Page 32 - June July 2017

Female Criminality in India
On the night of 21 May 1991 a diabolic crime was committed. It stunned the whole nation. Rajiv Gandhi, for-
mer Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a human bomb in Tamilnadu. Assasin Dhanu, an LTTE (Lib-
eration Tigers of Tamil Elam) activist, who detonated the belt bomb concealed under her waist and Haribabu, a
photographer (and also a conspirator) engaged to take photographs of the horrific sight, also died in the blast. A
camera was found intact on his body at the scene of crime. The film in the camera when developed led to un-
folding of the dastardly attacks committed by the accused and others. A charge of conspiracy for offences under C
the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; Indian Penal Code,1860; Explosive substances A
Act 1908; Arms Act 1959; Passport Act 1967; Foreigners Act 1946; Indian wireless Telegraphy Act 1933; was
laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom were already dead and 3 absconded. All were awarded death sentence on P
the charge of conspiracy to murder under S120B read with S302 IPC and various other minor offences. I

T
Nalini along with the deceased accused Sivarasan, Dhanu and Shubha met Haribabu, met at a bus stand and
proceeded to the venue of the public meeting on 21st May 1991. Nalini provided cover to Dhanu and Shubha A
and when Rajiv Gandhi arrived, Dhanu gained access near him and while near him, she detonated the explosive L
device kept concealed in her waist belt, resulting in the blast. The apex court by a unanimous verdict confirmed
death sentence against Santhan, Murugan and Arivu. As regards the extreme penalty of death to Nalini was con-
cerned it was confirmed by majority of 2:1 (JJ Wadhwa and Quadri concurred). J Thomas commuted sentence P
of death to life imprisonment. U
N
State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar
I

The appeals were filed by Delhi administration and other by Indian Federation of Women Lawyers came up S
before the SC of India against the judgement of Delhi HC acquitting the respondents. Laxman was married to H
Sudha and were living with Laxman’s brother and their family. Shakuntala, the mother-in law of the deceased
used to visit frequently. One day, cries for help were heard from their house. On hearing the cries, neighbors M
rushed to the flat and found Sudha aflame. The neighbors extinguished the fire and she was taken to the hospi- E
tal where she died the next day. Sudha made a categorical statement soon after the neighbors gathered near the N
flat, and while on her way to the hospital, pointed to her mother-in-law, as the killer, stating that she had set her
on fire after pouring kerosene on her body. Sudha also indicated Laxman as having actually set her on fire after T
pouring kerosene.

SC awarded life imprisonment to Shakuntala and Laxman, holding them responsible for killing Sudha by setting
her on fire.

Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra

The SC on 1 September 2006, in one of its historic judgements, upheld death penalty to two sisters, Renuka and
Seema, who had horrified Maharashtra by describing them as a menace to society.

The facts of the case were horrifying. Nine of 13 children in the age group between nine months and two and
a half years in Sholapur and Nasik districts of Maharashtra, had been kidnapped from time to time either from
school or market during 1990-96 and killed by the accused. The accused, with a perfect accomplice in their
mother Anajanabai, and husband Kiran Shinde had made chain and purse snatching as their profession. An-
janabai died before trial and Shinde got pardon on turning approver.

The trial court of Kolhapur found the sisters, guilty of murdering six children and awarded death sentence to
them and Bombay HC confirmed their sentence. The appellants were not committing these crimes under any
compulsion but they took it very casually and killed all the children, least bothering about their lives or agony of
32