It has long been believed that the honor given to women reflects the true essence of any civilized society. Yet, during times of societal turmoil, such as the Gujarat riots in 2002, this honor was brutally disregarded through heinous crimes like rape and sexual assault. This paper examines the case of Bilkis Bano, a victim of gangrape and murder during these riots, focusing on the fairness and legality of the Gujarat Government's decision to grant remission to her convicted assailants under its Remission policy.
The tragic events unfolded on 3rd March 2002 in Chhaparvad district, Gujarat, amidst the aftermath of the Godhra riots. Triggered by the burning of the Sabarmati Express, riots erupted, claiming numerous lives primarily from the Muslim community. In this volatile environment, a mob attacked Bilkis Bano and her family in Randhikpur village, Dahod district. Bilkis, five months pregnant, endured the horrific ordeal of witnessing her family being murdered, including her three-year-old daughter, followed by her own gangrape and that of her sisters in front of her mother.
Despite initially facing police refusal to register her case and threats of dire consequences, Bilkis persisted with support from NGOs and the National Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court intervened in September 2003, ordering Gujarat to reopen the case. Subsequently, the CBI took over and arrested the accused in 2004. The Special CBI Court, in January 2008, sentenced 11 out of 17 accused to life imprisonment under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder and rape. The remaining seven were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Remission refers to the reduction or release of a convicted individual's sentence. Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution, the President and Governors hold the power to pardon, suspend, or commute sentences. Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) grants state governments authority to remit sentences based on certain criteria.
The decision to grant remission involves considerations such as the gravity of the crime, the conduct of the convict in jail, and the impact on society. However, such decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure fairness and legality.
Despite the heinous nature of their crimes, the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were granted remission by the Gujarat Government under its 1992 Remission Policy, which did not set statutory limits and considered good behavior as grounds for early release. This decision was controversial given the severity of their offenses, as outlined in the updated 2014 Remission Policy that barred remission for crimes like rape and murder following the Nirbhaya incident.
The granting of remission in this case raised several legal and constitutional concerns. Section 432(7) of the CrPC designates the state where the offender was sentenced as the appropriate government for remission decisions, yet the Gujarat Government made the decision despite the trial being conducted in Bombay. Additionally, Section 435 mandates consultation with the central government and relevant judges, which was allegedly not adhered to in this case.
The remission of Bilkis Bano's assailants, while legal, raised questions about its alignment with principles of natural justice. The decision seemed at odds with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, which aimed to strengthen laws on crimes against women. Bilkis herself questioned whether justice had been served, fearing the potential for future crimes and the broader message sent to minority communities.
Leave a comment