Indian Supreme Court on Murder Cases

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS
  • Accused charged U/S 149 IPC read with Secs 302 & 307 and no individual charge U/S 302 or 307 framed against accused for his individual act—The charge suffered from a serious lacuna - Suraj Pal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh - 01-03-1955 - The opinion of prosecuting authorities that murder in question should have been attributed to a witness and not accused is irrelevant for trial of accused and should not have been placed on record.
  • Aggravating circumstances - VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SC]
  • Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
  • Atul Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh etc [SC 2018 JANUARY] - KEYWORDS:-MURDER-The number of wounds caused by the appellant, it is a well established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. DATE:- January 19, 2018. Thus,Continue Reading
  • BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
  • Cases where charge u/s 302 IPC was converted into section 304 IPC by Supreme Court - following decisions wherein the case under section 302 IPC was converted into section 304 IPC. (1) Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal reported inContinue Reading
  • DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA - INDIAN COURTS ARE VERY SELECTIVE AND CHOOSY ON IMPOSING DEATH PENALTY
  • DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."
  • Difference between “murder” which is not an accident and “murder” which is an accident - In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 The question,  is can murder be an accident in anyContinue Reading
  • Difference between Murder and Manslaughter under the USA Law - (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kindContinue Reading
  • Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors[SC 2017] - KEYWORDS- Murder-de novo trial-Rights of victim in criminal trial There is a discernible paradigm shift in the criminal justice system in India which keeps inContinue Reading
  • Govind Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - Murder-The entire occurrence was in a spur of the moment. There was a quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in the spur of the moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter. The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. The chimney lamp was burning there which the appellant had picked up and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.
  • Govindaswamy v. State of Kerala [ ALL SC 2016 SEPTEMBER] - KEYWORDS:-RAPE AND MURDER-INTENTION-VICTIM NOT DIED INSTANTLY DATE: September 15, 2016 To hold that the accused is liable under Section 302 IPC what is required is anContinue Reading
  • Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
  • Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and ANR [ALL SC 2018 MAY] - KEYWORD: MURDER CONVICTION DATE: May 08, 2018 ACTS: Section 304 Part-I IPC HELD: “the deceased sustained head injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and temporo parietalContinue Reading
  • In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and `murder’ its species. - All `murder' is `culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, `culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, `culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as `murder'.
  • Issac @ Kishor Vs. Ronald Cheriyan and Ors.[SC 2018 January] - KEYWORDS:-Setting aside  acquittal-302 IPC -MURDER-High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision- DATE:- January 23, 2018 In appeal against acquittal, in exceptional circumstances,Continue Reading
  • JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
  • Kailash Gour and Others Vs State of Assam [SC 2011 December] - KEYWORDS : Communal disturbance-Delay- murder acquittal DATE:- 15-12-2011- Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The Presumption of innocence is human right.Continue Reading
  • Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed to the injury caused by the appellant A1. The appellantContinue Reading
  • Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Others-1/4/2019 - Offence of Murder - In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
  • Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object u/s 141 I.P.C - CRIMINAL - Section 302 read with Section 149 - the FIR was registered on 12.08.1989 but was forwarded to the Magistrate only on 16.08.1989, after a delay of 4 days, becomes significant in light of the inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution with respect to the appellant. It appears that the appellant was roped in as an accused, due to the inimical relationship between the parties which clearly emanates from the record. [ MARCH 29 2019 ]
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of Rajasthan- 07/06/2011 - conversion of offence against the Appellant Md. aslam from Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code to 304 Part-I read with 34 Indian Penal Code and convict him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of ` 5000/-.
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of U.P. -12/02/1974 - We think that the High Court would have been well advised, having regard to the age of the appellant and also the circumstances of the crime, to have reduced the sentence to one of life imprisonment.
  • Munawwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-16/07/19 - Murder and kidnapping of a seven-year old-The identity of the kidnappers been established. There is direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies, which establishContinue Reading
  • Murder Conviction upheld-accused failed to explain presence of blood on his clothes and recovery on his instance - 01-10-2018- The High Court has rightly held that motive stood established because of the grudge that the appellant nursed against his father with regard toContinue Reading
  • MURDER TRIAL IN INDIA - How to handle a Murder Trial
  • OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY : Pakistan Penal Code 1860 - OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY Of Offences Affecting Life 299. Definitions: In this Chapter, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:Continue Reading
  • Police officer got seven years of enhanced punishment for killing by using Third Degree - In the facts and circumstances of this case’ the punishment of three year imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court under Section 330 of IPC’ wouldContinue Reading
  • Ram Chander & Ors.  VS State of Haryana[SC 2017 JANUARY] - KEYWORDS: Murder- Expert Evidence Merely because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones recovered were human or animal bones, in ourContinue Reading
  • Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
  • Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ALL SC 2018 OCTOBER] - MURDER-Acquittal of the accused. DATE: October 26, 2018. ACT: Section 148/149 read with Section 302 IPC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CriminalContinue Reading
  • Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019 - MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
  • Section 300 of Indian Penal Code: When Killing is not Murder - 300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intentionContinue Reading
  • Sentencing Policy set by Supreme Court - Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. the State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, Apex Court held the nature, motive, and impact of crime, culpability, quality of evidence, socioeconomic circumstances, impossibility of rehabilitation and some of the factors, the Court may take into consideration while dealing with such cases.
  • Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Amar Lal-10/12/2019 - Acquittal-It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone 2 years 8 months 11 days of custody and after his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained incustody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19 - Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight,  the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019 - MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility andContinue Reading
  • State of Rajasthan Versus Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta [All SC 2011 December] - KEYWORDS:-Murder acquittal (2011) 13 SCALE 140 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) State of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta Respondent (Before : Swatanter KumarContinue Reading
  • Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-2/5/2018 - MURDER-DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE EXPLAINED-Section 300 of the IPC explains what is murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or "such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • What is a “Rarest of Rare Case”? - Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P [1973] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1982] Mithu v. State ofContinue Reading
  • Whether facts of last seen together by itself lead to inference that the accused committed the murder - The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. In the present case there is no such proximity of time and place

 

Measures taken by Government to prevent Crime against Women -10/12/2019

The Government and Security

Press Information Bureau

Government of India

Measures taken by Government to prevent Crime against Women

New Delhi

December 10, 2019

Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri G. Kishan Reddy, in a written reply to a question regarding crime against women, in Lok Sabha today, said that women safety is a high priority for the Government and several initiatives have been taken for safety of women across the country, which are given below:

The Criminal Law (Amendment), Act 2013 was enacted for effective deterrence against sexual offences. Further, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 was enacted to prescribe even more stringent penal provisions including death penalty for rape of a girl below the age of 12 years. The Act also inter-alia mandates completion of investigation and trials within 2 months each.

Emergency Response Support System provides a pan-India, single, internationally recognized number (112) based system for all emergencies, with computer aided dispatch of field resources to the location of distress.

Using technology to aid smart policing and safety management, Safe City Projects have been sanctioned in first Phase in 8 cities (Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Lucknow and Mumbai).

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has launched a cyber-crime portal on 20th September 2018 for citizens to report obscene content.

MHA has launched the ‘National Database on Sexual Offenders’ (NDSO) on 20th September 2018 to facilitate investigation and tracking of sexual offenders across the country by law enforcement agencies.

In order to facilitate States/UTs, MHA on 19th February 2019 launched an online analytic tool for police called ‘Investigation Tracking System for Sexual Offences’ to monitor and track time-bound investigation in sexual assault cases in accordance with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2018.

One Stop Centre (OSC) scheme is being implemented across the country since 1st April 2015 which is exclusively designed to provide integrated services such as medical aid, police assistance, legal counselling/ court case management, psycho-social counselling and temporary shelter to women affected by violence under one roof. As per available information, 728 OSCs have been approved by Government of India, 595 OSCs are operational in the country.

In addition to the above-mentioned measures, MHA has issued advisories from time to time with a view to help the States/UTs to deal with crimes against women, which are available at http://www.mha.gov.in.


SNC/VM

Hyderabad police murdered four people to cover-up failure-now women are more unsafe

The news : 

The four accused in the rape and murder of a Hyderabad veterinarian were shot dead by the Telangana Police on Friday. The accused, arrested on November 29, were remanded to judicial custody and lodged in high-security cells at Cherlapally Central Prison. They were charged under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 375 (rape) and 362 (abduction). Post midnight on Friday morning, the Telangana Police took the four accused to Chattapally, around 30 kilometres from Hyderabad, where the veterinarian’s body was set ablaze and dumped on November 27 for the reconstruction of the Crime Scene. The four accused, Mohammed Arif (26), Jollu Shiva (20), Jollu Naveen (20) and Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu (20), had been taken to the scene of the crime at 3 am for a reconstruction, the police said. They were at the spot near a bridge where the charred body of the woman was found, around 50 km from Hyderabad, when, the police claim, one of the men signalled to the others, possibly to escape. The police claim they fired in self-defence after two of the men attacked them, snatched their weapons and fired.

Effect: 

People especially are women are happy, celebrating Diwali and throwing flowers to police for doing great job. Political establishment are rescued from electoral debacle.

Now some legal question: 

How did police come to the conclusion that only arrested four people did the Crime and there was no fifth criminal involved? How police established that the four accused were not working on behalf of their boss who used to know the Victim and her whereabouts?

Why police took them at 3.30 AM for constructing the Crime scene and not at 12.00 Noon when the sunlight was available. How police were reconstructing forensic crime scene in darkness?

How should police take photographs of crime scenes in darkness? Where shall police get an independent witness in Dark night?

Why police took four accused in one go … they supposed to take one after another to have four versions as per evidence Act either to contradict or agreement amongst the four versions and complete the circumstantial chain which must point to the accused and none other…

Why four accused were taken out of the police van in a single go… Why one by one was not taken to the spot to establish the role of a particular accused.

Had it been the case that the four accused persons were history-sheeter( though no history), how a handcuffed untrained accused could snatch service Revolver from a trained police officer and started to fire multiple armed police officers …and police in self-defense killed four people at once …. how many weapons were snatched … one two three or four by four accused …. horrible. How did the unchained the service revolver or any calibrate weapon which supposed to be chained with the belt of the police officer and ran away…

Where is the photography or creating the crime scene or encounter?

The matter is highly suspicious and should be taken as per Sohorabuddin Encounter Case and demands a high lever Enquiry.

By doing police drama women are not safe but vulnerable and police can easily pick up anybody in rape-murder accusation and killed them to save political establishment and to conceal the departmental failure.

Then we don’t need anything beyond Police … We don’t need Court of Law …Justice system …Defence advocacy. Police justice is the last word in Indian Democracy!!!!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 2019

Religious offences under Pakistan Penal Code 1860

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class:

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement as an insult to their religion. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs:

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the ‘religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur’an:

Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.

295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

296. Disturbing religious assembly:

Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.:

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a, depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings:

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

298-A. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

298-B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places:

(1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation-

(a) refers to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ameer-ul-Mumineen”, “Khalifatul- Mumineen”, Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen”, “Sahaabi” or “Razi Allah Anho”;
(b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ummul-Mumineen”;
(c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family “Ahle-bait” of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ahle-bait”; or
(d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship a “Masjid”;
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Any person of the Qaudiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves “Ahmadis” or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as “Azan”, or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

298-C. Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith:

Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.


Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)

Crimes against humanity

Crimes against humanity

“Crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

(i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

For the purpose of  Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.


 Source: ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

War crimes

War crimes

 As per Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court War Crime means :

  1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
  2. For the purpose of this Statute, war crimes’ means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection
given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly
excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the
occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or
her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be
(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(iii) Taking of hostages;
(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character
and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and
tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts
of a similar nature.

(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

  1. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court