ON Friday, March 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of India pronounced its judgement on a gangrape case in Birbhum district of West Bengal. The court verdict indicted the TMC controlled state government, saying that the “state has failed in protecting such serious violation of a victim’s fundamental right.” The judgement also noted the absence of measures “for security and safety of the victim and her family.” The court observed that “The humiliation or the reputation that is snuffed out cannot be recompensed, but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace.” Accordingly, it directed the government of West Bengal “to make a payment of Rs five lakh, in addition to the already sanctioned amount of Rs 50,000, within one month from today.” Emphasising on the importance of rehabilitation of the victim, the court further said, “Nevertheless, the obligation of the state does not extinguish on payment of compensation; rehabilitation of victim is also of paramount importance.” It may be noted that the case reached the apex court when the latter took note of a news item, published in the Business and Financial News of January 23, 2014, relating to the gangrape of a 20 years old tribal woman of Subalpur village (Labpur) in Birbhum district of West Bengal. The crime was committed on the night of January 20, at the order of the village panchayat’s ‘shalisi sabha’ (meeting), as the punishment (sic!) for having relationship with a man from a different caste. On the very next day, the Supreme Court of India had filed a suo moto writ petition (criminal) No 24 of 2014 and posted the same for a three members bench comprising the chief justice of India, P Sathasivam, Justice Sharad Aravind Bobde and Justice N V Ramanna. Moreover, the Supreme Court immediately issued an order directing the Birbhum district judge to inspect the place of occurrence and submit a report within a week. It appointed the additional solicitor general, Sidharth Luthra, as amicus to assist the court. The district judge, accordingly, inspected the place of crime along with the chief judicial magistrate and submitted a report to the Supreme Court. However, finding that the report contained no information as to the steps taken by the police against the culprits, the Supreme Court issued a directive to the chief secretary of West Bengal to submit a detailed report on this matter within two weeks. On the basis of the submission made by the amicus, Mr Luthera, the court judgement recorded several shortcomings in the investigation. These shortcomings indicated a deliberate cover-up exercise to protect the culprits who have been receiving political patronage from the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC). Quoting the amicus, the judgement noted, “The aspect as to whether there was a larger conspiracy must also be seen.” It may be noted that the first information report (FIR) was scribed by Anirban Mondal who is the district president of the TMC. “There is no basis as to how Anirban Mondal came to the police station and there is also no justification for his presence there,” noted the judgement. There were completely different names of one of the accused --- one in the FIR and another in the report of the judicial officer. Further, the FIR was not recorded by a woman police officer or some other woman officer. This was plainly in violation of several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court said there was no reason “for the deputy superintendent of police to re-record the statements on 26.01.2014, 27.01.2014 and 29.01.2014, and that too in gist, which would lead to possible contradictions being derived during cross-examinations.” It raised another question as well: if the salishi (meeting) was related to the concerned village, then how was it that several persons from the neighbouring villages of Bikramur and Rajarampur were present there? Further: “There is variance in the version of the FIR and the report of the judicial officer as to the holding of the meeting (salishi) on the point whether it was held in the night of 20.01.2014 as per the FIR or the next morning as per the judicial officer’s report.” The offences of extortion, criminal intimidation and grievous hurt under different sections of the IPC were not invoked. Referring to several judgements, the Supreme Court noted, “We sometimes hear of ‘honour’ killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment.” Next: “We have in recent years heard of ‘khap panchayats’ (known as ‘katta panchayats’ in Tamilnadu) which often decree or encourage honour killings or other atrocities in an institutionalised way on boys and girls of different castes and religion, who wish to get married or have been married, or interfere with the personal lives of people. We are of the opinion that this is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. As already stated in Lata Singh case, there is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.” The Supreme Court therefore directed that registration of an FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the code, if the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence, and the police officers are duty bound to register the same. It also directed that all hospitals, public or private, whether run by the central government, the state governments, local bodies or any other person, are statutorily obligated under section 357C to provide the first aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under sections of IPC.