Death penalty for killing a male child, life imprisonment for raping minor daughter and killing her and wife

The Supreme Court of India through a judgment has shown that it places more 'value' on a male child than a female child and a woman.

The following report appeared in the Times of India today:

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered death penalty to a man who murdered a seven-year-old boy after kidnapping him for ransom, justifying the capital punishment on several grounds, including that killing the sole male child meant that the family lineage could not be carried forward.


Citing disruption of family lineage as one of the seven aggravating grounds why they thought the convict deserved no leniency, a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and J S Khehar said, "The choice of kidnapping the particular child for ransom was well planned and consciously motivated. 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 mind 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. Extreme misery caused to the aggrieved party certainly adds to the aggravating circumstances."   For the complete report click on this link.

Barely a week ago, the Supreme Court had commuted death penalty awarded to a man for raping his minor daughter and then killing her and his wife.  Both the trial court and the high court had awarded death to the man.  But the Supreme Court lessened his punishment to life and went further, leaving it open for remission.  (I had posted on this) 

When educated learned judges of the highest court of the land place more value on a male life than that of the female, then we cannot expect ordinary families to treat their girls on par with their sons. So one thing is certain: It will be quite a while before things change for the Indian girl. 

A disturbing judgement

A 19-year-old mentally challenged woman whose mental age is described as nine was raped by an attendant in a shelter home in Chandigarh. A few weeks later, when she developed what has been reported as "some complications" it was realised that she was carrying. And the authorites approached the High Court to have her pregnancy terminated. The High Court was in favour of terminating the pregnancy.

Then some activists on the woman's behalf approached the Supreme Court to have a stay on the High Court order. They wanted the woman to give birth to a child. The Court was told that the woman was an orphan, and as she had no blood relative she should be allowed to keep the baby. The woman too, it was said, wanted to have the baby. The Supreme Court has stated that the woman be allowed to carry the child full term.

As a woman I am horrified.

First, the woman who is bearing the child needs looking after herself as she has the mental age of a nine year old child. The State has been found to be deficient in its care of the woman. One of the attendants of the home where she was kept raped her.

Now the judges want the woman to carry full term, bring into the world a baby who would neither have a father, nor a mother who could look after it. Who would then take care of the baby? The State that has been found to be lacking?

Second, the pregnancy follows a rape. Now, I do not know of any woman who would want to carry a child of a man who has raped her. One must realise that her feelings for the foetus have yet to be developed. But her feelings for the rapist exist. And these would be unhappy and torturous. Usually if matters are in a woman's hand, she gets rid of such a foetus at the first opportunity.

It is said the woman wants the baby. In this case, the woman is not in a position to decide what is in her best interest. She does not know was bringing up a child entails.  The decision has to be made for the woman.

Third, are the persons who are so vociferously fighting for the woman to carry the child, prepared to help the mother look after it? Are they ready to assume the responsibility for the child till he or she attains adulthood? If not, then they have no business to advocate that she carry the child full term. Why saddle the woman, who is herself a child, with the task of looking after a baby?

The court is reported to have cast aside the objection to the prospect of the mentally challenged girl delivering the baby when she is not able to take care of herself. “The nature has its own methodology,” it said. Now what does that mean? That nature by some magic is going to take care of the baby? I found this statement reported in the media about what the judges said, very horrifying.
 --------------------------------------
 THREE YEARS LATER.........
Three years later the court pronounces its judgement on the rapist. It was found that the girl was gangraped. What makes it worse is that the people who the state had appointed to take care of abandoned and orphaned children had raped the girl in their care. And there were two women who allowed the men to exploit the girl. Horrifying!
The link to the article as it appeared in Indian Express