Suggestions to reform Women Law

I have sent below Suggestions to Justice Verma Commitee along with my analysis.

1) Enactment of Sentencing guideline

Sentencing guideline should be inserted in IPC in order to minimize disparity in sentences before amending section 376 and 377 to permit death penalty as punishment in rarest of rare cases. Please refer Federal Sentencing Guidelines of United States.[1][1]

2) Registration and maintenance of sex offender’s information in the registry in every district.

In every District it is needed to have sex offenders’ registry. Every sex offender should record his whereabouts in it for certain years as determined by Court.

Hon’ble Committee is requested to recommend the government to appoint study committee to analyze Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.[2][2] Jacob Wetterling Act. Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking Law and enact similar statute in India.

3) Offense under section 377 of IPC should be made triable by Court of Session and the word ‘carnal intercourse should be replaced with the word ‘carnal knowledge’. [3][3]

Replacing ‘carnal knowledge will increase scope and cover all the possibilities of sexual conduct. Definition of Carnal knowledge should be mentioned. Comparative study of 50 states of United States and other countries regarding definition of rape and carnal knowledge show that definition of carnal knowledge in Virginia Code Section 18.2-63 is flawless and can be incorporated in section 377 of IPC.

4) Statements of prosecutrix should be recorded before judicial magistrate only depending on mental condition of her at that time.

This step will minimize the acquittals due to settlement with prosecutrix, as even prosecutrix gives admissions in her cross examination; trial court may convict accused on the basis of her statement before magistrate if there is strong corroboration of medical evidence[4][4].

5) Provision of adverse inference against accused should be made in Indian Evidence Act in the case of totally different version in cross examination of prosecutrix.

Provision should be made that, if prosecutrix gives totally different version  in her cross examination from her earlier version under section 162 or 164 and become hostile then Court should make adverse inference against accused that he has managed to settle the case with prosecutrix. Court should appreciate medical evidence to the fullest amplitude to convict the accused.

6) Provision in Cr.P.C. for automatic appeal to High Court in acquittal cases of rape.

As it is observed that in many acquittal cases, prosecutrix gives different statements before court from her earlier version before police officers. It is only because of inordinate delay in trial, accused gets enough time to contact prosecutrix and their relatives, he pressurizes and makes involvement of some political person or respectable person and settlement is done. Needless to say prosecutrix gives many admissions in cross examination favorable to accused which results in acquittal.

7) Provision to give right for Complainant to appoint advocate of his choice to assist investigation machinery.

Some prosecution machinery fails due to lacunae in investigation and collection of evidence. Appointing advocate from the starting point of investigation will increase success rate of prosecution. There will be narrow scope for investigation machinery to deliberately keep lacunae under statement recoded under section 162 of Cr.P.C. and any other laws.

8) Section 24 of Cr.P.C. should be amended with object to increase quality of selection procedure of public prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors.

It is very horrible that unlike selection procedure of Assistant public prosecutors, there is no written examination, and interview for selection of public prosecutor and additional public prosecutors. It appears to be a totally political post. Only requirement is that 7 years practice in Court of Session is necessary. Needless to say (political player is hidden criteria). It is apparent that many Public Prosecutors, and Assistant Public Prosecutors even do not understand English properly, some are still struggling to understand appreciation of evidence after holding such important post for so many years. Inefficiency of Prosecutors is also prime reason to increase acquittal percentage.

High Court should ask to Court of Session to provide list of efficient prosecutors and direct State Government to make criteria stricter.

9) Sentencing hearing with detailed reasoning of sentence

Our Trial Court Judges conduct hearing on trial and if found guilty, they conduct small hearing to determine quantum of sentence. Quantum of sentence imposed should be reflected by detailed reasoning in the Judgment. Our Trial Court Judges give detail reasoning for conviction or acquittal. But once convicted, they feel 4-5 lines regarding adequate sentence would be suffice.

10) CHEMICAL CASTRATION can be introduced as way of punishment.

But there are many hurdles. In Florida and California this method of punishment is prevailed to certain extent. We live in cultured democratic and argumentative society where unlike United States; uniformity of criminal law is prevailed, hence we must have debate on this topic. We should appoint study committee for analyzing this way of punishment prevailed in Florida and California and its practical acceptability in the light of Article 21, 20 and 14 of Indian Constitution.

11) Fine in IPC should be increased

12) Police reform and medical evidence and forensic evidence agencies reform is discussed for many years but there is no political will to reform due to many reasons including prime reason as ‘underfunding’.

[1][1] Sentencing Reform Act of 1984

Federal Sentencing Guidelines is the product of United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Act. The Guidelines' primary goal is to lessen sentencing disparities that research had indicated was prevalent in the existing sentencing system, and the guidelines reform was specifically intended to provide for determinate sentencing. In India, there is sentencing disparity found in capital cases. Letters sent to the President of India by Some Justices to commute the sentence imposed to few offenders is latest proof of it. Hence Sentencing guideline is necessary and helpful for courts to determine quantum of punishment. Please also refer, United States v. Booker 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Blakely v. Washington542 U.S. 296 (2004) to get idea and avoiding successful constitutional challenge against such guideline in India.