• Advance Search
  • From Date

    To Date

 Click here to sort older casesTotal records:1115

Rape of a Dalit Woman Nangal

  • Posted by: Centre for Dalit Rights
  • Date of incident: 29-11-2002
  • Create date: 20-03-2014
  • State:: Rajasthan
  • District:: DAUSA
  • Police station:: Nangal
  • Chargesheet:: 30.11.02, No. 446/02, u/s 452, 376 IPC & 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (PoA) Act., Chargesheet Filed
  • Summary::

    Chauthi Devi lives with her husband in Aluda village in Dausa District. Her husband works as a daily wage laborer.  At the day of incident, on November 29, 2002 around 11 am her husband was out for work and Chauthi Devi was feeding her child at her house. Suddenly Gulya Mali entered her room and closed the door. Gulya Mali grasped her both hands and flung her over the bed. Chauthi Devi shouted but Gulya shut her mouth by a handkerchief. Then he removed Chauthi’s lower wear and forcedly raped her. Chauthi Devi tried her best to rescue herself; she kicked him but Gulya did not give up and abused her in the name of caste and threatened her. Listening clamor, nearby people came to see what has happened. On seeing others coming, Gulya ran away from there. Because of the struggle to rescue, Chauthi Devi got injured very badly. She got so many injuries at various parts of her body. Somehow Chauthi Devi came out of her room and told her Uncle & Doctor Sunil about the whole incident. They then told her husband when he came back in evening. Next day Chauthi Devi & her husband went to the Police Station to lodge an FIR. The Local police registered Chauthi Devi’s FIR in appropriate sections and started investigation. Same day of registering FIR, Chauthi Devi was sent for medical examination to the Government hospital. Chauthi Devi and her family were threatened by the accused to withdraw the case otherwise they will have to leave the village. She reported this in Police but Police did nothing in this regard. Even in all these circumstances Chauthi Devi didn’t give up and didn’t compromise with the accused. She left the village due to accused; her husband was beaten very badly by the accused.


    The Local police registered Chauthi Devi’s FIR. Initially local police was not ready to register the case but somehow her husband was successful in lodging FIR. Copy of FIR was not given to him in spite of repetitive requests. Thereafter Chauthi Devi was sent for medical examination to the Government hospital. Chauthi Devi and her family were threatened by the accused to withdraw the case otherwise they will have to leave the village. She reported this in Police but Police did nothing in this regard. Accused was not arrested by the Police even after very long time. Once Chauthi Devi’s husband informed Police about the place where accused was; Police with Chauthi’s husband went to that place to arrest him but even in the presence of Police, accused brutally beaten up her husband. The police stood aside and watched the ‘game’ but did not come forward to rescue the poor man. Because of the threats and terror, Chauthi Devi and her family left the village and migrated to another place but the accused found them out in 15 days and threatened them to compromise.


    On 21 April 2003, Chauthi Devi’s statement was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C after 5 months from the date of incident. Chauthi Devi clearly stated about the forced intercourse with her by the accused even then on 6th June 2003, the sitting Judge Chandra Kala Gupta released the accused on bail. As the accused was released on bail, he started threatening Chauthi Devi and family and compelled them to leave the village. During trial Chauthi Devi presented an application alleging that she has been continuously threatened by the accused to leave the villag. Later on the case was decided on January 8th, 2004 and the accused was punished. 


Social Boycott with Dalits

  • Posted by: Dalit Dasta Virodhi Andolan
  • Date of incident: 07-09-2002
  • Create date: 02-03-2014
  • State:: Punjab
  • District:: PATIALA
  • Police station:: Nabha
  • Chargesheet:: No F.I.R.
  • Summary:: The landlords claimed that many Dalit labourers had left service and filed false cases under the Bonded labour Act. Landlord -labour relations plummeted to a new low in the Malwa region with disturbance in village-Moondkhera at distt- Patiala. This has resulted in farmers hardening their stand and fifteen village Panchayats got together to tackle the problem of cases registered against them under the Bonded Labour Act. DDVA had lodged a complaint with NHRC to register cases against their employers under the Bonded Labour Act. The farmers claimed that none of the aggrieved labourers were ever treated and also complaint that the labourers had approached the NHRC .The landlords from Momian, Rampur Parta, Buta Singhwala,Thudia Sodiwal, Harchandpur, Sadharanpur, Bakraha, Arenetu, Dera Bikanerian,Seonakath and other villages collected in Gurudwara of Badshahpur village to discuss the issue. The meeting which took the shape of a “Kisan Sammelan”, appealed to the government to save them from such cases. The farmers also claimed that if nothing was done in this regard, suicides among the landlords would increase. They said loans given by the farmers to the labourers were lost and the labourers were indulging in litigations. Moreover, the farmers could neither hire more labour nor ask commission agents for more loans. The immediate provocation for the Sammelan was the allegation by some labourers of Sadharanpur village that they were being made to work like bonded labourers by some farmers of the nearby Seonakath village. The labourers approached the Patiala Deputy Commissioner, through the Dalit Dasta Virodhi Andolan , claiming that the farmers of Seonakath village had formed a committee and announced a social boycott against them from the village Gurudwara.The labourers alleged that they were not being allowed to cut fodder and shopkeepers had been directed not to give them provision. Meanwhile, in another application submitted to the District Administration of Fatehgarh Sahib. Dalit labourer Gurmail Singh accused farmer of calculating his pay and other dues “unfairly”. The labourer accused the landlord of claiming Rs. 50,000 in dues from him even though he had been paid only Rs. 5000 of his annual wage of Rs.22, 000. The applicant also alleged that the landlord had threatened his family and despite complaints to the administration no action had been taken in the case. The affected dalits also sent a letter to Chief Minister seeking his immediate intervention for resolving the matter. They also demanded a probe in the matter through an independent investigation agency and action against the accused. The dalit farm labourers who had lodged a complaint were Jagar Singh, Kala Singh, Lal Singh, Balkar Singh, Babu Singh, Jagga Singh, Amarjit Singh and Darai Khan. They complaint that they were facing hardship as on the instructions of the village landlords, the shopkeepers, milkmen and others had stopped supply of essential items to them under the social boycott and a penalty of Rs.2000 had been fixed for violators. The landlords said that the social boycott had been clamped against labourers as they had approached the Human Rights Commission and the labour court against the landlords. The labourers also demanded action as per law against the village landlords for calling this alleged social boycott. The landlords had clamped social boycott against the fifteen blacklisted labourers. They had directed the milk vendor and Shopkeepers not to transact with the blacklisted labourers . They had also fined Rs. 2000 to a shopkeeper for selling two kg sugar to one of the blacklisted Dalits. They also informed the adjacent villages to stop any transaction with the blacklisted Dalits (Vigayanik Soch, 6 Sep. 2002).


Gang Rape of a Dalit Woman Barmer

  • Posted by: Centre for Dalit Rights
  • Date of incident: 30-06-2002
  • Create date: 20-03-2014
  • State:: Rajasthan
  • District:: BARMER
  • Police station:: Gudamalani
  • Chargesheet:: 09.07.02, No. 57/02, u/s 376, 342 IPC & 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, No Chargesheet
  • Summary::

    Sua Devi (30) w/o Poonma Ram is r/of Peeprali village, under Gudamalani police station in Barmer Dist. belongs to Scheduled Caste community.  Sua Devi got married in a very young age and came to her in-laws house at the age of 15 years. Her husband Poonma Ram has been suffering from mental disorder for the last 20 years and thus unable to work and take care of his family. The whole burden of family’s livelihood was on Sua Devi. Sua Devi has four children, one son and three daughters, all minors. She earned her livelihood by working as a daily wages laborer.

    On June 30, 2002, the day of incident, as usual Sua with her son Rau went for in a famine relief muster roll construction work. At 1 O’ clock in the afternoon, her daughter Reshmi came and told Sua that supply of IRD wheat grains has started. Sua with her kids went to an under construction hospital to get an empty sack to store wheat grains. The supervisor Mishra Ram was there who told her that Sarpanch Khuma Ram is calling her inside the room (in that hospital). Sua entered the room with her son and as her daughter was also entering, Mishra Ram stopped her outside and suddenly closed the door. She saw Khuma Ram, Sarpanch of the village, Giridharpuri, the contractor, and Mool Singh, the mason, were sitting on a bed lying inside. They made Sua’s son Rau to sit in the corner. As she tried to escape, Sarpanch ordered others to take hold of her. They caught Sua and clutched her mouth. They then forcefully flanged her on the bed and threatened her to kill her son and dishonor her daughter if she will speak out. Sua screamed out for help but the Sarpanch closed her mouth with his hand and stripped off her clothes and brutally raped her.


    Subsequently Mool Singh & Girdhar Puri raped and bite her at various parts of her body. After that the mason went out and sent Mishra Ram inside, and then he also raped her. Sua Devi got injuries at various parts of her body and blood started bleeding out of her genital parts. After that the accused let her go home and threatened her not to tell anyone in the village otherwise she will lose her and her children’s life. Sua’s younger daughter Reshmi who was standing outside saw the whole incident. When she tried to shout, Mishra Ram threatened her that if she will shout, he will throw her into the water tank nearby.


    After 2 days Sua decided to tell everyone about the incident and went to the village. Mishra Ram saw her and started abusing her and beaten her up with bamboo stick. Sua’s left leg got injured by these beatings. He did not allow her to go to the police station. She went back home but did not give up and somehow managed to go to Barmer. On the way she met Sanwala Ram and Bhagwan Ram of her village and narrated them what has befallen on her; they suggested her to meet Superintendent of Police. So she went to S.P. office and told him about the whole incident. Thereafter her FIR was registered on 9 July, 02, No. 57/02, u/s 376, 342 IPC & 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. and medical examination was done.


    Sarpanch ordered Patwari (Revenue officer of the village) not to give any work to Sua devi and asked the school children to throw stones on her. Sarpanch issued a circular in the village that if anyone gives work to Sua, he would be punished. Thus she was denied to any work of employment by the individuals, Panchayat and other government agencies at behest of perpetrators. The villagers imposed social boycott on Sua Devi and even she was not permitted to enter the village. Community as a whole and dominant caste of the village denied the occurrence of incident on the ground that she is a characterless lady and tried to implicate the perpetrators in a false case. Sua and her children were beaten up and humiliated by the villagers. 


Rape of a Dalit Woman Kanota

  • Posted by: Centre for Dalit Rights
  • Date of incident: 25-05-2002
  • Create date: 21-03-2014
  • State:: Rajasthan
  • District:: JAIPUR (R)
  • Police station:: Kanota
  • Chargesheet:: 26.05.02, No. 168/ 02, u/s 376, 511, 323 IPC & 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
  • Summary::

    Geeta Devi lives in the village Raghunathpura, under Kanota P.S. in Jaipur Dist. with her husband Parsu Ram Bairwa. Their financial condition is very poor. On May 26, 2002 she went to take bath at a well in the village, which is near her brother in law’s home. There were a number of other women also at the well. There she washed her clothes and took a bath. Meanwhile, accused namely Pooran Jogi went there by his cycle which he parked aside and started loitering around near the well. He filled a bottle with water from the well and went to the drains to get fresh. After some time when all the women left and she was changing her clothes in the room the culprit went inside. He started molesting her, when she tried to shout for help, he threatened her to be quiet otherwise she would be defamed. When she did not stop shouting, he caught hold of her tongue with his hands which caused injuries in her mouth and blood started bleeding out of her mouth. Geeta Devi pushed him aside and tried to run away but Pooran caught her and flung her on the floor and stuffed her mouth with her cloth and brutally raped her. Geeta Devi got so many injuries on her face and various parts of her body.


    After the crime, the rapist escaped by his bicycle. She threw bricks at the culprit but he was not hurt. Geeta Devi with her father in law went to the Police Station to lodge FIR against the accused.  The local police registered her FIR under section 376/511, 323 read with section 3 (1)(xii) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989 as a complaint for attempt to rape but was not registered as per version of Geeta Devi. The local police did not send her for medical examination with a sole object to weaken the case. Next day, her medical examination was done. The medical report was not up to the mark thus again a medical examination was done in Jaipur SMS Hospital. On June 1, 2002, Geeta Devi’s statement was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Here she clearly stated about the occurrence of rape with her. The culprit tried to influence victim and her family to withdraw the case by offering her an amount of Rs. 50,000/- but they refused it.


    The Local police started investigation on the case. The accused absconded. When he was not found, the local police arrested his family members after which 2 days later he was found and arrested and his family members were released by the police. Victim’s statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 1st June 2002.


    The Compensation of Rs. 1 Lac as per the provisions of law under rules of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 has been granted to Geeta Devi.  The charge sheet for the case was submitted in the court. The special Court gave the judgment on 5th July 2004 where the court found the culprit guilty and was sentenced 1 year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 700/-


A Dalit Woman Wage Labourer Harassed

  • Posted by: NDMJ-Bihar
  • Date of incident: 14-05-2002
  • Create date: 22-03-2014
  • State:: Bihar
  • District:: MADHUBANI
  • Police station:: Pandaul
  • Chargesheet:: No F.I.R, No Chargesheet
  • Summary::

    Sakunti Devi (Musahar, 40 years) is the only child of her parents.  She was born and raised in Kakan village, Pandaul block, Madhubani district, Bihar.  At the age of 7 years, Sakunti Devi was married to Mahender Sadai from Nauhat Durgapur village in the same region. Her husband often works as a migrant labourer outside the village, while Sakunti Devi works as a daily wage agricultural labourer in her in-laws’ village. They have two children, both daughters, who are now grown up and married.  In Sakunti Devi’s parents’ village of Kakan, there is a prominent Jha (FC Brahmin) family. Tejan Jha has three grown sons: Shekhar Jha, who owns a flour mill; Mohan Jha, who owns and operates a hay-making machine; and Vinod Jha, who has a government job. The Jhas are economically, socially and politically powerful.  In November 2000, Tejan Jha raped a Dalit widow named Madani Devi, who lives near Sakunti Devi’s family in Kakan. Madani Devi filed a case of rape against the perpetrator.  Tejan Jha then threatened and intimidated Madani Devi in an effort to force her to withdraw the case. Finally, he promised her Rs.50,000/- as compensation, and Madani Devi agreed and withdrew the case. However, Tejan Jha never gave her the money.


    As Sakunti Devi has no brothers, when her parents died she inherited the small plot of land they owned. The plot is about 6 katthas in size (approximately 1/8 acre).  Tejan Jha and his sons, knowing that Sakunti Devi has no brothers and that she lives with her in-laws, developed an interest in capturing Sakunti Devi’s land. Sakunti Devi does have a few male cousins who live in Kakan, but they are daily wage agricultural labourers, economically dependent on the Jha landowners. One day in April 2002, while Sakunti Devi was at her home in Nauhat Durgapur, Tejan Jha arrived there by motorcycle and told her that her cousin had suffered an accident and his condition was very serious. Tejan Jha said that he had come to inform her and would take her by motorcycle to the hospital. “If you don’t come with me now on the motorcycle, I’m afraid you may not reach him before he dies,” he said. Sakunti Devi did not realise that this was an elaborate deception. Trusting Tejan Jha, she left what she was doing and accompanied him on his motorcycle. Tejan Jha drove her back to her natal village of Kakan. When they reached her home there, she realised that the story of her cousin’s accident was a complete fabrication.  Instead of her cousins, she found Tejan Jha’s sons waiting for them.  Using threatening language, the four Jha men told Sakunti Devi that the land she had inherited actually did not belong to her parents, but to them. The dominant caste Jhas then took Sakunti Devi with them to the District Court in Madhubani, where they presented her with two legal documents that she could not read.  Alone, without any support and intimidated by the four Jha men, Sakunti Devi gave her thumbprint on the papers.


    The dominant caste Jhas then took Sakunti Devi directly back to her in-laws’ village, so that she would have no opportunity to inform her cousins of what had happened. Dependent on her wages as an agricultural labourer for her livelihood, Sakunti Devi could not afford to leave her work for a few weeks after this incident. About a month later, in May 2002, Sakunti Devi travelled to her natal home to talk with her cousins and see to the matter of her land. When she arrived at her home in Kakan, however, she did not find her cousins at home.  On seeing her, Shekhar Jha, Mohan Jha, Vinod Jha and their father Tejan Jha approached Sakunti Devi and shouted at her, “This land is not yours!  This is our land. You have nothing here and no right over this land.” When Sakunti Devi protested, the dominant caste Jhas began abusing and threatening her, “Whore! We will break your legs!” The four Jha men then took turns slapping Sakunti Devi on the face. They began punching her with their fists as well. At this point, Sakunti Devi’s cousins, hearing the commotion, arrived and attempted to rescue her.  However, the dominant caste Jhas attacked her cousins as well, and beat them. After the assault, the Jha perpetrators left and Sakunti Devi and her cousins returned to their homes.  A few days later, Sakunti Devi approached a local Dalit advocate, Bindeshwar Paswan (SC Dusadh) and asked his help in registering a case against the Jhas. Note that the case was a land title suit, strictly concerned with the land. Sakunti Devi did not file a criminal case against the Jha perpetrators for the physical attack on her and her cousins, as securing her land rights was her primary concern.


    As Sakunti Devi is illiterate and not knowledgeable about legal matters, she left the case entirely in the hands of Advocate Bindeshwar Paswan. After some months, he informed her that the case would be taken up by another advocate, Mangal Jha (FC Brahmin).  Initially, Sakunti Devi attended court sessions for her case, but the case appeared to be making no progress and the journeys to Madhubani town became prohibitively expensive. Since 2004, she has stopped attending court. Meanwhile, a middleman informed her that Advocate Mangal Jha had handed over the case to a FC Rajput advocate, whose name Sakunti Devi does not even know. In Kakan village, Sakunti Devi’s cousins endure intimidation and threats from the dominant caste Jha perpetrators on a routine basis.  Economically dependent on the Jhas for their livelihood, her cousins have buckled to the pressure of the perpetrators not to interfere in the land case. Sakunti Devi, therefore, receives no support from her cousins. Meanwhile, Tejan Jha and his sons make use of Sakunti Devi’s land as though it were theirs.



Total Visitors : 6847250
© All rights Reserved - Atrocity Tracking and Monitoring System (ATM)
Website is Managed & Supported by Swadhikar