NEW DELHI: We all are familiar with syringes. Since childhood, we have seen doctors, health assistants and nurses using it to inject vital medicinal liquid into our bodies for faster recovery. So much so that, doctors who prefer injections to tablets are popular in rural areas. Rural folk think that the injection of medicine into body fights disease better than tablets taken orally.
On Tuesday, the same syringe was used by two motorcycle-borne juveniles, on a male doctor’s behest, to accurately spray highly corrosive sulphuric acid on a female doctor who was riding a scooter to her workplace in ESI Hospital. The woman was badly injured.
Not knowing the identity of the real assailant, immediately after being attacked by acid she had called the man who orchestrated it. For, she considered him to be a good friend. Her fault – she did not want to marry him. She has suffered 50% burns on right side of her face and neck and probably would never see in her right eye. In addition to grievous physical pain and suffering, she must have been mentally traumatized after discovering her real assailant.
The incident threw up three questions. Why was she not wearing a helmet while riding a two-wheeler? How did the assailants get acid? Is there an increase in crimes committed by juveniles because of the leniency of law and are juveniles being used by others to commit crimes?
The Delhi government had issued a notification on August 28 making it mandatory for women to wear helmets while riding pillion in two-wheelers. Here the victim was riding the scooter without a helmet. If only she had worn a helmet with a proper visor, she might have escaped the physical injury if not the mental trauma. Why are women not wearing helmets? This is because the police have not enforced the helmet-must rule in letter and spirit.
Two-wheeler riders get a strange ego kick if they zip through motorways, crowded lanes and by-lanes without wearing a helmet. Some of them love doing stunts on roads caring little for their lives. Few among them protest violently when police attempts to enforce law. Wish the police had enforced the law with an iron hand making everyone fear the helmet-must law, which is primarily to protect the head in case of an accident.
Acid attacks and their horrific consequences for a woman was brought to Supreme Court’s notice by Laxmi, who battled the immitigable scars left on her face by a jilted lover. Apart from seeking stringent punishment for acid attacks, her counsel Aparna Bhat sought stringent regulations to curb easy across the counter availability of the corrosive substance.
After pursuing the case diligently for seven years, efforts of Laxmi and Bhat bore fruit. On July 18 last year, the Supreme Court banned sale of acid to minors. It had ordered that the corrosive substance could be sold only to those who had valid identity cards issued by the government. The seller was to keep a record of the buyers’ written request for purchase of acid and the intended mode of use. It had also asked the Centre and states to make the acid attack offence non-bailable.
Bhat in December last year had pointed out to the court that the Supreme Court’s order was not being followed in letter and spirit. If only the police and excise department had checked the records of each shop-keeper who sold acid and put in a fear that any unauthorized sale of the corrosive substance would lead to incarceration and fine.
After the gruesome Nirbhaya gang rape-cum-murder incident, the increasing involvement of minors in heinous offences caught the eyes of public, law makers and the courts. Was it because the juveniles were aware that they could get away lightly? The public opinion was divided. Many wanted the age of juvenility to be reduced from existing 18 years to 16 years.
But, the Supreme Court decided that the purpose of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act was to reform the juveniles and assimilate them in the society and not to punish a youngster and brand him a criminal for the entire life. It refused to consider lowering of the age of juvenility and rejected petitions, including those filed by Nirbhaya’s parents.
However, another bench of the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Misra has reopened the issue in October after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that the issue relating to ‘what should be the age of juvenility’ was engaging the attention of the Union government.
Rohatgi said there were two issues which were being considered afresh by the Modi government – whether there should be reduction in the age of juvenility from 18 years to 16 years and whether juvenility would depend on the nature of the crime.
The earlier these legal issues get settled, the better it would be for the society. There must be strict enforcement of the helmet-must law as well as the law regulating sale of acid, if we intend to be counted among the civilized societies which respect women.
TOI | Dec 30, 2014
Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/