Aparna Bhatt vs State of Madhya
Pradesh
In the Supreme Court
of India
|
NAME OF THE CASE |
Aparna Bhatt vs State of Madhya
Pradesh |
|
CITATION |
Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021 |
|
DATE OF JUDGEMENT |
18 March, 2021 |
|
APPELANT |
APARNA BHAT & ORS |
|
RESPONDENT |
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &
ANR. |
|
BENCH/JUDGE |
Justice S Ravindra Bhat Justice AM Khanwilkar |
|
IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES |
Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 Section 438 of Criminal Procedure
Code |
ABSTRACT
In the present case, the apex court issued some guidelines
to be followed while dealing with sexual crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld
the dignity of a woman and said that no compromise can be made in the matter of
sexual offences as it will be against the honour and dignity of a women. The
court addressed the ‘entrenched paternalistic and misogynistic attitudes’ in
judgments. The court issued conditions to be followed while dealing with bail
matters.
INTRODUCTION
Rape and sexual assault are the social problem and is one of
most heinous crimes that effects the millions of people each year. Rape is an
unlawful sexual activity against the will of the victim, through force or
threat. On the other hand, Sexual assault is a much wider term which can be
verbal, physical, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted
sexual contact or attention. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes.
Section376[1]
of Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of rape and the punishment for the
same. Section 506[2]
deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation, it is punishable by two
years in jail, a fine, or both.
The present case deals with the bail conditions and the do’s
and don'ts regarding it. The apex court quashed the bail conditions imposed by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court and issued various guidelines regarding the same.
FACTS
The Madhya Pradesh High court on July 30 has given a
controversial order which was challenged by the Advocate Aparna Bhatt and eight
other lawyers on the ground that the order was unjustified and impugned. Where
the court ordered the accused of sexual assault to visit the victim’s house on
the occasion of Raksha Bandhan with a Rakhi and get it tied by her as a condition
for his bail.
The incident took place on 20th April, 2020, when
the accused entered the complainant’s (Sarda Bai) house and tried to harass and
sexually abuse her. The malafide intention was quite evident from his act. This
led to filing of a FIR and after the due investigation by the police a charge
sheet was filed against him. Subsequently, the accused under Section 438[3]
of Criminal Procedure Code has filed for the anticipatory bail. The Madhya
Pradesh High Court has accepted the same and had granted the accused bail on
the pretext of the condition that he'll go to the victim's house on August 3,
2020 on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and get it tied. He was also directed to
take a package of sweets with Rs.11000 as a gesture of gift that a brother gifts
to his sister as a customary ritual that is followed in this occasion. The
accused was ordered to protect the complainant as a brother from all the odds.
The following order was challenged by the petitioner in the apex court.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
· Whether such compromise made by the
court are acceptable or not?
· Is the judgement justifiable?
·
Is
such compromise is valid between an accused and the victim?
·
How
such kind of judgements will affect the society at large?
·
Can
an accused be permitted to meet the victim or the family?
·
What
are the guidelines that a court must adhere to while granting bail and
anticipatory bail?
ARGUMENTS
FROM THE PETITIONERS SIDE
The appellants cite Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar[4]
and Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)[5]
and argue that this court’s observations in those decisions must be followed by
every court while considering and dealing with bail applications. The Writ
petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court contained the following
prayers:
·
The
apex court ordered the High Court and other subordinate courts for not making
such observations which can trivialize the honour and dignity of a women.
·
The
marriage between the accused and the victim in these kinds of cases shall not
be promoted, otherwise it will be a sheer attack on their dignity. The court
before making such orders referred to a 2015 case named State Of M.P vs
Madanlal[6].
·
No
judgement should be made which reflects the biasness and prejudices of the
judges that harms women's dignity.
·
Court
should restrict itself from encouraging any kind of relationship between the
accused and the victim and should also not mandate mediation.
·
The
court was requested to be more gender sensitive and was encouraged to issue
guideline on Gender Sensitization.
RELATED PROVISIONS
®
Indian
Penal Code, 1860
·
Section
376: This particular section deals with punishment of rape. It states that
whoever commits such a heinous offence ‘shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine.
·
Section
506: Criminal Intimidation is defined under Section 503 of Indian Penal Code
and the punishment for the same is mentioned under Section 506. Criminal
Intimidation means when a person threatens the other to cause damage to his
reputation, body or property or any other individual in whom he has vested
interest. According to the Oxford dictionary, it means “to intimidate someone
in order that the other person acts as we desire". As per IPC, it is
punishable by two years in jail, a fine, or both.
®
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973
·
Section
438: The section deals with the provision of ‘Anticipatory Bail'. The objective
behind this is to protect the people from false and malicious prosecution. It
is often applied by the person who anticipates arrests.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court. The apex court ordered that the in such a cases court must
act more sensitively and should be unbiased and unprejudiced towards the
victim. The court in all circumstances must protect the dignity of the women
and should not encourage any kind of relationship or mediation between the
parties. The courts are ordered to be more gender neutral and must uphold
impartial and neutral conduct of the trial.
The petitioner urged the court to include ‘Gender Sensitization’ in law
schools, bar and bench and also as part of training for newly appointed judges.
This prayer was duly accepted and encouraged by the apex Court and in
furtherance of the same the court issued few guidelines[7]
that must be followed during the judicial proceedings, these are:
·
The
bail conditions should not mandate any type of contact between the accused and
the victim or the family. Also, if a bail is granted to the accused, the
complainant must be informed about the same within two days with a copy of bail
order.
·
The
court shall not encourage any type of relationship between the parties or it is
also not supposed to mandate mediation for the same.
·
The
Bail conditions must be in conformity with the CRPC and it must not reflect any
kind of biasness or patriarchal attitude towards women.
·
The
court must act more sensitively and it must not utter any words which might
shake the confidence of the victim or which may cause her trauma.
·
The
National Judicial Academy has been directed to include a module for ‘Gender
Sensitization’ to train the young judges.
·
The
Bar Council of India has been mandated to integrate ‘Gender Sensitization’ in
the L.L.B curriculumand also to include it in the syllabus of All-India Bar
Exam.
The apex court applauded the petitioner for her insightful
and fruitful ideas and had quashed the judgement by the Madhya Pradesh High
court. The guidelines issued by the court in this judgement had set an
important precedent for courts to be followed in their future conduct.
CONCLUSION
Since eons women had been subjected to discrimination on
many grounds. They have always been deprived of basic acceptance, still they
have to face biasness on many matters. It is the responsibility of the judicial
system of the country to completely avoid ‘Judicial Stereotyping’ I.e.,
stereotyping based on particular gender, caste, behavior or any particular
community because this completely undermines the true spirit of free and fair
trial. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court is a ray of hope for
achieving more gender-neutral process of trial. The integration of ‘Gender
Sensitization’ in the training of fresh judges in National Judicial Academy is
a way forward. By this order, the apex court has set a significant precedent which
will be followed in future while dealing with sexual offence related cases.
Hence, the gender biased free judgement must be the most prominent objective of
every judicial trial. This will not only lead to protecting and enhancing
women's dignity and honour but also uphold the spirit of justice.
[1] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S-376
[2]The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S-506
[3] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S-438
0 Comments