Police: Mom Watched, Encouraged Gang Rape: Woman Targeted After Boyfriend Angers Gang Members

SANTA ANA, Calif. — Authorities called it one of the worst rape cases they could recall.
Seven gang members and three female associates were charged Monday with raping a woman as the mother of one suspect allegedly watched and encouraged the assault, authorities said.
The 23-year-old victim was targeted because her boyfriend had angered members of the Anaheim gang, authorities said.
She was lured into a hotel room by a female gang associate at a Feb. 23 party then sexually assaulted over a seven-hour period, Anaheim police Chief John Welter said.
He called it “one of the worst rapes I’ve seen in my 35 years experience.”
Authorities identified the 38-year-old “gang mother” as Connie Herrera Retana and her son as 18-year-old Martin Carlos Delgado. Police said the victim was lured into the room and beaten by 23-year-old Jolean Disbrow.
“It makes you shake your head that mothers could be participating,” said Orange County Assistant District Attorney Susan Kang Schroeder. “It shows how a group mentality can breed disgusting behavior.”
Four suspects were arrested in Garden Grove driving the victim’s car.
The gang members told the victim the assault was to teach her boyfriend a lesson and that she would be killed if she reported the crime, Schroeder said. Authorities declined to say what the victim’s boyfriend had done.
Along with Retana, Delgado and Disbrow, those arrested were identified as Jesse Bess, 23; Randy Calderon, 18; Keizzy Fierro, 22; Adrian Flores, 18; Raymond Jaramillo, 19; Luis Nava, 19; and Gilbert Ortiz, 15. One suspect, identified as 19-year-old Oscar Jose “Sporty” Barajas, remained at large.
Each defendant was charged with four counts of forcible rape in concert. Each also faced one count of false imprisonment by violence, forcible oral copulation and forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object by force, prosecutors said.
All but Fierro were charged with dissuading a witness from reporting a crime and criminal street gang activity. Fierro and two others were charged with receiving stolen property — the victim’s car. Delgado was charged with one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle.
They were each being held in lieu of $100,000 bail, with arraignment expected Friday.
The maximum penalties the defendants face if convicted range from 52 years to life to 184 years to life.
It wasn’t immediately known whether any of the defendants have retained attorneys. A message could not be left at the county public defender’s office late Monday.

Afgan Worst Case

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cba_1337116737

Afgan Worst Case

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cba_1337116737

US Case

Fla. teens accused of gang rape attack

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press WriterSat Jul 7, 11:52 AM ET

Two teenagers were accused of gang raping a woman and forcing her 12-year-old son to join in the attack, then beating him and pouring cleaning solution into his eyes.

Authorities allege Avion Lawson, 14, and Nathan Walker, 16, were among a group of about 10 masked suspects who forced their way into the woman's apartment in a crime-ridden housing project the night of June 18.

The two were being held without bail Friday on suspicion of armed sexual battery by multiple perpetrators, sexual performance by a child, armed home invasion and aggravated battery. Both were arrested this week, but formal charges had not been filed. Authorities said the two would be charged as adults.

"Any rape case is horrible but this takes it to another level, something you can't think of even in your worst dreams," police spokesman Ted White said.

According to the police report, a man knocked on the woman's door at about 9 p.m. and told her he had a flat tire. The mother and son, whom police have not identified, went outside and were ambushed by a group of gun-wielding suspects.

The victims told police they were forced back into their home and beaten and sexually assaulted. According to authorities, the men raped, sodomized and beat the woman, then forced her son to participate in the assault at gunpoint, making him have sex with his mother in front of them.

The boy was then beaten and had numerous household cleaning liquids poured into his eyes, according to the police report.
The suspects also stole a few hundred dollars worth of cash and jewelry, White said...

Australia Case

Pictured: The horror basement where sisters were raped for 41 years by their father and slowly went mad

Women were born healthy but became mentally ill because of abuse, new evidence reveals

Victims kept in dingy basement surrounded by wood and tools

Neighbours knew father as 'stern, rigid' master of his house

Women were only seen outside once - visiting mother's grave

This is the disgusting dungeon where an Austrian man violated his own daughters in a nightmare spanning 15,000 days and nights.
'If you fight back, then I will kill you,' Gottfried W. told his children Christine, 53, and Erika, 45, who were forced to sleep at night on a wooden shelf while their father, now 80, snoozed in a feather bed.
Amid farming implements, old oil drums, wood, cement sacks and filth he violated his own flesh and blood with a depravity on a par with Josef Fritzl.
His wife Berta, 85, passed away in 2008.  She too was a victim of the former council labourer's sadism, beaten like them with a stick and poked with a pitchfork.

The girls became mentally ill over the years - not a condition they were born with, but a result of the torments they suffered at his hands.
Police say their mother, also beaten into submission, made them promise on her deathbed not to tell anyone about what their father did to them.
Other rooms in the sprawling house near Braunau-am-Inn - the birthplace of Adolf Hitler - were kept spic and span.
But the girls were forced to live in squalor, sleep in the kitchen and use a commode instead of the lavatory in the house.

Forty years of abuse ended in May this year when Gottfried tried to have his way with Christine one more time and she finally snapped.
She hit him with a milk jug on the head. He fell to the floor and cracked his head again.
For two days he was unable to move and police say they hoped he would die.
Finally the women, who were seen from time to time by a social worker - but who were so conditioned by his threats never to expose his vile treatment of them - called her in.
She telephoned for an ambulance for him and the women were taken into care.  But still they said nothing.
It was only in June when they opened up to a Red Cross worker about what had happened to them.
It was this volunteer who called in the police.
Austria - still coming to terms with the kidnapping of schoolgirl Natascha Kampusch in the 90s and the Fritzl incest saga - is stunned at another terrible family crime being exposed within its borders.
Gottfried, known as Friedl to neighbours, was an archetypal Austrian father of the old school. He was stern, rigid, master of his house and keeper of the secrets that went inside it.
He controlled all social contact of his daughters with the outside world.
The only time they were seen out together was with him visiting the grave of their mother.
Gottfried has been moved to a prison in nearby Ried while the investigation against him continues; his daughters are undergoing psychiatric therapy in a clinic.
He faces charges of rape, unlawful imprisonment, cruelty, assault and making threats to kill.  He was moved from an OAP home where he had been treated since his injuries in May to the jail on Thursday.

Sydney gang rapes

The Sydney gang rapes were a series of gang rape attacks committed by a group of up to fourteen Lebanese Australian Muslims led by Bilal Skaf against non-Muslim women and teenage girls, as young as 14, in Sydney Australia in 2000. The crimes— described as ethnically motivated hate crimes by officials and commentators^[1][2][3]— were covered extensively by the news media, and prompted the passing of new laws. The nine men convicted of the gang rapes were sentenced to a total of more than 240 years in jail. According to court transcripts Judge Michael Finnane described the rapes as events "you hear about or read about only in the context of wartime atrocities".^[4]

Attacks

Day	Month	Year	Week day	Event
10	August	2000	Thursday	Attackers offered a ride and a portion of cannabis to two teenage girls aged 17 and 18. The women were taken by the attackers to Northcote Park, Greenacre where more collaborators were waiting. The women were then forced to fellate eight males.[5]
12			Saturday	A 16-year-old girl was brought to Gosling Park, Greenacre by someone who she believed was her friend, 17-year-old Mohammed Skaf. At the park she was raped by Mohammed's brother Bilal Skaf and one other man, with twelve other men present who she said were "standing around, laughing and talking in their own language".[6] The second man held a gun to her head and kicked her in the stomach before she was able to escape.[7]
30			Wednesday	Another woman was approached by attackers at the Bankstown railway station, who proposed she join them in smoking some cannabis at another location. She agreed and went with them; however she was taken to three separate locations by the men and raped 25 times by a total of fourteen men in an ordeal that lasted six hours. After the attacks the woman was hosed down with a fire hose. The woman, who was known during the trial as 'C' to protect her identity, later told her story to 60 Minutes. She told of how the attackers called her an "Aussie Pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style".[8]
4	September		Monday	Two women, both 16, were taken by the attackers from Beverly Hills railway station to a house in another suburb, where three men repeatedly raped them over a period of five hours. One of the victims was told that "You deserve it because you're an Australian".

Further attempted attacks
A further series of gang rapes were said to have been attempted, but thwarted. Four of the attackers were also convicted for an attack on Friday 4 August 2000 when they approached a fourteen-year-old girl on a train where she was threatened with violence, punched twice and slapped,^[10] told that she would be forced to perform fellatio on several men and that she was going to be raped.^[11]

[edit] Attackers

• Bilal Skaf led and orchestrated the three August 2000 attacks. He was initially sentenced to a total of 55 years imprisonment, but had his sentence for these attacks reduced by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to 28 years, with no parole for the first 22 years. However, on 28 July 2006 Acting Justice Jane Mathews added another ten years to his sentence for his role in the 12 August rape. His original conviction over this attack had been quashed in 2004 and a retrial ordered after it was revealed that two jurors had conducted their own investigations at Gosling Park.^[12] Bilal Skaf is eligible for release on parole from 11 February 2033. In March 2003 Skaf was charged with sending mail containing white powder to a corrections department official from prison in an apparent hoax terrorist act.^[13]
• Mohammed Skaf, younger brother of Bilal Skaf, was one of the gang rapists. He was sentenced to 32 years for his role in the gang rapes, but also had his sentence reduced on appeal, to 19 years with a non-parole period of 11 years. However, on 28 July 2006 he received an additional 15 years, with a minimum of seven and a half years over the Gosling Park attack. Mohammed Skaf will now be eligible for release on parole from 1 July 2019.^[6] Skaf showed no remorse for his crimes, making sexually inappropriate remarks to female staff at the Kariong juvenile facility where he was incarcerated, and continued to blame his victims for initially agreeing to go with him because "they came out with us as soon as I asked them."^[14]
• Belal Hajeid, then aged 20, was another gang rapist who was convicted and imprisoned for 23 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. Hajeid later had his sentence reduced on appeal.
• Mohammed Sanoussi, then 18, gang rapist who was sentenced to 21 years with a non-parole period of 12 years for the 10 and 30 August rapes. Sanoussi later had his sentence reduced to 16 years on appeal. Shortly after Sanoussi's conviction his brother and cousin were banned from visiting him in prison for three months after a rowdy clash with staff at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre where he was incarcerated. Shouting broke out when staff removed the visitors after they had tried to pass newspaper clippings to the brothers about their sentencing the previous day.^[15] Sanoussi remains behind bars after being denied parole for a second time in October, 2011. [1]
• Mahmoud Sanoussi, brother of Mohammed Sanoussi, then aged 17, was sentenced to 11 years and three months imprisonment with parole available after six-and-a-half years. He unsuccessfully appealed against his sentence in 2005. He was released on parole in May 2009, but had his parole revoked in March 2010 due to his drug use.^[16]
• Mahmoud Chami, then 20, attacker sentenced to 18 years with a non-parole period of ten years. Chami unsuccessfully appealed against his sentence in 2004. Chami is eligible for released on parole in December 2012.^[17]
• "H" (Identity sealed: H has had his name suppressed under court order due to his "intellectual and mental disabilities"^[18]), then 19, was sentenced to 25 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. 'H' later had his sentence reduced on appeal.
• "T", then 16, was initially sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years for his role in the 30 August rape. He was retried and sentenced to eight years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. He was released from prison in late June 2007.^{[19] [20]}
• Mohammed Ghanem, then 19, was the final person to be sentenced and was imprisoned for 40 years with a non-parole period of 26 years for two counts of rape. Ghanem, like his co-offenders Bilal Skaf and Mohammed Skaf showed no remorse for his actions, effectively opting to "tough it out" at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre where he was detained while awaiting trial.^[21]

There was evidence to convict only nine men of the fourteen suspects. Sentences totaled 240 years in prison.

Racial controversy

Conservative commentators such as Miranda Devine categorised the crimes as racially motivated hate crimes.^[1][2][3] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the rapists had stated to a victim, during the attack, "You deserve it because you're an Australian" and "I'm going to fuck you Leb style". Two thirds of Muslim and Arab Australians said that they experienced an increase in racial vilification towards them after a number of events including the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA, the Bali bombings, and these rapes.^[22]

New laws

The gang rapes led to the passage of new legislation through the Parliament of New South Wales, dramatically^{[clarification needed]} increasing the sentences for gang rapists by creating a new category of crime known as aggravated sexual assault in company.^[23]
Also, in the course of one of the trials the defendants refused counsel as they believed that "all lawyers were against Muslims". This led to the contentious prospect of the defendants being able to cross-examine the witnesses- the victims- themselves,^{[citation needed]} a situation that was averted by further legislation being put through the New South Wales parliament.^[24]
Actions taken by government ministers, including Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr, who publicly identified the perpetrators' background, led to controversy. Ethnic community group leaders, including Keysar Trad of the Lebanese Muslim Association, complained that Carr was smearing the entire Lebanese Muslim community with the crimes of a few of its members, and that his public comments would stir up ethnic hatred. ^[25]
The first court case heard under the new sentencing regime concerned the gang rapes of two women by Pakistani and Nepalese immigrants in Ashfield on 28 July 2002.

Coordination of the attacks

The attackers used SMS and mobile phones to orchestrate the attacks, utilizing this technology to phone ahead to other attackers to co-ordinate transport of rape gang members to the locations where women were being held. Authorities later released some of this material, recovered from the rapists' mobile phones. The attackers texted such messages as "When you are feeling down ...bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up".^[26] and "I've got a slut with me bro, come to Punchbowl"

Vachathi case

The Vachathi case refers to a crime that happened on 20 June 1992 in the Vachathi village of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu. A team comprising 155 forest personnel, 108 policemen and six revenue officials entered the Dalit-dominated Vachathi village, searching for smuggled sandalwood^[1]. Under the pretext of conducting a search, the team ransacked the villagers' property, destroyed their houses, killed their cattle, assaulted around 100 villagers, and raped 18 women.^[2]
On 29 September 2011, a special court in India convicted all 269 accused officials for atrocity on Dalits and 17 for rape. 54 of the accused had died by the time; the remaining 215 were sentenced to jail

Imrana rape case

The Imrana rape case is the case of the sexual assault of a 28 year-old Indian Muslim woman by her father-in-law on 6 June 2005 in Charthawal village in the Muzaffarnagar district Uttar Pradesh, India (located located 70 km from Delhi). The village elders and subsequently, several levels of Islamic legal opinion regarded Imrana's marriage with her husband null, as the Sharia regards sexual relations with both the father and son as incestuous. This sparked nation-wide controversy as critics argued the case was treated as adultery and not rape.

Rape and Islamic rulings
On 6 June 2005, Imrana, 28 years old at the time, and the mother of five children, was raped by her 69-year-old father-in-law Ali Mohammad.
Soon after she was raped, a local Muslim panchayat (council of elders) asked her to treat her husband Nur Ilahi as her son and declared their marriage null and void.^[3] Imrana defied the panchayat's ruling and continued living with her husband.
The leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband also issued a fatwa^[4] or opinion, which quotes from Quran 4:22: wa la tankihoo ma nakaha aaba-o-kum, “And marry not women whom your fathers married”, and not distinguishing between rape and adultery, said that as a result of her father-in-law's act, she should now be treated as the mother of her husband and she could no longer live with him even though Imrana had not married her father-in-law. She was still married to her husband when she was raped by her father in law therefore the fatwa provided by the panchayat's disregard the Islamic rulings against rape and the punishment for the rapists. Due to such fatwa Imrana is in a way being prosecuted instead of her rapist father in law as she is being ordered to leave her husband and start a life with her rapist. The fatwa is a clarification of the ruling by the village leaders who disregarded the Islamic teachings for such cases for the sake of shunning Imrana who is thought to have brought shame to the community by having sexual intercourse with her father in law.^[5]
This fatwa was based on the Abu Hanifa school of Islamic Jurisprudence (Hanafi fiqh), which rules that on having sex with a man she marries, a woman has the status of mother to all his children. The other three schools, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, reject this position^[6][7] The All India Muslim Personal Law Board also endorsed the fatwa,^[8] but opinions were divided between the Hanafi and Shafi'i,^[6] the two sunni fiqh's mostly represented in India.
Later, the Deoband seminary denied that it has issued such a fatwa.^{[citation needed]} Nur Ilahi continued to stay with Imrana and said that "[they] neither sought advice nor counsel from Deoband. [They] have not raised the issue before clerics."
At one point, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav also endorsed the view of the Darul Uloom that she can no longer live with her husband.
After Imrana's case was highlighted by the national media, the National Commission for Women directed authorities in Muzaffarnagar to take action.^[9] The body's chairperson Girija Vyas asked the Uttar Pradesh government to punish the guilty and sought a report on the incident.

Arrest of father-in-law

Police registered a case under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against Mohammed Ali and arrested him. Police also filed a case against him on 30 June 2005 with a medical report and recorded Imrana's statement before a magistrate. The court had turned down Mohammed Ali's bail plea on 5 December 2005
In a video recorded by the Muslim Political Council of India,^[10] Imrana (veiled) says that once she screamed, Mohammed Ali had run away. On being asked again, she reiterates that the forceful attempt was not successful.^[11]
However, the court took a different view based on evidence presented in the trial. On October 2006, Mohammed Ali was condemned to a prison term of ten years for raping Imrana. At one point the defense lawyer sought a leniency based on age of the defendant, but this was denied.^[12] The judge also directed Mohammed Ali to pay compensation of Rs 8,000 to Imrana for raping her.^[13] On the separate charge of criminal intimidation, Mohammed ali was sentenced to three years in prison and fined in Rs 3,000.

Timeline

Chronology of events in the Imrana rape case:

• 6 June 2005: Ali Mohammed raped his daughter-in-law Imrana.

• 13 June 2005: A local Muslim panchayat declared Imrana's marriage to Nur Ilahi void as she "had sex" with her father-in-law and asks her to treat her husband as her son, which means she would have to stop living with him.

• 13 June 2005: Mohammed is arrested.

• 16 June 2005: Mohammed is sent to judicial custody.

• 30 June 2005: The police filed cases against Mohammed along with a medical report. Imrana's statement is recorded before a magistrate.

• 5 December 2005: The court turned down Mohammed's bail plea.

• 30 December 2005: The charges are framed against Mohammed.

• 19 October 2006: The court sentenced Mohammed to 10 years in prison for raping Imrana. He also received a three-year term for a separate charge of criminal intimidation.

Bhanwari Devi

Bhanwari Devi is an Indian woman, whose alleged gang rape in 1992 and the subsequent court case attracted widespread media attention nationally and internationally. Bhanwari Devi's legal battle culminated when the Supreme Court of India in a PIL for the first time, defined sexual harassment at workplace, preventive measures and redress mechanism. The judgement is popularly known as "Vishaka Judgement"
Biography
Bhanwari Devi is a low-caste potter from Bhateri, a small village in Rajasthan located 55 km from the state capital Jaipur. Most of the villagers belonged to the conservative Gurjar community, which is higher in the caste hierarchy than the Kumhar caste, to which Bhanwari belongs.

As a saathin

In 1985, when she needed money, Bhanwari became a saathin ("friend"), a grassroots worker employed as part of the Women's Development Project (WDP) run by the Government of Rajasthan. As part of her job, she took up issues related to land, water, literacy, health, Public Distribution System, and payment of minimum wages at famine relief works.^[2] In 1987, she took up a major issue of the attempted rape of a woman from a neighbouring village. All of these activities had the full support of the members of her village. However, in 1992, Bhanwari found herself alienated, when she took up the issue of child marriage.^[2]
In 1992, the State Government of Rajasthan had decided to launch an anti-child-marriage campaign during the fortnight preceding Akha Teej, which is considered an auspicious date for marriages. The WDP members and other government employees tried to convince the local villagers against child marriage. However, some influential conservative Gurjar families in the village were determined to perform child marriages. In one such family, Ram Karan Gurjar was planning to marry off his 9-month old daughter. Bhanwari's attempts to persuade the family against this move met with a hostile response.
On May 5, the day of Akha Teej, the Deputy Suprintendent of Police (DSP) and SDO came to Bhateri and stopped the marriage of Ram Karan's infant daughter. The marriage, however, took place next day at 2 a.m and no police action was taken. The Gurjar community in the village felt that the police interference in their affairs must have been a consequence of Bhanwari's report to the police. The annoyed villagers refused her water from the well, refused to sell her milk and started threatening her regularly.

The gang-rape

According to Bhanwari,^[3] on 22 September 1992, at 6 p.m., five villagers attacked her husband Mohan Lal and left him unconscious, while the couple was working on their field. The five men were Ram Karan Gurjar, Ram Sukh Gurjar, Gyarsa Gurjar, Badri Gurjar and Shravan Sharma. When she came to her husband's rescue, Gyarsa and Badri raped her, while the other three held her.
Bhanwari reported the incident to Ms. Sharma, the pracheta (a block-level worker). The pracheta took her to the Bassi police station to lodge a First Information Report (FIR). The DSP who examined Bhanwari for signs of injury, doubted her story, and sent her to the Primary Health Center (PHC).^[4] The Indian medical procedure and legal guidelines stipulate that the examination of a female rape victim be performed by female doctors, but the two female doctors at the PHC were not available at the time. The only male doctor available refused to conduct the examination, and instead sent her to the Sawai Man Singh hospital in Jaipur, with a chit requesting a medical examination "confirming age of victim". The Medical Jurist at Jaipur said that he couldn't conduct the test without orders from the Magistrate. The Magistrate refused to give the orders until the next day, as it was past his working hours.^[4]
The order was sanctioned next day, but only for a general medical examination. The vaginal swab was taken more than 48 hours after the alleged rape, although the Indian law requires this to be done within 24 hours.^[4] Although the medical examination was conducted 52 hours after the rape, the trial began only two years later, in a lower court.^[5]
At the police station, Bhanwari was asked to deposit her "lehanga" (long skirt) as evidence. She had to cover herself with her husband's blood-stained saafa (turban) and walk 3 km to the nearest saathin's village Kherpuria, at about 1 a.m.^[4]
On 25 September 1992, Rajasthan Patrika carried a small news item stating that a woman from Bhateri had registred an FIR in Bassi 'thana' alleging gang rape.^[2] Following this, a number of local Hindi dailies as well as national dailies reported the incident. On 2 October 1992, the Rajasthan Patrika carried an editorial article Kroor Hadsa ("Brutal Incident") condemning the incident. Soon after, many Jaipur-based women's groups and other social organizations began making inquiries about the incident. However, Bhanwari was accused of fabricating the entire incident by the alleged rapists and their supporters, and faced public humiliation in her village.^[2] She refused monetary compensation to avoid allegations that she had cooked up the rape story to get money.^[6]

The court case

In 1994, Bhanwari Devi was offered compensation by the accused to withdraw the court case against them. She refused, and instead asked them to restore her dignity by accepting that they had raped her. Bhanwari's brothers wanted her to accept the compensation, and broke all ties with her when she refused to do so. Sometime later, her elder son, daughter-in-law and her in-laws followed suit.^[5]
During the course of the case, five judges were changed, and the sixth judge ruled that the accused were not guilty, in November 1995. The district sessions judge pronounced that upper-caste men could not have raped a Dalit.^[6] The rapists included an uncle-nephew pair, and the judge insisted that a man could not possibly have participated in a gang-rape in the presence of his nephew. He also said that since the medical examination happened 52 hours after the alleged rape, Devi could be lying. He also said that Bhanwari's husband couldn't have passively watched his wife being gang-raped.^[6]
A state MLA organised a victory rally in the state capital Jaipur for the five accused declared not guilty, and the women's wing of his political party attended the rally to call Bhanwari a liar.^[5] The State Government decided to appeal against the judgment. The judgement led to a nationwide campaign for justice for Bhanwari Devi.^[6] However, by 2007, 15 years after the incident, the Rajasthan High Court held only one hearing on the case and two of the accused were dead.^[6]

[edit] Aftermath

Bhanwari Devi and her family were ostracized by the villagers, majority of whom belonged to the 'upper' castes. Her son Mukesh (who was barely four years old when she was raped) had been beaten up by local Gurjar boys when he went to a college in Dausa. He had a difficult time finding a family willing to marry their daughter to him.^[6] Bhanwari Devi's own caste ostracized her as they believed that she had been "polluted" by rape. Bhanwari Devi accepted Rs. 25,000 from the Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, but her brother spent the entire amount in organizing a Kumhar caste panchayat, where people were asked to accept her back into the community.
In 2001, Jag Mundhra made a film Bawandar on Bhanwari Devi's story, which renewed public interest in the case. The New Indian Express journalist Sukhmani Singh tracked her down, and reported: "Feisty, outspoken, innately hospitable, she openly expressed her resentment against both the women's groups and the government, all of whom have been fiercely guarding her like their pet mannequin all these many years."^[7] He reported that she was "weary, resigned and bitter" after all these years. According to him, a small-time political worker and businessman describing Bhanwari as a "rakhi sister" had brokered a deal with Mundhra for the film.^[7] He also reported that Bhanwari wanted to leave Bhateri, but couldn't afford to do so. Her sole source of income was a buffalo, as her two bighas of land had become unproductive due to three years of drought. Most of the money that she received as part of the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award in 1994 was locked away in a trust to aid women.^[8]

Impact

Bhanwari Devi risked her life amidst threats from the conservative villagers, and showed courage in seeking justice in spite of social boycott. It was for the first time in the conservative region that a woman was not ashamed of rape and spoke openly about it. Bhanwari Devi's case shaped the women's movement in Rajasthan, and emboldened other rape victims to come forward and lodge complains against their rapists.^[9]
Bhanwari Devi had attracted the ire of her rapists solely on the basis of her work. This prompted several women's groups to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India, under the collective platform of Vishaka.^[10] The petition, filed by Vishaka and four other women's organizations in Rajasthan against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997^[1] provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant victory for Bhanwari Devi's fight for justice.^[9]
By 2007, the average age of the first-time mother in Rajasthan had gone up to 16.5 years. According to Shivam Vij, this change was brought about by the efforts of women's groups, catalyzed by the Bhanwari Devi case.^[6]

Recognition

Bhanwari Devi has received support both nationally and internationally, and was invited to be a part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.
In 1994, she was awarded the Neerja Bhanot Memorial Award carrying Rs. 1 lakh cash prize, for her "extraordinary courage, conviction and commitment".^[11]
In 2002, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, alloted a residential plot to Bhanwari Devi and announced a grant of Rs. 40,000 for construction of a house on the plot. He also sanctioned an additional amount Rs. 10,000 for the education of her son.^[12]

Ajmer rape case

Ajmer sex scandal is a sex scandal of India that occurred in Ajmer town in Rajasthan state. It came to light in 1992. It was the biggest sex scandal to have been seen in India till then.
Modus operandi
A gang of people befriended school banda, raped them, took photographs in compromising positions and used these to exploit them. According to the reports, more than 200 girls were involved.^{[citation needed]}

Trial

According to the police and women NGOs, it was a tough case to build as most of the victims were reluctant to come forward. It was the photographs and videos used to blackmail which came in handy in identifying the accused and building the case against them. Of the girls suspected to have been subjected to rape and blackmail, 30 were identified in the investigations; only about a dozen had filed cases and of these 10 later backed out. Only two resolutely pursued the case. The episode took place at the Chishty Farm house in Foysagar Road, ajmer.
The 1st judgment came in 1998 after six years of tortuous proceedings and eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by Ajmer District court. Of the remaining eight accused, Farooq Chishty, a former Indian Youth Congress leader was reported to have lost his mental balance and turned schizophrenic. His trial is still pending.
Another accused, Purushottam was said to have committed suicide (but according to some reports is said to be alive) soon after he was released on bail on March 8, 1994. Six others, including the two main accused Nafees Chishty and Sohail Ghani had disappeared and remain traceless.
The Rajasthan High Court acquitted four out of eight by reducing their life sentence to 10 years imprisonment but maintained the life sentence on the other four. The Government of Rajasthan appealed against the acquittal in the Supreme Court of India while the four had challenged their conviction. Finally in 2004, the Supreme court dismissed both the appeals filed by the state as well as the convicted persons a Bench comprising Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Justice B P Singh said “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment.”
Today according to the Indian Police the search is still on for the ones absconding. Accused likes ‘Nafees Chishty’ and ‘Purushottam’, continue to go with their lives while many girls till today bear the brunt of the crimes committed by others. Farooq Chishty has been awarded life imprisonment. His Nephew Salman Chishty is handling his case and the family is trying hard to get him out of jail.

Victims

Most of the victims faced harassment and threats with no support from the society and even their own families. According to police investigations, about six were suspected to have been driven to suicide. Ajmer Mahila Samooh, who tried to take up the cause of the victims, soon withdrew following threats to its activists.

Anjana Mishra rape case

Anjana Mishra rape case was a high profile rape case that occurred in state of Orissa (India) in 1999. Anjana Mishra, estranged wife of an Indian Forest Service officer, was raped on 9 January 1999. The case had created a furore in the State with Anjana accusing the then Chief Minister J. B. Patnaik and his friend former Advocate-General of Orissa Indrajit Ray of having played a role in the incident.^[1] The rape case spoiled the party's image. The party president Sonia Gandhi replaced the Chief Minister by Giridhar Gamang.
The car in which Anjana and her journalist friend were travelling on 9 January 1999 was intercepted at a desolate place near Barang on the outskirts of Bhubaneswar by the three accused and she was gang raped in front of her friend.^[2] Two of the culprits were arrested on 26 January 1999, and remanded to judicial custody.^[3] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took up the case after the Orissa High Court ordered the investigating agency on 26 February 1999, to probe the case. The CBI submitted its charge-sheet on 5 May 1999.
After a long battle, Anjana Mishra has won her case. In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2002 the District and Sessions Judge of Khurda, Orissa, sentenced two of the three accused persons in the case to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 each. Judge Mahendra Nath Patnaik convicted Pradip Sahoo and Direndra Mohanty on charges of sexually assaulting Anjana while she was travelling in a car from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar along with a friend on 9 January 1999 . The third accused, Biban Biswal, is still absconding.^[4]
On the judgment Anjana Mishra said that she was still "depressed" as the investigating agency had not made any effort to arrest Biswal, who, she alleged held the key to unravelling the "conspiracy" behind the gang rape.

Earlier attempted rape

On 12 July 1997, Anjana formally complained against Ray by writing to the Chief Minister stating that on 11 July Ray invited her on to his office-cum-residence in Cuttack, took her to his bedroom on the pretext of receiving a confidential call, and attempted to rape her. As no action was taken, representatives of several women's organisations met the Chief Minister who suggested a compromise deal. This was rejected by Anjana. She filed a first information report with the Cantonment police station in Cuttack on 19 July 1997. Anjana also accused the Chief Minister of shielding Ray.^[5] Ray had to quit the post following a public outcry and the case was taken up by the CBI. The CBI Designated Court sentenced Ray to three years' rigorous imprisonment in February 2000, charging him with attempted rape.

Thangjam Manorama

Thangjam Manoroma was the custodial rape victim of Manipur, who was brutally murdered by the armed forces of 17, Assam Rifles stationed in Manipur.
Rape and Murder ^[1]
The 32 year old woman named Thangjam Manorama alias Henthoi was brutally tortured and allegedly executed by personnel of the paramilitary force of 17 Assam Rifles stationed in Manipur, after she was picked by them on the early hours of 11 July 2004.
According to the victim's family, troops of the 17 Assam Rifles along with two Manipuri speaking people came to their house in Bamon Kampu, Imphal East District around midnight of 11 July 2004 and they broke the door and entered the house. At that time, Manorama was sleeping in her room. When the security personnel found her, they dragged her out from her bed and beat up the family members when they tried to stop them. Then they locked the house door from outside and brutally assaulted Manorama after blind folding her and tying her hand and feet.
At around 3:30 a.m. of July 11, the security personnel took Manorama along with them. They issued a memo of arrest to the family. In the memo of arrest, Havildar, General Duty of the Assam Rifles Suresh Kumar (Army no. 173355) and Riflemen T. Lotha (Army no. 173916) and Ajit Singh (Army no. 173491) put their signatures as authority and witnesses. According to the memo of arrest, no incriminating documents or articles were found with Manorama at the time of her arrest. The army personnel also forced the family to sign on some papers that they do not know about. The army personnel told the family that Manorama would be handed over to the Irilbung police in the morning. A report filed at the Irilbung Police Station in the early morning of 11 July 2004 indicated that Manorama was taken by the Assam Rifles personnel.
However, the bullet ridden body of Manorama was found at around 5:00 p.m. on 11 July 2004 by the villagers at Keirao Wangkhem Road near Ngariyan Maring Village, about four kilometers from the family's house. When it was found, the body wore no proper clothes. There were finger-scratch marks were found all over the body and a gashing wound probably made by knife was found on her right thigh, too. Several fatal bullet wounds were seen on her back, the upper buttock and the genitalia. Manorama's family strongly believes that she had been raped and then killed by the army personnel.
A post-mortem on the victim's body was conducted on July 11 at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal but the victim&'s family insisted that it was not conducted properly according to the guidelines laid down by the National Human Rights Commission. Until now, the family has been refusing to receive the body calling for proper and independent post-mortem and the victim's body is still in the RIMS morgue.
However, the official spokesman of 9 Sector Assam Rifles said on July 11 that Manorama was a member of the banned Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and was shot dead when she tried to flee while leading the Assam Rifles to a PLA hide out. The spokesman contradicted the memo of arrest given to the victim's mother saying that a wireless radio, a hand grenade and sheaf of incriminating documents were seized from Manorama at the time of her arrest.

Mass Response

Several women's groups called a 48-hour general strike the day after Manorama's body was found, bringing normal life in the state to a grinding halt for two days until July 12. On July 15, hundreds of women had stormed the Assam Rifles headquarters in Imphal, with at least 40 parading naked and holding placards that read: "Indian Army rape us" and "Indian Army takes our flesh.".^[2]

“	"It is better to protest naked than allow the soldiers to kill and rape our women."	”
	— Memchaoubi Devi, president of the women's rights group Porei Lemarol Meira Phaibi Apunba Manipur[3]

Curfew was imposed in Greater Imphal area and extended to Bishenpur and Thoubal Districts of Manipur, India since 11:00 a.m. on 15 July 2004 in wake of widespread public protests. However, again large number of people came out on the streets on July 15 defying the curfew that caused street battles between the people and Manipur police, Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The eyewitness confirmed that uniformed and armed central security forces personnel were also dispatched in the curfew areas. The people including women continued to go out on the streets and joined the demonstration on 16 July and over 100 people were injured in the police firing on July 16, while the police tried to disperse the people at various places including Kongba, Sangakpham, Tera, Uchekon and some on the outskirts of the state capital using tear gas and rubber bullets. The injured were rushed to the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences hospital. Both the hospitals were packed with injured people and their relatives and friends. There was complete chaos in the hospitals as so many injured persons were brought in.^[4]

Enquiry

After facing huge resistance of the people, the Chief Minister of Manipur, Okram Ibobi said on 16 July 2004 that the government would investigate this case and punish the Assam Rifles personnel involved in the killing of Manorama. Accordingly, Lt. Gen. Daljeet Singh, Corp Commander was summoned by the Chief Minister. The commanding officers of the 17 Assam Rifles were also instructed to hand over the three persons who had signed the memo of arrest for interrogation.
The military though did not agree the incident in total, agreed to cooperate with a judicial inquiry. The perpetrators were kept away from duty until the completion of judicial inquiry which started on 12 July 2004.^[5]
The state government then set up an inquiry commission under the chairmanship of retired district and session judge C. Upendra. The reports of the Inquiry Commission were submitted to the state government on November 22, 2004.
However, the Assam Rifles filed a case to the Guwahati High Court terming the inquiry conducted by the state government upon the armed forces as illegitimate. The state government as well as the victim's family had also filed cases to the High Court.
The ruling of the Guwahati High Court made on June 23, 2005 said that State Government had no authority to institute such commission against the central armed forces, under the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, but the reports of the Inquiry Commission should be submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Union Home Secretary should examine the report and subsequently take up actions against any personnel of Assam Rifles if found guilty. The ruling of the High Court was not welcomed by any party including Assam Rifles, state government and victim'ss family. They further filed appeals to the Guwahati High Court regarding the case.^[6]
The ruling of Justices Amitava Roy and B. D. Agarwal at Guwahati High Court on August 31, 2010 has allowed the State Government to open and act upon an inquiry report on the facts and circumstances leading to the brutal killing and rape of Thangjam Manorama Devi by Assam Rifles soldiers.^[7]

Tulasa Thapa

Tulasa Thapa (1970–1995) was a 12-year old Nepali girl who was kidnapped from her home village of Thankot near Kathmandu in 1982,^{[citation needed]} smuggled into Mumbai via the border town of Birganj in Parsa District, and sold into prostitution.^[1] She was systematically beaten into submission, then repeatedly raped to make her fit for the trade. She was sold to three different brothels in Mumbai, at prices ranging from 5000 to 7000 rupees.^{[citation needed]} In addition to the sex work she was forced to do in the brothel at a minimum of three customers per night (with an average of eight), she was sent to various city hotels dressed in European style clothes to entertain customers for 180 rupees per night until at last a hotel manager reported her to the police.^{[citation needed]} Following the public outcry, the governments of India and Nepal signed a 1985 cooperation agreement addressing the rescue and repatriation of Nepali girls trafficked into brothels in India
Rescue
Ten months later, in November 1982, when she was brought to Bombay's JJ Hospital, she was suffering from three types of sexually transmitted diseases, genital warts and brain tuberculosis which left her spastic and permanently using, and finally led to her death.^{[citation needed]} The People’s Health Organisation embarked on a full-fledged "Save Tulasa" campaign, and with the support of the media managed to rescue her. At the hospital, Tulasa was given police protection against possible reprisals from the prostitution industry. After a period of stay in the Dongri Remand Home, she returned to Nepal to take up residence in the Cheshire Home For the Disabled in Jorpati. Doctors evaluated Tulasa and found her to be severely damaged physically and psychologically.^{[citation needed]} Over the years, she remained incoherent and rambling in her speech. She used a wheelchair full-time and complained that her stomach hurt all the time, and that she could not go to the toilet.^{[citation needed]} Attempts were made to return her to her father, Bir Dhoj Thapa, but she was rejected by his second wife (Tulasa's mother had died shortly after her abduction), and eventually her family stopped visiting her. In 1994 Tulasa broke her leg in a suicide attempt.^{[citation needed]}

Death and media outcry

She was released from her institution in 1995, seemingly cured, but had a relapse and died that same year at age 24^{[citation needed]} of the tuberculosis she had acquired while enslaved as a sex worker in India.
The resulting media outcry resulted in the governments of India and Nepal signing a treaty for the rescue and repatriation of Nepali girls from Indian brothels.^{[citation needed]} In India the sentence for trafficking with minors has been hiked from 7 years to 13. Child prostitution has been reduced by about 40% but remains a major problem and no accurate figures are available. According to Reuters (Masako Iijima, "S. Asia Urged to Unite Against Child Prostitution," Reuters, June 19, 1998), over 40% of 484 prostituted girls rescued during major raids of brothels in Bombay in 1996 were from Nepal.
In 2000, she was back in the news for a short time as the verdict was delivered in the case against her persecutors. In the first report recorded on December 6, 1982, Tulasa had named 32 people responsible for abducting her and selling her to different brothels. These included taximen, the abductors and the brothel-owners. She also named three other Nepali men, Kancha Sarkhi, Lal Bahadur Kani and Uttam Kumar Pariyar^{[citation needed]}, whom the Nepal government had arrested and finally sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. Out of the 32 people arrested by Bombay police, seven were charged but released due to a lack of evidence. Only one of the nine suspects faced trial, the rest having hidden themselves away. The single accused was released by the judge on grounds of inadequate evidence.

Mathura rape case

The Mathura rape case was an incident in India wherein Mathura, a sixteen-year-old tribal girl, was allegedly raped by two policemen on the compound of Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra. The incident led to changes in Indian law.
Her relatives, who had come to register a complaint, were patiently waiting outside even as the act was allegedly being committed in the police station. When her relatives and the assembled crowd threatened to burn down the police chowky, the two accused policemen, Ganpat and Tukaram, reluctantly agreed to file a panchnama.^[1]
The case came for hearing on 1 June 1974 in the sessions court. The judgment returned found the defendants not guilty. It was stated that because Mathura was 'habituated to sexual intercourse,' her consent was voluntary; under the circumstances only sexual intercourse could be proved and not rape.^[1] On appeal the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, and sentenced the accused to one and five years imprisonment respectively. The Court held that passive submission due to fear induced by serious threats could not be construed as consent or willing sexual intercourse.^[1]
However, the Supreme Court of India again acquitted the accused policemen. The Supreme Court held that Mathura had raised no alarm; and also that there were no visible marks of injury on her person thereby suggesting no struggle and therefore no rape.^[1]
The protests to the ruling by women's organisations led to Government of India amending the law.^[1] The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 has made a statutory provision in the face of Section.114 (A) of the Evidence Act, which states that if the victim says that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.^[1] New laws were also enacted following the incident,the Section 376(punishment for rape)of the Indian Penal Code underwent a change with the enactment and addition of Section 376(A),Section 376(B),Section 376(C),Section 376(D).

Jalgaon rape case

The Jalgaon rape case was a major case of human trafficking, rape, and sexual slavery that took place in Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India. It came to light in July 1994.
The women, many of them school-going minors, were tricked, drugged and sometimes tortured for rape by businessmen, professionals, politicians and criminals. It is said to involve 300 to 500 women and to have been running for 5 to 12 years. It revealed a nexus of the town’s influential people who exploited the girls.
Exploitation of girls in Jalgaon had carried on unchecked for many years. The men would scout college campusBreaking out and police inquiry
In 1993, however, a few girls finally lodged a police complaint. Then district superintendent of police Deepak Jog started an investigation and soon complaints began pouring in.
The Women’s organisations staged demonstrations in various parts of the state, demanding a detailed inquiry into the cases. With rumours of the involvement of Pandit Sapkale and Raju Tadvi, Jalgaon Municipal Council (JMC) members belonging to Indian National Congress party, the issue was hotly debated in the state assembly too.
Following the uproar, a special investigation team was stationed at Jalgaon. Headed by Arvind Inamdar, Meera Borwankar and Deepak Jog, it got cracking at the case. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed and a special court of Sessions Judge Mridula Bhatkar was set up in Pune to conduct the trial. Recording of evidence began in 1995.
About 20 cases of sexual exploitation, including 12 rapes, were registered in Jalgaon and neighbouring Bhusaval. Some of the victims were just 12-year-olds, and all came from poor families.

Accused

Prominent among the accused were two shivsena leaders and members of the Jalgaon Municipal Council, a doctor, a lawyer, an employee of a radio broadcasting station and a lodge owner. The prominent local congress leader Suresh Jain (Sureshdada) was also mentioned in the media to be involved however he denied his involvement in case.

Court case

Meera Borwankar, who later became joint commissioner (crime) in Mumbai: ‘‘The main problem was that the offences were reported late. By the time FIRs were registered, a year had gone by. So, the medical evidence was absent. Even at the time of filing the chargesheet, we knew the cases were weak ones but still we took a conscientious decision to make it to the courts.’’
While investigators had recorded statements of witnesses, and had recovered the ‘‘objectionable’’ photographs of victims taken allegedly by the accused, several witnesses turned hostile. In 1997, the special court gave sentences in five of the 20 cases.

Acquittal and protest

However, in 2000, the Bombay High Court acquitted the prime accused and congress leader Pandit Omkar Sakpale, after he completed four years in jail, on the grounds that evidence against him did not appear to be “natural and believable”.
Thousands of women took part in a silent morcha to the Jalgaon collectorate in protest against the acquittal of Pandit Sapkale, the prime accused . Leaders of the morcha later handed over a memorandum to the District Collector, asking that congress leader Sapkale not be allowed to enter Jalgaon. They also burned an effigy of the accused. The then Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr Gopinath Munde, had said that the state government would challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court of India.es, beauty parlours, ice cream parlours, hospitals and bus terminals, for girls. A few victims claimed they were tranquilised before being sexually assaulted and photographed. They would later be blackmailed.