecution had claimed that the written statements of key witnesses had been enclosed in the missing case diary. One of the witnesses, incidentally, turned hostile during the trial and denied the prosecution’s version.

The order noted that the officer who granted sanction for prosecution in the case under the UAPA, Alok Ranjan, MP’s secretary (home), had said during cross-examination that “he was not aware when he granted the sanction” and that “at the time of granting the sanction he had no knowledge about statements of which witnesses were enclosed”.

The judge also remarked that Ranjan was junior in rank to that prescribed under the UAPA for clearing prosecution. Deshmukh was charged under Sections 10 & 13 of the UAPA, which needed sanction from the Centre.

Deshmukh’s Bhopal-based lawyer Parvez Alam accuses the government and courts of ignoring rules.“According to sections 45 and 42 of the UAPA, the state government does not have the power to issue the sanction. Then again according to section 45 of the UAPA, the court cannot take cognisance of charges without the sanction of appropriate authorities. The home secretary is giving sanction for prosecution under all sections when he can do so only under sections 7 and 8. The courts accepted that,” Alam said.

He said police are missing deadlines for filing chargesheets; on occasions they took five years. “In a case under section 153A and B of IPC (promoting communal disharmony and acts detrimental to national integration), if the chargesheet is filed after three years, the court cannot take cognisance.”

About the loss of the case files, he said the court had asked the DGP to register a case within six months against those involved in misplacing the original file but police didn’t do anything.

Deshmukh had four case in Indore and one in Ujjain against him, Alam said, adding he got bail in the Ujjain one last week

 

Over a month, four ‘terror’ arrests in Indore for ‘shouting slogans’ #draconianlaws


 

Muzamil Jaleel : New Delhi, Thu Sep 27 2012, 03:32 hrs, Indian Express

It’s just not Urdu writings or a magazine copy that can get you booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In many cases — including five over the course of one month, April 2008, four of them in Indore alone — the script was the same: a mukhbir or informer tipped off police about men “shouting anti-government slogans” outside mosques or in front of their homes, and the men were arrested and then left to battle it out in court.

* September 27, 2001, Solapur

The case was filed on the day the Centre issued its first notification banning SIMI. Assistant Police Inspector Dattatray Bapurao Patil of Sadar Bazar police station noted in the FIR (3824/2001) that he and his team were patrolling when “we found one person Abdul Rehman Ahmad Ali Kalyani had gathered some people in front of Konchikozi galli… After enquiring about the same, we found that the said person was trying to bring together people who support the organisation (SIMI)”. Kalyani, 19, was arrested under the UAPA. While police admitted that nothing incriminating had been found when they searched Kayani’s house, the Maharashtra government, giving sanction for his prosecution, accused him of carrying out SIMI activities aimed at “secession of Maharashtra territory”.

In its affidavits before the UAPA Tribunal, the Maharashtra government has repeatedly said: “The ultimate aim and ideology of SIMI is pan-Islam movement i.e Islam Education of entire India by adopting Nifaq (hatred), Saria (accruing money by adopting illegal means) and Jihad (holy war).” The claim itself is comical. While nifaq means disunity, the word saria has no such known meaning in either Urdu or Arabic.

Incidentally, Kalyani had a case registered against him earlier too, in 2000, for pasting a poster protesting against the Babri Masjid demolition.

* September 28, 2001, Yavatmal

In the FIR (3200/2001), Pusad City police station officer Prakash Laxmanrao Hingmire recorded that he and his team were on patrol when they found Nisar Ahmad Khan, 22; Wakil Ahmad, 29; and Sheikh R Rafique Farouqi, 21, shouting slogans in the Vasant Nagar area near Aqsa masjid. “They were shouting that Bajrang Dal is also a communal organisation and why the government had not imposed a ban on it.” The youths were arrested and booked under the UAPA.

* April 11, 2008, Indore

Juni police station SHO Mohan Singh Yadav noted in the FIR (200/2008) that a mukhbir informed him that Mohammad Shahid alias Billi and Iqbal of Nandanvan Colony, Indore, were standing near Shyam Nagar masjid and “instigating people and doing propaganda against the government”. Yadav said that he, accompanied by a sub-inspector, four constables and a driver, reached the masjid. “We hid ourselves and found two persons standing near the masjid. They were talking in a secret manner with three-four more people… I asked my accompanying staff to encircle them. When they saw the police, they panicked and we arrested them.”

Yadav claimed they only arrested Shahid and Iqbal, the two people who were talking. He said that during inquiry, the two said they were “preparing the people for jihad, that the government had not done well by arresting the leaders of SIMI and they would take revenge”. The FIR also noted that “Iqbal shouted a slogan as well”, and that seven pamphlets were recovered from Shahid’s pockets and six from Iqbal’s. The two “witnesses” the police named as having been present outside the mosque were “Sanjay” and “Sachin”.

Shahid and Iqbal were booked under sections of the IPC and UAPA. A look at the seizure memo reveals that the pamphlets allegedly recovered from them were old SIMI documents and most of them were photocopies.

* April 2, 2008, Indore

Sadar Bazar police station SHO J D Bhonsale said in the FIR (129/2008) that a mukhbir had informed him that Mohammad Irfan Chheepa of Juna Risala, Indore, had gathered people in the compound of a community hall near his house for avenging the arrest of SIMI leaders. “He was also making statements against the government and talking provocative things against society and country which could raise communal passions,” noted the FIR. Bhonsale said he and his team of a sub-inspector, ASI Bhadoriya, a head constable, and five constables arrived at the spot. “We took cover and saw a person with physical features as stated by the informer who had gathered people and had some papers and pamphlets in his hand. He was talking in an excited manner and was telling the people that ‘you people should also join this organisation so that we all unite and establish government of Islam and you should contribute so that we defeat the Hindustan government’.”

SHO Bhonsale said he asked his force to encircle the people, but they could only arrest Chheepa. The seizure memo in the case showed an appeal in Hindi, ostensibly issued by the SIMI, but with ‘Bismillah’ misspelt.

* April 2, 2008, Indore

In the FIR (35/2008), Inspector Prabha Singh Chouhan of Sarafa police station noted that a mukhbir informed her that senior SIMI worker Zakir Lalla was “instigating people against the government” near Nihalpura masjid. She reached the spot with her team and found “Zakir Lala standing near the masjid and shouting loudly, saying ‘What if the government has banned SIMI? I will not let any member of SIMI be arrested and I will give them my full support. We will join together to take revenge from the government for this’.” Chouhan said a large crowd had gathered but the police managed to arrest only Zakir Lala. The books the police claimed to have recovered from Lala were on teachings of the Prophet and other Islamic literature. Lala was arrested and charged under the UAPA.

* April 2, 2008, Indore

In the FIR (101/2008), Chhoti Gwal Toli police station SHO Inspector B L Meena noted that a mukhbir had informed him that “an active member of SIMI, Amman S/O Mohammad Salim, was trying to energise SIMI through propaganda and for this purpose he is distributing anti-government pamphlets at Sarvate bus stand, Indore”. Meena and his team reached the spot and allegedly found Amman “trying to paste a pamphlet on the pillar in the north direction and saying that ‘What if the government has banned SIMI, I am still associated with it and will get many more people to associate with it and help secure the release of SIMI leaders’.” Amman was initially booked under the UAPA, and later also under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

Five months later, Amman was arrested again by the same police station. In this FIR filed on September 19, 2008, Meena again recorded that he “received information from a mukhbir that Amman was standing at the crossing in front of Ganesh Lodge and trying to increase the number of SIMI activists and help secure bail for the arrested SIMI activists, besides distributing anti-government pamphlets”. Meena and his team reached the spot. A large crowd was reportedly present, but again only Amman was arrested and charged under the UAPA.

* April 7, 2008, Guna, MP

In the FIR (104/2008), Chachoda police station SHO L C Shrivas recorded that on April 7, 2008, they received information that SIMI members were planning a meeting at the house of Rafeeq Moulana in Talheti Mohalla. “During the raid, five persons were apprehended.” Incidentally, the arrested persons were Moulana’s close neighbours. Among various things, the police seized cuttings of Dainik Jagran and Nai Dunia newspapers. Later, a copy of an old SIMI pamphlet protesting the Babri Masjid demolition too was allegedly found. For one of those arrested, Abdul Kadir, the seizure memo said they recovered “a letter written in Urdu (issued by) Darul Aloom Rashidia of Mewat in Rajasthan”. The Darul Aloom is a lawful entity and the letter was a note of introduction for a certain Moulvi Mohammad Usman of Papda, Bharatpur, for collection of donations. The police recorded it as “incriminating material”.

 

Odisha: Dalit woman tonsured, assaulted; 10 arrested


By PTI – SAMBALPUR

08th September 2012 02:15 PM

A Dalit woman was assaulted, tortured and tonsured by locals after holding her responsible for the death of a youth under mysterious circumstances in Sambalpur district, the police said today.

“Ten persons were arrested on the basis of an FIR lodged by the victim Subidha Buda, a Dalit woman of Jayaghanta village in Dhama police station,” Inspector-in-Charge G Barla said.

Buda’s 18-year-old daughter had an affair with Sudam Mahananda of the same village. The duo had eloped from the village on August 11 but Sudam fell ill on the way and was declared brought dead at the government hospital at Jharsuguda, he said.

Holding the 45-year-old woman and her family responsible for Sudam’s death, the villagers had staged a road blockade on August 12 by keeping the body on the road to demand inquiry into the incident and arrest of the culprits, sources said.

They had also asked the family to leave the village, the police said. After being made to leave the village, the family was staying at their elder daughter’s place in nearby Baunsura.

However, the woman had come to her house to take some household goods on Thursday when villagers dragged her out, assaulted and tortured before shaving her head.

However, no case was registered under the SC/ST Atrocities Act as both the complainant and accused belonged to the Scheduled Caste, police officer Burla said.

Cases were registered against 18 persons and effort is on to nab the others involved in the incident, sources said.

Dalit women branded witches, beaten; cops file case 2 weeks later


Hindustan Times
Bhilwara, April 04, 2012

Two weeks after Bhilwara district’s Guwardi village witnessed a case of “witch-hunt”, the local police stirred themselves to file an FIR.

On March 17, a 50-year-old Dalit woman and her daughter-in-law were beaten up by 11 men who had  labelled them “witches”. The men had barged into the  house when the  rest of the family was away. The violence was the fallout of a long-standing property dispute.

But not only was the FIR lodged as late as April 2, Ganpat — son of Ramu Bai and husband of Ladi Devi — said the police had done their best to deter him from filing a complaint.

“The men called them witches, thrashed them and asked them to leave the village,” the complaint read.

The assailants, including Ganpat’s neighbour Raju, his father Hardev Singh, are absconding.

Ganpat said the men were after his land.

After Ganpat met Bhilwara collector Onkar Singh, an FIR was ordered, but the police did not file it. “Instead, on March 25, the police told me not to pursue the case if I wanted peace,” Ganpat said.

Acting superintendent of police, Bhilwara, Rajendra Singh Chowdhury, said he was looking into the delay in filing the FIR.

Madhya Pradesh : Policeman raping woman caught on camera


by FP Staff Mar 14, 2012

A policeman has been caught on video raping a woman in a slum area in Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh.

The police were forced to file an FIR when video evidence was provided: Reuters
IANS reported that the police, who were earlier refusing to entertain a rape complaint against the policeman, were forced to register an FIR when shown the video clip taken on a mobile camera.

The inspector, identified as Pradeep Singh was posted in Seoni district, but had come to Jabalpur to visit a court. Later, he went to a slum area and entered a hut.

When he forced himself on a woman, she cried and people gathered there. The inspector was literally caught on camera with his pants down.

Police first refused to accept her complaint.

But soon a person came with the video clip and the police had to register a FIR against the inspector.

“It is a serious issue and we are acting on it. He (Pradeep Singh) has been arrested and may be dismissed from service,” said Inspector General of Police V Madhukumar.

Rapist agrees to marry victim, seeks FIR quashing.


NEW DELHI: After spending a year in jail on charges of rape, a man has approached the Delhi high court seeking quashing of the FIR against him on the ground that he and the victim have decided to get married.

HC has granted Sanjay partial relief in the form of interim bail till February 14, for getting married to the alleged victim. But Justice Suresh Kait also directed Sanjay to produce the proof of marriage, and only after the court is assured, will it consider his plea to quash the FIR lodged by the woman against him.

According to the FIR, both Sanjay and the victim were employed as domestic help in the house of a businessman in Anand Niketan. Sanjay’s employer and his family went out of Delhi in February last year. According to the complaint of the victim and the case of the prosecution, Sanjay took advantage of the situation and raped the victim. The woman registered her case with Dhaula Kuan police station and Sanjay was arrested on February 18, 2011.

After a year in custody, the couple had an out of court settlement where the accused agreed to marry the victim so that she doesn’t face any ostracism in life. Once the couple came to a settlement, the woman indicated she was willing to withdraw her allegations against Sanjay and both approached HC.

Sanjay had a change of heart in jail and decided to tie the knot with the victim and end their woes, said Sanjay’s lawyer.

TNN news