Wrongly Convicted Database Record

 

Go to Database Search Page

Go to  Database Index Page

Usha Tanpure

 

Charge:

Insultating or humiliating a person in public

Sentence:

6 months & ?500 rupee fine

Years Imprisoned:

0.33

Year Crime:

2000

Year Convicted:

2001

Year Cleared:

2017

U.S. State or Country of Crime:

India

County or Region of Crime:

Maharashtra

City of Crime:

Pune

Result:

Judicially Exonerated

Summary of Case:

"Usha Tanpure was wrongly conviced on January 15, 2001 of insulting and humiliating a man in a public place in Pune, India. In the fall of 2000 Tanpure wore a nightgown to her work on a holiday. A man ridiculed her attire, and she was alleged to have responded by verbally berating him. The man was considered a "peon" in a lower caste in Indian society than the woman. Tanpure was prosecuted for mistreating him under India's 1989 Scheduled Castes and and Scheduled Tribes (SCST) Act. The SCST was enacted to make India a bias free society by forbiding humiliation and harassments meted to the Dalits (peons or "untouchables"), to ensure their fundamental and socio-economic, political, and cultural rights. After her conviction following a bench (judge only) trial, Tanpure was sentenced to six months imprisonment and a ?500 rupee fine (US$10.75). Tanpure appealed. In late-March 2017 the Bombay High Court set-aside Tanpure's conviction on the basis there was reasonable doubt of her guilt. In his ruling Justice A. M. Badar harshly criticized the trial judge "not holding the scale of justice quite evenly." Badar explained the judge interfered in the case by assuming the role of the prosecutor and influencing witness testimony that was detrimental to Tanpure. Badar stated: "For these reasons the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal by quashing the order of conviction.” (Note: on Jan 15, 2001 the exchange rate was 1 USD=46.583687 Indian Rupee.)"

Conviction Caused By:

Anti-defendant prejudice by the trial judge.

Innocence Proved By:

"In late-March 2017 the Bombay High Court set-aside Tanpure's conviction on the basis their was reasonable doubt of her guilt. In his ruling Justice A. M. Badar harshly criticized the trial judge "not holding the scale of justice quite evenly." Badar explained the judge interfered in the case by assuming the role of the prosecutor and influencing witness testimony that was detrimental to Tanpure. Badar stated: "For these reasons the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal by quashing the order of conviction.”"

Defendant Aided By:

Compensation Awarded:

Was Perpetrator Identified?

Age When Imprisoned:

Age When Released:

Sex:

Female

Skin/Ethnicity:

Indian

Information Source 1:

"HC sets aside 16-year-old conviction, By Special Correspondent (Mumbai), The Hindu, April 4, 2017"

Information Location 1:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-conviction/article17783816.ece

Information Source 2:

Information Location 2:

Information Source 3:

Information Location 3:

Information Source 4:

Information Location 4:

Information Source 5:

Information Location 5:

Book About Case:

Book Information:

Book About Case (2):

Book Information (2):

Movie About Case:

Comments About Case:

Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org

Hosted on forejustice.org and mirrored on justicedenied.org .