Monthly Archives: January 2013

Dad who does NOT get custody, takes custody !!! News headline = Estranged dad kidnaps kids, FIR lodged

Dads are asked to pay maintenance and not allowed custody of children !!! The children need a dada , still the dad doesn’t have any chance in our terrible judicial system !!! This dad seems to have found a way albeit unusual !!!

May the children have a nice time !!!!

May families live with the biological dad !!!

=========news from times of India jan -31- 2013 =======

Estranged dad kidnaps kids, FIR lodged

Party Shastri, TNN | Jan 31, 2013, 05.33PM IST

A complaint of abduction has been lodged against a man for kidnapping his own children.

AHMEDABAD: A complaint of abduction has been lodged against a man for kidnapping his own children. The issue pertains to an incident that took place on January 20.y

Krishnabhavana Signamala, 30, the daughter of the mahant of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Jashomatinandan Dasji, submitted a complaint to Vastrapur police that her ex-husband, Hari Krishna, has gone absconding with their three children – Surbhi, Om and Vishwambar – after he took them to lunch in accordance with visitation rights granted by a court.

A formal complaint of abduction was lodged on Wednesday by Nirav Panchal, who works at the temple. Panchal accompanied the children when Krishna was spending time with them. In his complaint Panchal told police that they first had snacks at a restaurant and then went to a hotel on SG Road where Krishna had booked a room.

“When the children went to the room with their father, Panchal was at the waiting lounge. He claims that two men approached him and threatened him with a knife. They then allegedly put a handkerchief on his face and he lost consciousness. When he came to, Krishna had decamped with the children. He says that he was frightened and shocked and so had taken some time to register a complaint,” said Vastrapur police officials.

Vastrapur police said Krishnabhavna and Hari Krishna had married in Bangalore and the couple had three children. They started having differences and then separated. “Later, a court in Bangalore granted custody of the three children to the mother and gave the father visitation rights every Sunday from 8 am to 8 pm,” said Vastrapur police. Hari Krishna came to Ahmedabad on January 20 and took the children out. He was then accompanied by Panchal who had been asked to keep an eye on Krishna.

Advertisements

changed circumstances : Wife getting employment may mean maintenance to wife could be stopped

 

Sec 125 maintenance is based on the responsibility of a person to maintain his wife or parent or child who does NOT have sufficient income

However IF a decree was made when the wife did NOT have sufficient income and subsequent to that decree IF the wife obtains a job such changed circumstances could be brought to the notice of the court and this may lead to denial of maintenance for the wife

——————- case law ———————

Uttaranchal High Court

 
Vikas Jain vs Smt. Deepali @ Ayushi Jain on 25 October, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 88 of 2002
 
Vikas Jain ….. Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Deepali @ Ayushi Jain ……… Respondent
 
October 25, 2010
 
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
 
HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J.
 
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 66/2002, Deepali Jain v. Vikas Jain u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of wife/respondent and awarded the consolidated maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month for the respondent and her minor son with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application i.e. 22.5.2000.
 
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent moved an application with the averments that she was married to the revisionist as per Hindu rites on 21.11.1996 and her parents had given dowry according to their status. A son born out of the said wedlock on 26.2.1998. Revisionist and her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- as well as some other articles like TV, fridge, scooter etc. They started harassing the respondent for dowry. She was also abused and beaten. Ultimately, the respondent was ousted from the house of her in-laws on 5.3.2000. They also did not return her stridhan. Subsequently she suffered paralytic attack and became handicapped. With these averments, she moved the aforesaid application claiming maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month for herself and her minor son by stating that she 2
is handicapped and she is unable to maintain herself and her minor son, whereas the revisionist earns Rs. 20,000/- per month through marketing business and he has got no other responsibility.
 
3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent and directed the revisionist to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month for the respondent and her minor son with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. Being aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court.
 
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record.
 
5. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 4.9.2002 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondent is having some other source of income from which she can maintain herself and her minor son. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the respondent suffered paralytic attack and became handicapped, whereas the revisionist was engaged in marketing business at that time and had got sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife.
 
6. But learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that subsequently the respondent has been given appointed as a teacher in Govt. school vide order dated 24.12.2005 and now she has got enough income to maintain herself and her minor son. Learned Counsel for the respondent also admitted that now the respondent is in regular Govt. service. Copy of the appointment order dated 24.12.2005 and salary certificate of the respondent have also been produced on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also argued that now the revisionist has left his previous job and he is unable to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent.
 
7. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid changed facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that now the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance from the revisionist as she has been appointed as a teacher in Govt. run school vide appointment letter dated 24.12.2005 and thus she has got sufficient means to maintain herself. However, the revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his minor son. Therefore, it is held that the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance w.e.f. January, 2006 as she has been given appointment vide letter dated 24.12.2005. However, revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his minor son with effect from the date of the impugned judgment and order i.e. 4.9.2002 till the date of attaining his majority. It is further made clear that arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to the respondent w.e.f. from the date of impugned order i.e. 4.9.2002 till December, 2005.
 
8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Judgment and order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 66/2002, Deepali Jain v. Vikas Jain u/s 125 CrPC stands modified to the extent indicated above. Interim order dated 4.10.2002 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance after adjusting the amount already given in terms of the interim order dated 4.10.2002 shall be paid to the respondent within three months from the date of this order.
 
(Dharam Veer, J.)
 
25.10.2010
 
PRABODH
 
 

source
Indiankanoon dot org

Fate of Criminal investigation in India !! Delayed & denied: 87-year-old dies awaiting justice for his son

Delayed & denied: 87-year-old dies awaiting justice for his son 
For 27 years, he fought to bring ‘murderers’ to book
Aneesha Sareen
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 11
In a glaring example of “justice delayed is justice denied”, an 87-year-old man fighting a legal battle over the alleged murder of his son for the past 27 years died before he could see the verdict.

Allah Singh, a Patiala resident, prayed and fought for justice into the alleged murder case of his son ardently. His body had turned frail but not his desire to fight for justice in the case. He died yesterday at his residence in Patiala much before he could see the judgment in the case that has been hanging fire since 1985.

“I want to see justice before my death,” was Allah Singh’s last wish as he often narrated his ordeal to mediapersons during court hearings. For the past six months, he had not been coming to court due to his ill health. Allah Singh’s body was cremated today.

The CBI court of Vimal Kumar was today informed about Allah Singh’s death by his advocate Vinay Jhingan. During a resumed hearing of the case today, three witnesses were examined, including the doctors who conducted the postmortem of his son. Defence arguments are being heard in court in the case. While it is not known when the case will meet its logical end, Allah Singh will not be there to see the verdict.

“He vowed to fight till his last breath to ensure that his son’s soul rested in peace. His wife died four years ago waiting for justice. Now, Allah Singh has also died without seeing the verdict. Their wish remained unfulfilled,” said Allah Singh’s elder son Kanwarjeet Singh.

Kanwarjeet and his wife were brought to the country from the USA to appear as witnesses in the case.

On July 8, 1985, Allah Singh got a phone call informing him that his son Inderjeet Singh had died. Inderjeet’s body was found hanging in a rented accommodation in Sector 34. The UT police had dismissed it as a case of suicide. Allah Singh refused to believe the police theory. “He was very brave and strong,” he used to say.

After endless inquiries, writs and re-investigations, a case of murder of Inderjeet Singh was finally admitted in the sessions court.

After the accused got bail, Allah Singh moved the Supreme Court, which shifted the case to the CBI. As many as 45 witnesses were examined in court. Five of them are already dead. Allah Singh had lodged a complaint with the police against Hardev Singh and Harpreet Singh, owners of the house where his son was living as a tenant. He accused them of his son’s murder as they had an ongoing dispute over vacating the house.

Ever since the hearing into the case began, Allah Singh had been coming to attend court hearings from Patiala with the ardent hope that the judgment would be pronounced before his departure from this world.

Case was investigated 5 times

As Allah Singh was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police, which claimed it was a suicide, the court asked the CBI to carry out the investigation again.

Investigations were carried out five times into the case. Of the five investigations, two concluded that it was a murder while the rest claimed it was suicide.

Over 2,000 hearings

Ever since his son Inderjeet Singh’s death in 1985, Allah Singh had been coming to court by bus from Patiala twice every week. He attended over 2,000 court hearings. He retired as a railway employee in 1983 and spent all his pension and savings on legal aid. He spent close to ~4 lakh on getting documents photostated all these years, said his family members.“I want to see justice before my death,” was Allah Singh’s last wish as he often narrated his ordeal to mediapersons during court hearings. While it is not known when the case will meet its logical end, Allah Singh will not be there to see the verdict.

The living case of the dead

Eight months after Inderjeet’s death, an inquiry by the UT police pointed to murder

A closure report was filed following which Allah Singh went to the Supreme Court, which shifted the case to Patiala

A CBI inquiry in 1994 concluded it was a suicide case

Allah Singh again moved court, following which the CJM ordered a re-investigation

When CBI filed an application for cancelling the case, Allah Singh protested

n He moved protest petitions to successive Presidents, PMs, ministers and Governors of Punjab

The report submitted by then DIG of the CBI KC Kanungo held that former CBI SP RK Pachnanda, DSP DS Mann and DSP SL Gupta floundered in declaring it a case of suicide and it was actually a murder

In 2000, the trial again started after the CBI finally termed the death as homicide

 

source

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121212/cth1.htm

smart husband / father !! Has retained custody of three children over 6 + years and has finally won the permanent custody too !!!

Salient points

# Husband / father has retained custody of children though some of them are female children and ALL of them are minor

# Husband has been carefully escalating the matter thru various courts and finally won custody at Bombay HC too !!

# children are either neutral or silent

# Husband has appeared PARTY IN person and NOT by advocate even at the High court

 

================== judgement =================

 

Bombay HC judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2008

Mrs.Mary Cedric Pinto .. Petitioner versus

Mr.Cedric Francis Pinto & Anr. .. Respondents

Mr.N.P.Deshpande for the petitioner.

None for the 1st respondent.

Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the respondent No.2-State.

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 2nd July 2009.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 10th September 2009.

JUDGMENT:

On 2nd July 2009 the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner were heard. The judgment was not delivered on that day as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent was not present. The judgment was reserved. The judgment could not be pronounced earlier as the file of the petition was misplaced.

2. The petitioner is the wife and the 1st respondent is the husband. An application was made by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the learned Magistrate praying for various reliefs. The dispute relates to custody of three minor children. Interim relief was granted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 21st November 2007 in exercise of powers under section 23 of the said Act by directing that the 1st respondent shall hand over temporary custody of the three minor children to the petitioner. The directions were given to the 1st respondent to desist from causing domestic violance as mentioned in the report of the Protection Officer. Under the said order an arrangement was made enabling the three minor children to stay with the 1st respondent father from 8.00 a.m of every Saturday till 9.00 a.m on the immediately following Sunday. An appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent. By the impunged order dated 19th December 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that the husband and wife will be entitled to retain the custody of the minor children every alternate month. The petitioner and 1st respondent were directed to take proper physical and mental care of the children whenever the children would remain in their custody.

3. When the writ petition came up before this Court for admission on 15th September 2008, the petition was ordered to be placed in chamber. On 19th September 2008 in chamber this Court interviewed the three minor children.

Thereafter, the matter appeared before the Court on 24th September 2008.

The paragraphs 2 to 4 of the order passed on that day read thus:

] “2. It must be stated here that on Friday, 19th
] September 2008 at 5.30 p.m the children were called to
] my chamber alongwith the petitioner and the 1st
] respondent. I had no occasion to talk to the three
] children. To enable me to talk to the children, I
] requested the parties and the advocates to wait
] outside the chamber. While leaving the chamber, the
] learned advocate holding for the advocate for the
] petitioner requested the Court to ensure that a
] cellphone is not kept with the eldest child for
] recording the conversation in the chamber. The first
] respondent categorically stated that there is no basis
] for such apprehension.
]
] 3. The children were at pains to tell me that they
] desire that the parents should come together and they
] will be very happy if they are in position to stay
] with both the parties. Therefore, in chamber, a
] suggestion was given to the parents to explore the
] possibility of reconciliation, keeping in mind the
] desire expressed by the three children.
]
] 4. I gather from Shri Deshpande, learned advocate for
] the petitioner that as of today, there is no
] possibility of reconciliation between the petitioner
] and the 1st respondent. “

4. On 27th April 2009 when the petition was called out, none appeared for the 1st respondent. The advocate for the petitioner was present. He stated that no progress has been made in the matter of settlement. Therefore, the petition was ordered to be fixed for final disposal.

5. The petitioner and 1st respondent married on 18th October 1989 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. On 27th December 1991 they again got married in church. The couple was blessed with three children. The first two are the daughters and third one is the son. The present ages of the children appear to be 16 yrs, 14 yrs and 12 yrs respectively.

6. As stated earlier, temporary custody of the minor children was granted by the learned Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. The order of temporary custody was disturbed by the Sessions Court by passing a peculiar order. The petitioner-wife and the 1st respondent husband were permitted to retain custody every alternate month. It, however, appears that after the order of the Sessions Court, the custody of the children has remained with the 1st respondent father.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to disturb the order of temporary custody passed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge that custody of the children will be retained by the petitioner and 1st respondent every alternate month is perverse and is not in the interests of the minors. He submitted that out of the three minors two are daughters and the son is of tender age. He submitted that welfare of the minors require that their custody should be retained with the mother.

8. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is well settled law that while deciding an application for custody of minor children, the only paramount consideration is welfare of minor children and the legal rights of the parties or the parents are not relevant. The order of the learned Magistrate records that the minor children on their own sought audience of the learned Magistrate and in chamber when the learned Magistrate talked to the children, they expressed a desire to stay with the mother. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order directing that the custody of the minor children be handed over to the petitioner. However, he passed an order directing that at weekends the minor children will stay with the 1st respondent.

9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted in the impugned order that he had taken interview of the minor children in his chamber and he had talked to the parties with a view to bring about settlement. He has recorded that the petitioner was not in a mood to even think of settlement.

10. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, he has noted that both the mother and father were claiming custody. He noted that the children want both the parents to stay together and they need love and affection of both, the mother and the father. He noted that the children expressed their desire to celebrate Christmas and New Year in the company of their parents. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads thus:

] ” REASONS
]
] 6. The elder daughter Eleine is the studen of IX th
] standard. Cedrina and Edric are the students of Vth
] standard. Their welfare is of paramount consideration.
] The children do not have any allegation against the
] parents. Both the parties want to exercise their
] parental authority to have custody of the children.
] The children want both the parents and stay with them
] together. They want ot celebrate Christmas and the New
] Year in their company, which appear impossible,
] because the respondent No.1 is not ready. It is in
] this circumstances the appeal needs to be partly
] allowed as the order passed by the learned Magistrate
] needs some modification in the interest of the
] children. Hence, the following order: ORDER
]
] The appeal is partly allowed as under:-
]
] 1. The appellant shall give the custody of the three
] children to the respondent No.1 today in the Court.
]
] 2. The respondent No.1 shall keep the children in
] their custody till 19th January 2008. She shall give
] the custody back to the appellant on 20th January 2008
] at about 9 a.m in the office of Mahila Vikas Kendra
] Pulgate, Pune and the appellant shall collect the
] children therefrom.
]
] 3. Thereafter the appellant shall keep the children
] in his custody till 19th February 2008 and he shall
] deliver the custody of the children to the respondent
] No.1 on 20th February 2008 at the same place and time
] to enable the respondent No.1 to collect the children.
]
] 4. In this manner this cycle of one month shall go on
] until further order.
]
] 5. The appellant and the respondent No.1 shall not
] remove the children out of the municipal limits of the
] Pune Cantonment and Pune Corporation without prior
] permission of the learned Magistrate.”

11. It must be noted that even before this Court the three children were at pains to point out that they desire that their parents should stay together and they would be very happy if they get an opportunity to stay with both the parents. Therefore, on 19th September 2009 a suggestion was given by this Court to the parents to explore the possibility of reconciliation keeping in mind the desire expressed by the three children. The petition was adjourned thereafter from time to time. But the parties could not reconcile and come to a settlement. It is not possible at this stage to find out which of the two parties is not willing to settle the dispute. But it has to be observed that it would have been in the best interests of the minor children if the petitioner and the 1st respondent had patched up the differences and had agreed to reside under one roof only with a view to ensure that the minor children get company of both the parents. Both the parties should have given paramount importance to the wishes expressed by their children. Sadly, the petitioner and 1st respondent are not able to patch up the disputes. They could have even considered of residing under one roof atleast for few years till the children become major.

12. The three children are school going children. It must be stated here that the Sessions Court has passed a very peculiar order. The Sessions Court thought that it is in the interests of the minors that they remain in custody of their parents every alternate month. Such approach, to say the least, is shocking. The learned Sessions Judge has not at all considered the effect of this arrangement on the minors. The Act of disturbing custody of the minors after every one month will cause mental trauma to the minor children. The minor children have already suffered because of the attitude adopted by the parents of not settling the disputes atleast for the sake of children. In a case where there is a dispute between the parents over the custody of minor children, the custody has to be retained with one of the parents with visitation rights and/or right to have temporary custody for few days reserved in favour of the other parent. The arrangement which is made by the impugned order is certainly not in the interests of the minors and by such arrangement, the minors are bound to suffer. Therefore, the order impugned which is certainly not consistent with the welfare of the minors, will have to be quashed and set aside. Now the question which remains is what should be the interim arrangement during the pendency of the main application under section 12 of the said Act. For whatever reasons, for a substantially long time, the custody of the minors has remained with the 1st respondent father. Now it will not be in the interests of the minors to disturb the custody of the father till the main application is heard. The main application under section 12 of the said Act will have to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. However, the petitioner will have to be given right to meet her minor children and to remain in their company for sufficiently long time at periodical intervals. Even the minor children will need the company of their mother. However, interim arrangement will have to be worked out by the parties before the learned Magistrate as the 1st respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court at the time of final hearing.

13. Hence, I pass the following order:

: O R D E R :

(a) The impugned order dated 19th December 2007 is quashed and set aside.

(b) Considering the events which have transpired, till the disposal of the application under section 12 of the said Act, the custody of the minor children of the 1st respondent husband shall not be disturbed unless there are subsequent events warranting change in custody.

(c) The petitioner will be entitled to meet the minor children at regular intervals and to remain in their company for sufficiently long time. The learned Magistrate will pass a proper order in that behalf after hearing both the parties.

(d) The main application under section 12 of the said Act shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

(e) All contentions of the parties in the main application are expressly kept open.

(f) The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

(A.S.OKA,J)

 

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/88924056/

why is there NO candlelight against police inaction and custodial deaths ???

Friend of India Rape Victim Criticizes Police Response

 

By KRISHNA POKHAREL And PREETIKA RANA

 
NEW DELHI—A man who was present at a brutal gang rape that led to the death of the 23-year-old victim spoke publicly for the first time with details of the attack and harsh words for police, who he said wasted time fighting over jurisdiction before taking the woman to a hospital.
 
The incident has spurred protests across India for better policing and tougher laws to protect women from sexual assault. India’s Home Ministry said Friday it will recruit 2,500 female police personnel in New Delhi and dispatch at least a dozen to every police station in the city to enhance security for women.
 

Associated Press

Rape charges against a Congress party leader sparked a vigil Friday.
 
On Friday, the male companion of the victim in the Dec. 16 attack, interviewed on camera by TV channel Zee News, also blamed fellow citizens for failing to help them.
 
The pair, whose names haven’t been publicly released, had been to a film before boarding the bus where the rape occurred.
 
The bus driver and five others have been accused of assaulting the pair and raping the woman for over an hour before dumping them, naked, on a highway. The six also face murder charges, following the death of the woman on Dec. 29. The accused don’t have legal representation and have made no public statements.
 
In the interview, the man, a 28-year-old working in information technology, described how the two called out for help but were ignored. “Several auto rickshaws, cars and bikes slowed down but no one stopped for about 25 minutes,” he said. “Nobody from the public helped us. People were probably afraid that if they help us they would become witness to the crime and would be asked to come to police stations and courts.”
 
About 45 minutes after being dumped on the road, three police vans arrived but the officers then argued over which station should deal with the couple, he said. It took at least two hours from the time they were thrown off the bus to the time they reached a hospital, he said.
 
“My friend was bleeding profusely,” the man said. “But instead of taking us to a nearby hospital, they took us to a faraway hospital.”
 
The description is at odds with the police’s recounting of the incident and is likely to further fuel public anger over what many see as poor policing and ineffectual rape laws.
 
The Delhi police has said its officers responded quickly, getting the couple to a hospital and quickly arresting the six alleged assailants. A police spokesman declined to comment on the male victim’s statement on Friday that police were slow to act.
 
The spokesman, Rajan Bhagat, said authorities have registered a criminal case against Zee News for reporting the identity of the man, as doing so could potentially lead people to work out the identity of the rape victim.
 
In the interview, the channel named the male companion but not the female victim. The man doesn’t name the woman.
 
Indian law doesn’t allow the naming of rape victims without permission from the victim or family members. An official at Zee News declined to comment on the criminal case against the TV channel.
 
Authorities filed charges against five of the men Thursday in a Delhi court. The sixth suspect will face trial in juvenile court. All are in custody.
 
Lawyers at the court hearing the case have declined to represent the five men. A judge is expected soon to appoint legal representation for them. The 1,000-page document containing the charges against the five men hasn’t been made public.
 
The victim’s male companion told Zee News the two got suboptimal care at the hospital, a version of events that also runs counter to the police narrative.
 
“Even at the hospital we were made to wait and I had to literally beg for clothes. I borrowed a stranger’s mobile and called my relatives,” he told the channel.
 
Police took the couple to government-run Safdarjung Hospital. An official there declined to comment. The woman was later transferred to a hospital in Singapore, where she died from severe organ failure due to injuries incurred during the gang rape.
 
The man said he had been unsure about getting into the bus, a chartered vehicle with curtains and tinted windows.
 
But they boarded anyway as they were running late, he said. Under Delhi law, such a bus wasn’t supposed to be picking up fee-paying passengers, police said.
 
Once inside, he said, the couple each paid a 30-cent fare.
 
The other men on the bus initially acted as if they were normal passengers, he said. But then they started taunting the woman with lewd comments.The man said a brawl ensued, with the accused beating the couple with an iron rod that police and doctors said was used in the sexual assault.
 
“From where we boarded bus, they moved around for nearly 2½ hours. We were shouting, trying to make people hear us. But they switched off the lights. We tried to resist them.
 
Even my friend fought with them, she tried to save me,” he said.
 
Activists say male police often try to dissuade rape victims from registering cases, and sometimes steer them to marry the men who raped them.
 
According to National Crime Records Bureau statistics, there were some 67,000 police personnel in New Delhi at the end of 2011, of which 5,180, or less than 8%, were women.
Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, announcing the plan to recruit more female police officers, said India’s justice system had failed to deal with rape, with thousands of cases pending in a overburdened court system.

 
—Rajesh Roy contributed to this article.