- ticket title
- Law Mantra invites application for Research Associates; Apply before 15th Nov, 2017
- UPES Litigation Workshop on Criminal Law: Practice, Procedure and Compliance [Dec 11 – 15, Dehradun]: Register by Nov 11
- Good Governance Yatra Travel Program for Change Agents [Dec 15-23, Delhi, UP, Bihar]: Apply by Oct 22
- Call for Papers Two Day National Seminar on Women’s Rights Issues &Challenges (Nov 8 & 9) Submit by Oct 24
- Supreme Court: App-Based Transport Service Providers Like Uber, Ola, Redbus Needed To Be Regulated To Ensure Safety Of Women Commuters.
Yesterday, Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to three former students of Jindal Global Law School who appealed their conviction order passed by Sonepat Trial Court in gang rape case. The accusation against the accused’s is that the accused had forced Prosecutrix (fellow student) to comply with their sexual demands over a two year period, before she registered a complaint with the police.
Prosecutrix contended that she had been made to have sex against her will, cut classes to comply with demands made by the accused and had been threatened with publication of the nude photographs if she did not abide by the wishes of the accused.
The FIR pertaining to an offence was registered on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix, however, after an afresh vigilant consideration by the Justices of the Court culminated that “The testimony of the victim does offer an alternate story of casual relationship with her friends, acquaintances, adventurism, and experimentation in sexual encounters and these factors would therefore, offer a compelling reasons to consider the prayer for suspension of sentence favourably, particularly when the accused themselves are young and the narrative does not throw up gut-wrenching violence that normally precede or accompany such incidents.”
Appraising the age and circumstances squarely covered the case, court observed that “It would be a travesty if these young minds are confined to jail for an inordinate long period which would deprive them of their education, opportunity to redeem themselves and be a part of the society as normal beings. Long incarceration at this stage when the appeal is not likely to mature for some time is likely to result in an irreparable damage. We are also of the opinion the pendnecy of appeal, ironically may work as a guarantee to prevent a repeat resulting from fear of incarceration in the event of failure of appeal.”
Apart from the above court elucidates that “Nothing said above should be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.”