[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court recently held that freedom of choice in marriage in accordance with law is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and “questions of faith” have no bearing on a person’s freedom to choose a life partner which is the essence of personal liberty.
The high court made this observation in its order of October 13 in a case where a couple got married against the wishes of the woman’s family and the man was allegedly assaulted by the family of his wife subsequently. Emphasising the role of the police in such cases the court held that, “Wherever the life and liberty of any individual is concerned, especially in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law and take necessary measures for protection and safety of applicants concerned, if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from different quarters including their own family members”.
A single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta on October 13 was hearing three bail applications moved by the family of a woman who had married against their consent in December. The complainant, the woman’s husband, alleged on December 22 when the couple returned to Delhi after getting married, his wife’s family became furious and threatened to kill him. The same evening the couple approached Rajouri Garden police station and sought protection. While returning from the police station they were allegedly abducted by his wife’s family and were taken to their house, where the man was brutally beaten and his private parts were amputated with an axe. The prosecution said after the complainant was attacked, he was thrown in a drain from and was rescued by his brother, and admitted to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.
The prosecution said the woman’s grandmother “exhorted that the complainant does not deserve any mercy and directed other family members to chop off the private part of the complainant in order to eliminate the entire problem”. The prosecution alleged that the woman’s mother and aunt also “exhorted that the private part of the complainant is chopped off”.
The bail applications were moved by the mother, grandmother, and sister of the complainant’s wife wherein the mother argued before the HC that no specific role has been attributed to her by the complainant except for “exhortation”. The grandmother contended that she is an 86-year-old woman and suffering from various ailments. The sister who had also sought bail argued that she was not named in the FIR.
The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail applications arguing that the grandmother is a habitual offender and has 42 criminal cases lodged against her. They argued that she along with the mother exhorted the other members of her family to amputate the private part of the complainant. The prosecution said that although “no overt act appears to have been attributed to” the sister, however, she did not take any steps to protect the victims.
Granting bail to the sister, the HC noted that no active role was attributed to her, however, both the mother and grandmother were alleged to have participated in the assault and also exhorted family members for amputation of the private parts of the complainant. “It also cannot be ignored that both petitioners (mother and grandmother) have criminal antecedents and the petitioner (mother) in fact was declared as a proclaimed offender (P.O) during the initial stages of the proceedings,” noted the Delhi HC.
Rejecting bail to the woman’s mother and grandmother the HC held, “In the facts and circumstances, considering the grave nature of offence, ghastly manner in which the assault was made and considering their role in the incident, no grounds for bail are made out in respect of petitioner/accused (mother) and (grandmother)”.
Observing the “deprecable” role of the concerned police officials in the case, the HC noted, “It is unfortunate that in this case necessary steps for ensuring the safety and security of the victims/complainant were not initiated by the SHO, Police Station Rajouri Garden on the complaint of victims, taking it in a routine course while they were expected to act with promptitude… Any such lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police”.
The HC directed that the copy of the order be forwarded to Delhi Police Commissioner to take necessary measures for sensitising police officials in dealing with such complaints, “under intimation to this Court, within a period of four weeks”.
[ad_2]
Source link