Verma Commission Report goofed up by government

Has Govt of India changed Verma Commission Report? Yes, Indeed! But how? When we look into the details we find huge ramification by the changing words here & there!

At the onset let me put some disclaimers:

1.        I don't oppose death penalty in heinous crimes such as rape.
2.        I'm not against conviction in Marital rape or rape by armed forces.
3.        I am not a huge fan of the Verma commission sentences, on the contrary I think some of them are very lenient. But after reviewing govt of India ordinance, I've found that many sentences have been deliberately diluted by the government.

Lets start reviewing IPC (Indian Penal Code) changes proposed by Verma Commission:

1. Section 100 of the Code shall be modified as follows:

When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death:

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the
assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
Firstly, Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly, Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault, which shall include a crime punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code.
Thirdly, An assault with the intention of committing rape
Fourthly, An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly, An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly, An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. 

Ordinance proposes "In section 100, in the clause Secondly, after the words "grievous hurt", the words "including the offence of grievous hurt punishable under section 326A" shall be inserted." 

So govt is retaining old section, instead of modifying , note how cleverly words "an reasonable cause the apprehension" gets lost in clause 2.
3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th clause got lost all together. 

2. Addition of Section 166A:

After section 166 of the Indian Penal Code the following section shall be inserted,

namely:—

166A. Public Servant knowingly disobeying direction of law

Verma Committee recommends "shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine."

Ordinance proposes "shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both"

Why this lenience?

3. After section 326 of the Penal Code, the following sections shall be inserted,

namely:—

‘326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through use of acid etc:

Verma Committee recommends "rigorous imprisonment" which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life, and shall also be liable to pay compensation to the victim, adequate to meet at least the medical expenses incurred by the victim.

Government's ordinance calls same prison terms but conveniently forgets the word "Rigorous" and omits the explanation given by Verma commission. Wonder why? Government also restricts fine upto rupees 10 lakh and drops "at least the medical expenses", wonder why? Is face-reconstruction surgeries & medication & rehabilitation possible is that amount, in today's India?

Same dilution as above in fine is also noted in govt. ordinance in respect to, newly inserted IPC section 326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid etc.  Here even minimum fine amount is not even mentioned. However explanations are included in this section.
One strange clause inserted is "intention of .... maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt", and we thought "grievous hurt" is covered 326A???!!!!

4. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code shall be replaced by the following:
 And Verma Committee detailed a refurbished section, with two subsection, i) carrying 5 years prison, ii) carrying 1 years prison but govt kept the old law by modifying:

 In section 354 of the Penal Code, for the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both", the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term of one year which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine" shall be substituted.

Once again govt choice "ambiguity" over "fine law making".
5 & 6. Verma committee recommendations on voyeurism, stalking & Trafficking are done exactly same.  
7. Section 375 shall be replaced as suggested below:
Section 375: Rape 

Here huge changes has taken place making the law ambiguous, easy to misconstrue! Firstly this section is no longer go under the title Rape but "Sexual assault", throughout government avoids the term "rape" or "intercourse" however mentions "consent" in many a places! Who gives Consent to Sexual Assault! How ridiculous!

• Verma commission stated "A man is said to commit rape if he—
  (a) penetrates the vagina or anus or urethra of a person with—
  (i) any part of his body including his penis or,
  (ii) any object manipulated by him, except where such penetration is carried out for
  proper hygienic or medical purposes; or,
  (b) manipulates any part of the body of a person so as to cause penetration of the vagina
  or anus or urethra of another person; or,
  (c) engages in “cunnilingus” or “fellatio”,
  under the circumstances falling under any of the following six descriptions:—"
• Government of India ordinance now defines sexual assault as "A person is said to commit "sexual assault" if that person--
  (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (c) manipulates any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or
  (d) applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of another person or makes such person to do so with him or any other person;
  (e) touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the person or makes the person touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of that person or any other person,
  except where such penetration or touching is carried out for proper hygienic or medical purposes under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:--"

•  Consent given "impliedly" as mentioned in sixth case of Verma commission dropped.

 Marital rape defining explanation of Verma commission is dropped.

" Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused."

 In fact, to guard & perhaps to not to provoke some pervert vote-bank created a banal, foolish, ambiguous exception:

"Exception.-- Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under sixteen years of age, is not sexual assault."

 I will give you 3 reason why this is ambiguous, eminent legal experts can give more:

1. Minimum Legal age for marriage of women in India is 18 not 16.
2. In this same section the ordinance goes on to say : "With or without the other person's consent, when such other person is under eighteen years of age." so even government agreed that it is 18, then why reinvent 16 from old IPC clauses? 

1. Later in CrPC amendments same government goes on to say "198B. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 376B of the Indian Penal Code where the persons are in a marital relationship, except upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts which constitute the offence upon a complaint having been filed or made by the wife against the accused husband."

          So Criminal Procedure says Marital rape punishment of IPC 376B is valid, but IPC 375 calls it not   a rape, oh sorry, I should say "Sexual Assault"


Now which section should police file a case on Section 354 for sexual assault, or will it be section 375! 
I need to a do a part II on this topic to finish many more ambiguity fostered by this government.