Ruchika Girhotra must be really proud of her death. After sixteen years of her lonely suicide, and running away from life, finally she has made her death meaningful. If at all the dead could see around, she must be the one most satisfied and fulfilled on this last day of 2009.
Not just because her sinner is having his turn in this world. But because the government decided to make a remarkable amendment to the Victorian CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) giving victims the right to fight back against an ‘unjust’ judgment.
Ruchika’s case has brought forth in the public domain that ‘victims cannot be further more victimized’ because the court did not have enough evidence. The amendment in the CrPC has given the victims the right to appeal against a court order ‘acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence’. Under the amended section 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Till about now an appeal could have been made only if the prosecution so decided and most cases the victims had to be contended with whatever punishment was conferred to the convicted by the court.
A further new amendment to be notified is in section 357A where victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried. More so in the case of child rape the police has to complete investigation within three months of registering the case.
In Ruchika’s case the CBI had concluded that Rathore had indeed ‘molested Ruchika’. But the offence is punishable under Section 354 (i.e outraging the modesty of a woman) of the IPC, and the punishment for which is imprisonment up to two years. The limitation for filing such cases extends upto two years. The CBI had to move an application for condoning the delay as the case had been filed a good 10 years later. However, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) empowers the court to take cognisance after the expiry of the period of limitation if the court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.
In Ruchika’s case first of all it was justice delayed for nineteen years. ‘ Justice delayed is justice denied’. Justice was delayed, as the process for seeking justice was long and complicated. Ruchika’s case was not even registered until 1997 and investigations got concluded in 1999. But it took another ten years time for pronouncing judgment leading to a mere six months rigorous punishment and a thousand rupees fine. No wonder a laughing S P S Rathore came out of the court.
Rathore is convicted for outraging the modesty of a girl. The law says he could get a punishment for a maximum of two years and he got six months. That is fine. But, Ruchika has lost her life because of the trauma and the torture to her family. Her family suffered with hopes of justice for long nineteen years. And finally now Ruchika and her likes have the right to voice their opinion against the quantum of punishment conferred to their offender.
I really feel it is a great commendable change in our system. If justice is done it should also appear that justice has been done. Not with a judgment where the victim is abetted to suicide and the perpetrator walks off with a six months imprisonment.
In Rizwanur Rehman even after the hype and the media glare, the perpetrators are on bail walking freely even as his old mother silently cries in one corner of her small house. The same is the situation with the family of those been run down by the Bollywood hero Salman Khan. If we look around there would hundreds of cases where the high and the mighty have the power and the money to delay and influence justice.
With the victims right to appeal judgment, justice can still get delayed but will not be denied, that easily.
No comments:
Post a Comment