Mangaluru; College student abduction and rape case: Rapist gets 7 years rigorous imprisonment
Mangaluru, June 20: The 6th additional principal and district sessions court on Wednesday sentenced a person to seven years rigorous imprisonment on charges of introducing himself to a college student through WhatsApp, abducted and raped her.
The convicted is identified as Irshad (27) of Kuminadka in Bantwal taluk.
Though the rape allegation was confirmed on Tuesday, the judge reserved the verdict for Wednesday. Under IPC Section 366 (abduction), Irshad has to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and pay Rs 5000 penalty. If he failed to pay penalty, he has to undergo two months additional imprisonment. In rape charges under Section 376, he has to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a penalty of Rs 10,000 and if failed to pay the penalty, he should undergo three months additional imprisonment. In the illegal detention charges under Section 342, and threatening under Section 506, he should undergo additional three months and four months imprisonment respectively, the judge said.
About the incident
An 18-year-old girl studying in a college was included into a WhatsApp group by her friend. In the same group, she was introduced to another student called Rafa. Though the student left the WhatsApp group, Rafa used to message her and she used to respond to those messages. After some days, Rafa wished her for her birthday and informed her to accept a flower bouquet sent through one of the Rafa’s relative. Following this, Irshad had visited the college and gave her the flower bouquet and wished her. After a few days, she shared her problem with Rafa that she was late to classes as she could not reach the college on time from her village. Responding to this, Rafa said she would take her to her village as she will have to go to Mangaluru. The student believed Rafa’s words.
On June 20, 2015 at 7.30 am, a car would come to the place where the student was waiting and Irshad was driving the car. After seeing Irshad, she asked about Rafa. But Irshad said she would get into the car after some time. Believing his words, the student got into the car. Later, Irshad threatened her and took her to Dharwad. When the student did not turn up to the home even after evening, her family members lodged a complaint at Bantwal police station. During the same time, Irshad family members also filed a missing complaint.
After taking her to Dharwad, he got a room at a lodge and raped her in the room. Next day, he took her to Gadag and Hubballi and raped her, it was alleged in the complaint.
Truth uncovered
But in Hubballi, Irshad disclosed the truth before the student. He admitted that he was sending the WhatsApp messages in the name of Rafa. The student came to know that she was cheated. While investigating the missing case, the police managed to take both of them into custody on June 25. When the student was brought to Mangaluru and tested in a hospital, it was confirmed that she was raped.
When she was at the hospital, she came to know that Irshad was married. This has shocked her. She had lodged a case against Irshad in Bantwal police station. Then inspector Belliyappa filed the charge sheet against Irshad to the court under abduction (366), rape (376), illegal detention (342) and threat (506). In the case, total 22 witnesses including lodge records, statements from the staff and doctors report were considered. Judith O M Crasta argued in favour of the government.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
