Skip to main content

Varanasi Horror: 19-Year-Old Gangraped by 23 Men Over 6 Days — PM Modi Orders Strictest Action

Nation in Shock as Varanasi Gangrape Case Unfolds

Varanasi | April 12, 2024 — A brutal case of gangrape in Varanasi has sent shockwaves across India. A 19-year-old woman was allegedly gangraped by 23 men over a period of six days, across multiple locations in Uttar Pradesh.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who represents Varanasi in Parliament, has personally intervened — ordering officials to ensure the “strictest possible action” against the accused.

Timeline of the Survivor’s Ordeal

According to the FIR filed by the survivor’s family:

  • March 29: The woman was lured to a café in Lanka by Raj Vishwakarma — one of the prime accused — and assaulted.

  • March 30 – April 3: She was allegedly drugged and taken to several locations — including hotels, cafés, and homes — in areas like Sigra, Nadesar, Hukulganj, and Assi Ghat. Different groups of men reportedly raped her during this period.

  • April 4: The survivor was found in a distressed state near Chowkghat. Her family had already filed a missing person report earlier that day.

Police Investigation: 12 Accused Arrested, 11 Still on the Run

The Uttar Pradesh Police have registered the case under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — including gangrape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and assault.

Accused Arrested So Far:

  • Raj Vishwakarma

  • Sameer

  • Sohail

  • Danish

  • Imran

  • (and 7 others)

Efforts are underway to arrest the remaining 11 accused. Forensic teams are collecting crucial evidence from all identified crime scenes.

PM Modi & CM Yogi Respond

Prime Minister Modi held a review meeting with Uttar Pradesh officials, instructing them to act swiftly and ensure justice without delay.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has echoed this sentiment, stating that there will be “zero tolerance” for crimes against women. The case is likely to be taken up in a fast-track court for speedy justice.

Political & Public Outrage

The case has sparked widespread outrage across India.

  • Women’s rights groups have slammed the UP government over rising crimes against women.

  • The National Commission for Women (NCW) has demanded a detailed report from UP Police.

  • Opposition leaders have criticized the law and order situation in the state.

What Happens Next?

  • Arrest of remaining accused underway

  • Case may move to a fast-track court

  • Increased security measures across Varanasi

  • Awareness campaigns on women’s safety being planned

Final Word

This horrific case highlights the urgent need for stronger preventive measures, faster justice delivery, and systemic reforms to ensure women’s safety across India.

The nation now watches closely — demanding justice, accountability, and change.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more