Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

   

SHRI A.C. JOS (TRICHUR): Madam, I also generally support the amendment moved by the hon. Minister. It is a very essential thing because the Act itself is of 1872. The conditions prevailing a century ago have to be changed. The Law Commission and the other opinion-makers have all reported about it and they are all in favour of such an amendment.

The suggestion that I want to make is in respect of Clause 2, which amends Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act. The hon. Minister himself has moved an amendment to this clause. In this amendment, he has used the words "general immoral character." As my friend Shri Tiwari mentioned it, unless there is a definition of "immoral character", how would it help? Can a lawyer question the moral character of a woman? What do you mean by "immoral character?" So, an ingenious advocate can put it in such a way saying that he is not questioning her immoral character and questioning her moral character only. Why should it go for immoral and moral character? If you can say about the character of the victim in general, that would be better. I say this because an ingenious lawyer can say that he is not questioning the immoral character. Otherwise, you should define the immoral character somewhere. Even if the definition is there about immoral character, the advocate or the victim can be cross-examined on the moral character which will indirectly become the cross-examination of her immoral character.… (Interruptions) She can be cross-examined.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : It shall not be permissible.

SHRI A.C. JOS : I read clause 2 which says:

"Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit rape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general immoral character. "Cross-examination is permissible.
MADAM CHAIRMAN : But this cannot be a subject of cross-examination.
SHRI A.C. JOS : The victim’s immoral character cannot be a subject of cross-examination, but her moral character can be a subject of cross-examination. So, it would have been better if the Government had worded the amendment which says that it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general character. Otherwise, an ingenious lawyer would misuse this provision and ask questions about her moral character.
DR. (SHRIMATI) BEATRIX D’SOUZA : Madam, the hon. Member is doing hair-splitting.
SHRI A.C. JOS : Some lawyer might do that. Splitting of hair is the job of a lawyer. Some ingenious lawyer will do that. That is why I have underlined it here. Otherwise, I welcome this amendment and I support it fully. It is an absolutely essential amendment. Rather I would say that it has been brought very late.
I would like to mention another point which you and other hon. colleagues have also highlighted during the debate and that is, we should have a general relook into the rape law because as Shrimati Rodriguez mentioned earlier … (Interruptions)
MADAM CHAIRMAN : Who is Rodriguez here? She is Beatrix D’Souza.
SHRI A.C. JOS : I am sorry for that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN : You get the names of the lady Members right at least.
SHRI A.C. JOS : Last week also, in her submission, she mentioned about the elements of rape and whether assault to the body of a woman is considered a rape or not etc. This has to be considered.
Then, as far as punishment is concerned, it is generally accepted that punishment for rape is not as severe as it should be. The number of rapes is increasing in our country now and it is a shame for our country. So, we should have a very serious look into the rape law once again. Therefore, I would request the hon. Minister to bring a serious and comprehensive amendment to this law.