Minor raped girl demands justice

KARACHI – The rape of a seven-year old poor girl in the camps of the flood affected people, set up at the Super Highway, has once again exposed the brutality and callousness of our social system, while the helpless father of the victim demands unprecedented punishment for the criminals.

Addressing a press conference at the Press Club here on Saturday, Muhammad Idrees Soomro, the father of the victim Arifa, 7, said that his daughter was kidnapped from her residential camp area by Amir Shah on February 2, 2013, and subjected to gang rape.

The unfortunate father, with tearing eyes, said that the self-generated Panchayat of the camps was trying to save Amir Shah from any legal action but fortunately some social workers, living in Gulshan-e-Maymar, a residential locality situated at the Super Highway, bring the issue to Gulshan-e-Maymar Police Station where the case was registered.

It is pertinent to mention here that Idrees Soomro is a labourer who works on daily basis to earn bread and butter. He has six children. During the press conference, he was with his whole family, including the victim. Their faces were depicting the picture of deep sorrow and sadness, and raising question about the justice to the dead social system of the country where annually hundreds of women and minors have become the victims of gang rape. The disgusting thing is that various cases go unchecked in the country which is really a matter of concern for social institutions of the country. As per Awaz Foundation Centre for Development, a total of 2,713 cases of violence against women have been reported in 15 districts of southern Punjab during last year.

He said, “The minor girl was brutally raped. After the incident, some people living in the camps took the girl to Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, where she was admitted for three days following her bad state of health. Two medicolegal officers of JPMC, including Dr Halima and Dr Erum have reported the medial examination confirmed that the girl had been gang-raped.”

Soomro demanded the higher authorities to provide justice to her minor girl and his family, and direct the police authorities to arrest the culprits.

Meanwhile, the Sindh Assembly here the other day recommended the Sindh government to give compensation to the martyrs of Karsaz bomb blast by allotting them land/flats and aid in grant, who lost their lives in the incident during the arrival of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto on October 18, 2007 in Karachi.

Sindh Assembly adopted a resolution of ruling PPP’s MPA Mujadid Isran unanimously, which reads as: “This House resolves and recommends the provincial government to compensate the families of the martyrs particularly of ‘Shaheeds’ of Karsaz blast by way of grant in aid or allotment of land or government flats”.
The house also passed another resolution unanimously moved by the provincial minister for culture Sassui Palijo, which reads as: “This house pays tribute to literary, linguistic, well-known legal expert Sirajul Haq Memon, who was one of the contemporary historians of Sindh. His name will stand as pioneer leading lights in literature. No doubts, his contributions will remember as beacon and brilliance in the history.”

The Nation

Justice or gender bias?

By M.J Akbar

A Supreme Court judgment in India may be anchored in law, but it sails a long way through the minds of judges before it becomes a public pronouncement. Law and justice are both human and therefore prone to frailty and error. But we respect the Supreme Court as the final authority because we trust its integrity enough to believe that even the occasional mistake is an honest one.

One means through which the legal system protects its credibility is the doctrine of “contempt of court”. Dissent is not recommended, at least if you want to stay at home rather than in a cell. But surely their Lordships will permit some space for perplexity. There must be an anteroom for discussion, particularly since a Supreme Court judgement is much more than the final word on the fate of an individual criminal. It is also the template by which all courts in the nation will shape their decisions in millions of cases in process of judgement, or in crimes of the future.

On 5 February newspapers reported that Justices P. Sathasivam and J.S. Khekar had confirmed the death penalty on an adult who had kidnapped a seven-year-old boy and then killed him after failing to obtain ransom. The justices concluded that they saw no hope of reform in the criminal, that his perversion was inhuman, and the murder was cold and premeditated. All of this is absolutely true; the rationale for their decision to confirm the death penalty is inarguable.

But there was a curious codicil in the justification, which their Lordships noted as aggravating circumstances. I quote: “The parents of the deceased had four children, three daughters and one son… Kidnapping the only male child was to induce maximum fear in the minds of his parents. Purposefully killing the sole male child has grave repercussions for the parents of the deceased…” The bench continued: “Agony for parents for the loss of their male child, who would have carried further the family lineage, and is expected to see them through their old age, is unfathomable.”

The implications of such thinking are astonishing. It implies clearly that the parents’ agony would have been less if one of the three daughters had been similarly kidnapped and murdered, for the girl would not continue family lineage or provide for her parents in their old age. The judges stressed that the “sole male child” was the bearer of “the family lineage” and sustenance provider.

Which world are the judges living in?

We know the world they inhabit from another judgement, delivered just a week before, also involving an appeal against a death penalty. Justice Sathasivam was again on the bench, this time in the company of Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla. It is difficult to repeat their decision without a sense of horror at the double standards that the Supreme Court has applied. Before them was a man convicted by both the trial and high court. This savage murderer had raped his minor daughter, and been arrested after his wife complained to the police. When released on parole, he axed both his wife and daughter to death.

This abominable, barbaric rapist and killer lives, thanks to their Lordships Sathasivam and Kalifulla.
One wonders: Has the great ferment rising across India against rape and gender prejudice escaped the attention of the Supreme Court? Chief Justice Altamas Kabir has certainly heard the howl of anguish from women. He said that if it had been possible he would have joined the protests in Delhi. Was the Chief Justice helpless while his brothers delivered such discordant pronouncements? What will trial courts and high courts do in future when a father who has raped and killed his minor daughter, and has axed his wife for being a mother, appears before them? Will they stop long short of a death sentence the next time, because of the precedent set by Justices Sathasivam and Kalifulla? Is the life of a raped and murdered minor girl less than equal to the life of a kidnapped and murdered boy? Does a man who killed two women deserve clemency, while the man who killed one boy gets hanged?

Is this justice?

Dawn