The appellants, Putai (Accused No. 1) and Dileep (Accused No. 2), were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, on March 14, 2014, for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) (gang rape), 302 (murder), and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Putai was sentenced to death for the offense under Section 302 IPC, alongside rigorous life imprisonment for gang rape and seven years of rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence. Dileep received rigorous life imprisonment for both murder and gang rape. The Allahabad High Court subsequently confirmed Putai’s death penalty and dismissed the appeals on October 11, 2018.

The Supreme Court’s verdict to acquit the appellants, who had spent over a decade in custody, stands as an indictment of a criminal justice process plagued by systemic frailties, procedural negligence, and some parts of evidence characterized by the apex court as being “a piece of trash paper” due to no procedure having been followed. This article conducts an analysis of the Putai case, using it as a lens to expose the collapse of the evidentiary framework and the critical need for institutional accountability, particularly in capital punishment cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence.

Section I: The Collapse of the Evidentiary Framework: Circumstantial Evidence and the Burden of Proof

The prosecution’s case against Putai and Dileep was based on circumstantial evidence. In such trials, Indian jurisprudence requires an exceptionally high standard of proof, famously articulated in the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra precedent, which demands the establishment of five “golden principles.” These principles mandate that the circumstances forming the conclusion of guilt must be fully established, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, must be of a conclusive nature, must exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved, and must form a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

The Supreme Court, applying this rigorous standard, found that the prosecution in Putai failed to meet this high threshold at every turn. The Court recognised the critical distinction between circumstances that “may be proved” and those that “must be proved,” emphasising that the legal distance between the two “is small but has to be travelled before the prosecution can seek conviction of the accused”.[1]

A. The Failure to Establish Incriminating Circumstances

The prosecution sought to link Putai to the crime based on three core circumstantial elements: the recovery of the victim’s articles, the suspicious conduct of the accused, and the DNA evidence.

1. Dubious Recovery of Articles: The personal articles of the child victim—chappals, a water canister, and an underwear—were found in a field, which accused No. 1, Putai, was cultivating. While the State argued that this shifted the burden onto Putai to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court found the recovery itself doubtful.[2]

The father, Munna, in his initial complaint, mentioned finding the chappals, water canister, and blood stains, but was totally silent regarding the recovery of the victim’s underwear. The Court found it “impossible to believe” that the search party, which included the victim’s father and others would have noticed the minor details like the chappals and water canister, yet missed the underwear in the same field. This omission was deemed “far too significant to be overlooked”.[3] The Supreme Court concluded that the recovery of the underwear seemed to be a “planted recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer intended to give succour to the prosecution case”.[4]

2. The Sniffer Dog Theory against Dileep: The prosecution’s case against accused No. 2, Dileep largely rested on the claim that a small male comb was recovered from a field, and a sniffer dog, after smelling the comb, led the police to Dileep’s house. The Court stated that this theory is “shrouded in a cloud of doubt and unacceptable on the face of record”.[5]

• Contradictory Identification: Multiple prosecution witnesses offered starkly conflicting testimonies regarding the comb’s colour: one said bluish-green, another said dirty and light red, another said sky-blue, and Investigating Officer said green. These contrasting versions made the recovery itself doubtful.
• Implausible Linkage: The claim that witnesses could identify the comb, an ordinary plastic item, as belonging to Dileep simply because they had seen him using it was found to be “absolutely farfetched and unbelievable”. The Court viewed this insistence as a “strong indicator” that the prosecution was “hell bent upon implicating the accused No. 2-Dileep in this case by hook or by crook”.[6]
• Procedural Failure: The entire sniffer dog procedure lacked contemporary documentation. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer claimed he had immediately sealed the comb at the spot, which logically meant it could not have been available for the sniffer dog to smell, rendering the entire theory unworthy of credence.

3. Suspicious Conduct of Putai: The High Court and Trial Court treated the testimony the victim’s mother, as incriminating. She claimed to have seen Putai rushing into his house, washing his hands and face, changing his clothes, and then going away on his cycle without inquiring about the commotion regarding the missing child.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the inference of guilt. The Court observed that washing hands and changing clothes after returning from work was “absolutely natural” behaviour for a labourer or farmer, and would not raise suspicion.[7] Furthermore, Putai’s explanation in his Section 313 CrPC statement—that his parents were ill and hospitalised—provided an innocent context for his haste and preoccupation, a fact admitted by the victim’s in cross-examination.[8]

Section II: The Forensic Catastrophe: DNA Evidence and the Broken Chain of Custody

The handling of forensic evidence in the Putai case was so flawed that the Supreme Court described the resulting reports as “a piece of trash paper” and concluded they “pale into insignificance”. This systematic failure reveals catastrophic lapses in collection, preservation, and analysis that fall far short of established international standards.[9]

A. Inadmissible and Contradictory DNA Reports

The first DNA examination report dated January 18, 2014 was inconclusive, merely stating that a “male specific allele” was found in the victim’s slide and swab, with no opinion regarding the blood samples of Putai and Dileep.

Years later, during the High Court appeal, the prosecution produced a supplementary DNA report (dated December 2, 2014) via an affidavit dated April 12, 2017. This new report, generated using Y-Filer Kit and HID Kit tests, contradictorily claimed that the material from the victim’s slide matched the allele profiles of both Putai and Dileep.

The Supreme Court found this supplementary report to be “inconsequential and inadmissible” due to a host of fatal procedural flaws:

1. Denial of Rebuttal: The supplementary DNA report was never put to the accused-appellants under Section 313 CrPC, denying them the statutory right to explain or rebut the new incriminating material.[10]
2. Unexamined Expert: The scientific expert, who issued the reports, was not recalled or re-examined on oath to prove the contradictory supplementary report.[11]
3. Improper Use of Affidavit: The supplementary report was tendered via the affidavit of an officer (Deputy Director, FSL, Lucknow) who was not connected with the issuance of the report. The Court clarified that the DNA report is a substantive piece of evidence, not merely formal, and thus could not be tendered in evidence through an affidavit under Section 293 of the CrPC (now Section 329 of the BNSS, 2023).[12]
4. Breach of Sanctity: Given that the scientific expert did not state that any forensic material was preserved for further examination after the first report, the Court presumed the samples must have been opened or consumed. Once the samples were opened, their sanctity was breached, rendering any subsequent supplementary analysis unreliable.[13]

B. The Catastrophic Breakdown of the Chain of Custody

The most critical failure was the complete absence of proof regarding the chain of custody, which is essential to guarantee that evidence has not been contaminated or tampered with.[14] The specific failures were comprehensive:

• Collection Procedure: The blood samples of the accused were collected on November 26, 2012, nearly two and a half months after their arrest on September 7, 2012. The prosecution failed to provide any oral evidence or exhibit any document to prove the procedure, date, or time of drawing these blood samples.
• Consent: Although consent of the accused-appellants was purportedly taken before drawing the samples, no document proving such consent was exhibited in evidence.
• Post-mortem Samples Discrepancy: The medical professionals provided contradictory evidence regarding the collection of samples from the victim’s body. One stated she took two vaginal swabs and two smear slides but did not mention sealing them or the date of transmission. Another stated he took eight slides of smear and swabs, and claimed they were seized, sealed, and handed over to Constables. However, he failed to prove any document pertaining to this procedure, such as a memorandum of sealing.
• Transmission and Storage: The prosecution failed to examine the official(s) who carried the samples to the FSL or the malkhana (evidence room) In-charge.

Critically, not a single document pertaining to the safe keeping or transmission of the samples—including the malkhana register, roznamcha entry, forwarding letter, or the receipt issued from the FSL—was exhibited during the trial.

The Court concluded that the failure to prove the relevant documentation for collection and the “total lack of evidence regarding the chain of custody” of the blood samples made the entire exercise “farce and frivolous.”

Section III: A System on Trial: Investigative Incompetence and the Crisis of Accountability

The final acquittal was not merely due to weak evidence, but was a direct consequence of what the Supreme Court deemed a “lacklustre and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure”. This institutional failure crippled the search for truth from the very outset.[15]

A. A Catalogue of Critical Investigative Omissions

The Court identified several fundamental errors that demonstrated either gross incompetence or deliberate fabrication:

• Failure to Send Crucial Evidence to FSL: The Investigating Officer seized the victim’s clothes, including the frock and the underwear, but inexplicably did not forward these crucial articles to the FSL for scientific analysis. The Court found it surprising that in a case of sexual assault and murder, the IO did not send these articles, giving rise to a “strong suspicion that the recovery of these articles was a planted recovery”.
• Failure to Search Accused’s House: Despite the prosecution’s own theory that Putai rushed home and changed his clothes, no extensive search of the accused-appellants’ house was made to look for incriminating evidence. This omission reinforced the Court’s view that the ‘suspicious conduct’ theory was an “exaggeration”.[16]
• Failure to Examine Neighbours: The incident occurred in open fields, accessible to “all and sundry”. Although the incident happened between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM when darkness was beginning to fall, the police did not care to examine anyone from the neighbouring fields or locality. This failure created doubt regarding the bona fides of the police actions.[17]
• Failure to Identify Material Objects: The material objects (clothes, etc.) were exhibited in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, but were never shown to the victim’s parents, Munna and Chandravati, for identification when they testified.[18]

B. Capital Punishment and the Constitutional Imperative

The fact that Putai was awarded and confirmed a death sentence on the basis of such flimsy evidence demonstrates the profound risk within India’s capital punishment regime. The irreversible nature of the death penalty demands that it only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, based on unimpeachable, cogent evidence. The Putai case serves as a terrifying example of how investigative incompetence and flawed judicial scrutiny at the lower court levels can lead to the gravest miscarriage of justice by extinguishing a human life irretrievably.

C. The Double Tragedy: Denial of Justice for the Victim

While the acquittal corrected the injustice against the accused, it simultaneously constitutes a a tragic failure of justice for the minor child victim and her family. The gruesome act of rape and murder remains unsolved. The investigation not only failed to secure a conviction but also likely destroyed the possibility of ever identifying and prosecuting the actual perpetrator.

This situation results in a “secondary victimisation” of the family, who are left without closure or justice, their faith in the system shattered due to institutional incompetence. The acquittal, in this context, is not an endpoint of justice but a marker of its complete absence, proving that a flawed investigation is the antithesis of both the accused’s right to a fair trial and the victim’s right to meaningful justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court demonstrated that the conviction, upheld by two lower courts, rested on a foundation of conjectures and procedural violations, where the fundamental principles governing circumstantial evidence were ignored and scientific evidence, vital in such cases, was rendered “worthless” due to an absolute lack of procedural rigor.

However, the tragedy of Putai lies in its double failure: it subjected the accused to a decade-long ordeal under the shadow of the death penalty, while simultaneously failing the minor victim and her family by making the accountability of the actual assailant impossible. The judgment is an urgent call for systemic overhaul. True justice for both the innocent accused and the grieving victim can only be achieved through a system built on a bedrock of scientific integrity, rigorous adherence to procedure, and unwavering accountability for all institutional actors.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] Para 69

[2] Para 37

[3] Para 43

[4] Para 56

[5] Para 36

[6] Para 38

[7] Para 32

[8] Para 35

[9] Para 75

[10] Para 66

[11] Para 66

[12] Para 75

[13] Para 64

[14] Para 65

[15] Para 73

[16] Para 71

[17] Para 74

[18] Para 68

Related:

Liberty, Evidence and Cooperation: A legal analysis of Jugraj v. State of Punjab

A Proposal on Collegium Resolutions: Towards a single comprehensive format

Free speech, even in bad taste, is protected if no incitement to violence: HP HC

The post SC acquits two men accused of rape of a minor; terms the case an example of shabby and lacklustre investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the fateful night of December 23, 2024, at approximately 7:45 PM, a man named Gnanasekaran, who runs a roadside eatery near Anna University, allegedly entered the campus and secretly filmed the intimate moments of the victim with her boyfriend. Unbeknownst to her, this predator would soon turn her life into a nightmare. After attacking her boyfriend, the accused dragged the victim to nearby bushes and threatened her. He demanded that she “cooperate” (i.e., engage in sexual intercourse with him), warning that if she refused, he would leak the intimate footage to her dean and parents. As per a report in the Deccan Herald, the FIR filed on December 24, 2024, the victim recounted how she became ensnared in a vicious cycle of blackmail. The accused had also filmed the alleged assault and used the footage to further threaten her, stating that she would need to comply whenever summoned in the future. He also mentioned a mysterious “sir” during the assault, with whom he appeared to be in contact over the phone. The accused has been booked under Sections 63, 64, and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

As per a report published in The New Indian Express the accused was arrested on 25^th December, 2024. However, widespread allegations arose that the FIR, which contained sensitive details such as the victim’s name, father’s name, age, and residence, had been leaked. This sparked a major controversy, leading to a series of dramatic developments in the state. Several opposition leaders called on the state police department to explain the reason behind the leak, alleging that it was a deliberate attempt by the government to discourage potential rape victims from filing complaints. The BJP state leader in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Annamalai, theatrically whipped himself six times and vowed not to wear footwear until the DMK is ousted from power. Meanwhile, the IT wings of both the BJP and the AIADMK (another prominent opposition party in the state) circulated photos of the accused, Gnanasekaran, with DMK party leaders. They alleged that the ruling party was associated with thugs and criminals and was attempting to shield the accused. In response, the DMK leadership clarified that in the era of social media, posing for pictures with individuals is commonplace and should not be misconstrued as an endorsement or association. They reiterated that the accused had been arrested and dismissed allegations of a cover-up as baseless and rooted in imagination.

On December 28, 2024, the Madras High Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three women police officers and awarded an interim compensation of ₹25 lakhs to the victim for the twin traumas—first, the assault of rape, and second, the victim-shaming resulting from the FIR leak. The court strongly condemned the manner in which the FIR was drafted and remarked that women, like men, have desires and the freedom to love or engage in relationships with the person of their choice. Such personal choices, the court emphasized, have no bearing on incidents of this grave nature.

The court also highlighted a serious lapse in campus security, pointing to malfunctioning CCTV cameras and poorly positioned security guards, which allowed unauthorized individuals to gain entry into the university premises.

The National Informatics Centre (NIC) clarified that the FIR leak is due to a technical glitch, and it happened while migrating data from old criminal law (IPC) to New Criminal law (BNS). Again, this has got nothing to do with the state and its ridiculous move by the parliament. Nevertheless, the BJP clown Annamalai went on to demonize the state government by misquoting facts and trying to gain attention as that is all what he needs.

On January 2, 2025, the Madras High Court expressed its anguish over the politicization of the Anna University rape case, stating that such actions lacked genuine concern for justice. Reacting to the court’s observation, BJP leader Annamalai lamented that no one was discussing the accused’s history as a history sheeter, highlighting the plethora of criminal cases pending against him. Annamalai should first get himself educated on the law that previous bad character of the person has got nothing to do with the instant case and moreover it’s the duty of the court to ensure fair trial and it cannot become a recipe for the buffoon’s political attention. Not only him, there are many like Dr. Tamilisai Soundararajan, former Governor for Telungana and former head of Tamil Nadu BJP unit, Actor turned politician Khushbu Sundar, NTK leader Seeman have engaged in similar publicity stunts, later detained by police authorities.

Rather than using such incidents to settle personal scores, politicians should focus on addressing the root causes of rape. Throughout Indian history, there has been no leader under whose tenure the nation recorded zero rapes. The comparison often boils down to evaluating whose tenure witnessed relatively less deterioration in law and order. Sadly, even after 77 years of independence, we have failed to fulfil Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for a safer and more equitable society.

Related:

Escalating caste-based violence in UP: One Dalit man humiliated publicly, minor Dalit girl gang-raped

India’s cry for justice: The brutal Kolkata rape-murder of a young doctor has ignited nationwide protests on the eve of the 78th Independence’s Day

Interfaith couple assaulted in Karnataka, woman gang raped

The post Political Turmoil Erupts Over Anna University Rape Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A trial court in Goa has acquitted former editor-in-chief of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal of charges of sexual harassment and rape of his colleague in 2013.

Tejpal was charged for offences under Indian Penal Code sections of 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of force against woman with intent to disrobe), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (2)(f) (person in position of authority over women, committing rape) and 376(2)(k) (rape by person in position of control).

According to Bar & Bench, the judgment was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi and in a statement issued shortly after his acquittal, Tejpal thanked a host of lawyers who represented him in this matter. These lawyers include Pramod Dubey, Aamir Khan, Ankur Chawla, Amit Desai, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, Aman Lekhi, Sandeep Kapoor, Raian Karanjawala, Ravi Sharma, Abhimanyu Bhandari and Shrikant Shivade.

This acquittal order comes despite Tejpal’s admission to the assault that was part of the evidence in the trial. As per an Indian Express report, an e-mail sent to the survivor on November 19, and another, titled “Atonement”, sent to Tehelka’s then managing editor Shoma Chaudhury on November 20, along with the survivor’s statement constituted the primary evidence against him.

In the email, with the subject line ‘atonement’, Tejpal wrote: “I apologise unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on 7 November and 8 November 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me”.

Besides the email and the survivor’s statements, the crime branch also found a crucial bit of a CCTV footage from the hotel that seemed to have corroborated with the survivor’s statement.

Some have pointed out that Tarun Tejpal’s press release thanking his lawyers and the court for its “rigorous, impartial and fair trial” was prepared even before the verdict, as it carries the date May 19, that is eventually overwritten by May 21. The judgment that was earlier supposed to be pronounced on May 19 was deferred to May 21.  

Tarun Tejpal’s press release was prepared in advance for release on a prior date when the court adjourned delivering judgment? He had written 19 th first, which was the last date of hearing. What does it say? pic.twitter.com/tVFo82DYxS

— Vinod K. Jose (@vinodjose) May 21, 2021

“The law is a system that protects everybody who can afford a good lawyer.” — Mark Twain https://t.co/jrvxEEXYbA

— Sohini (@Mittermaniac) May 21, 2021

Women Rights activists have condemned the verdict, questioning the grounds on which he has been acquitted. All India Progressive Women’s Association secretary Kavita Krishnan tweeted, “At the end of it all, the courageous woman did not get even a tiny taste of justice. Rape trials are deeply violent towards survivors. Yet again, a survivor has been demeaned, humiliated, and let down.”

At the end of it all, the courageous woman did not get even a tiny taste of justice. Rape trials are deeply violent towards survivors. Yet again, a survivor has been demeaned, humiliated, and let down.

— Kavita Krishnan (@kavita_krishnan) May 21, 2021

She also highlighted how Tejpal has gotten away with this verdict despite having penned down several apologies admitting to the incident, with the survivor having her integrity “smeared in court and in social parties.”

Women rights activist and cyber safety expert, Akancha Srivastava expressed her displeasure at the judgment and said, “Should girls/women even bother filing formal complaints, fighting cases for decades? Genuine question. What is even the point?”

Should girls/women even bother filing formal complaints, fighting cases for decades? Genuine question.
What is even the point?#TarunTejpal https://t.co/zTlswnNd4u

— Akancha Srivastava (@AkanchaS) May 21, 2021

Equal Rights activist, Harish Iyer also shared his dissatisfaction at the demoralising verdict of the court while speaking to SabrangIndia. He said, “As a fellow rape survivor and as somebody who was a witness in this case, I am utterly disappointed. Our systems should enable women instead of discouraging them.”

Expressing his anguish about how another abuser will walk free, he recalled how there was an “entire campaign to malign her” (survivor), raising questions about her character, the fact that she consumed alcohol or the way she behaved post her assault. He said, “This is disgusting, there is no manual to show how a rape survivor must behave!” Not having any knowledge about whether the complainant will appeal against this order, Mr. Iyer said that we must all support and stand by her, despite all odds.  

Here is a timeline of the 8-year-old sexual assault case:

November 7, 2013:

A junior colleague accuses Tarun Tejpal of sexually assaulting her in Goa’s Grand Hyatt hotel’s elevator.

November 20, 2013:

Tarun steps down as the editor-in-chief in light of the sexual assault allegations.

November 22, 2013:

The Goa police files an FIR against him, based on the survivor’s complaint.

November 30, 2013:

He is arrested by the Goa Police.

February 17, 2014:

Goa’s crime branch files a 2,846-page charge sheet which also contains Tejpal’s formal apology e-mail to the survivor and Tehelka’s then managing editor, Shoma Chaudhury.

July 1, 2014:

After spending over 6 months in jail, the Supreme Court grants him bail and asks him to submit his passport to the court.

26 September, 2017: 

Tejpal makes the plea against framing of charges in the Bombay High Court in Goa, but the court refuses to stay the framing of charges.

September 28, 2017:

Tejpal is officially charged with rape and wrongful confinement by the trial court in Goa.

December 6, 2017:

The Supreme Court directs the trial court to begin trial in the case.

August 9, 2019:

Tejpal moves top court seeking quashing of FIR against him. The SC rejects his plea terming the offence “morally abhorrent” and an “assault on the privacy of the victim”, and asked the trial court to complete trial in six months.

The matter kept getting put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

October 28, 2020:

The Supreme Court asks the court to complete the trial by March 31, 2021.

May 12, 2021:

Case gets listed for judgment but court defers it till May 19.

May 19, 2021:

Case listed for judgment but court defers it till May 21.

May 21, 2021:

Goa trial court acquits Tarun Tejpal of all charges.

Related:

MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Pronouncement of judgment deferred till Feb 17
It’s A ‘Lose Lose’ Situation for most Sexual Harassment/Rape Complainants
Redefining public space

The post Goa court acquits journalist Tarun Tejpal in rape case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case against Chinmayanand, a three-time MP of the BJP and a former union minister and “guru” to many leading the present UP regime is the most recent example. The details of the case are well known and need not be repeated here. It was believed that after the Supreme Court intervention on the letter petition filed by public-spirited lawyer Shobha Gupta and the setting up of a special investigation team to be monitored by a designated bench of the Allahabad High Court, the young woman from Shahjahanpur would get justice.

But this has not happened. The 22-year-old, who says she is a survivor of rape, is herself in jail. She is accused of extortion under IPC sections 385/ 507/ 201. All of these sections are bailable. Even as her case for bail was listed, the SIT team arrived at her home early on Wednesday morning and dragged her to a waiting jeep, traumatized and terrified. When her case came up for hearing, she was denied bail. It was found that the SIT had deliberately added another section. 67A under the IT Act which is non-bailable.

Yesterday, I travelled with my colleague Subhashini Ali and a team of activists from the All India Democratic Women’s Association to Shahjahanpur where we met her parents, lawyers and the SIT officers. I met the student in jail along with her mother and brother.

What we found was the blatant misuse of power to protect the accused in a rape case. Regretfully, the most well-intentioned orders of the Supreme Court have been used as an excuse to limit the scope of the investigation. It has been a step-by-step process. But the most important fact to emerge is that there has been no FIR filed on the complaint of rape which was registered by the Delhi police on September 7. She was traced and brought to Delhi on the orders of the Supreme Court. In Delhi, she gave a detailed complaint of the horror she underwent from the first time she was raped, reportedly by the accused Chinmayanand, in October 2018 till August of this year. She gave the names of those who had conspired with him to enable the sexual assaults. Her complaint was forwarded by the Delhi police to the SIT which confirms having received the complaint on September 8. However, till today, no FIR has been filed by the SIT on her complaint. In fact, this complaint does not figure at all in the investigations being conducted by the SIT.

When we met the officers of the SIT in their office yesterday, we inquired why an FIR was not filed on the student’s complaint. Surely this should have been the basis of their investigation, we asked. Their reply was “We have no locus standi to file any fresh FIRs. The Supreme Court in its orders has specifically asked us to investigate FIR 442 and FIR 445. So our investigations are only on these FIRs.”

These two FIRs are on entirely different issues and have nothing to do with the charge of rape. One of the FIRs (445) was filed by the father when he found his daughter missing soon after she posted a video alleging that she was being threatened and her life, and those of other young women like her, were being ruined by a “swamy”. At that time, the distraught father, linking “swamy” to Chinmayanand since his daughter was studying in an institution owned by him, filed a complaint that he suspected she had been kidnapped by Chinmayanand. The second FIR 442, was filed by Chinmayanand’s lawyer, alleging that Chinmayanand had received extortion threats on his mobile phone demanding a payment of five crores.

When the Supreme Court was to give its order on September 5, the government’s lawyer informed the court that there were two FIRs registered, 442 and 445. He did not mention that the woman’s complaint had not yet been registered. The Supreme Court ordered that the SIT should investigate both FIRs. Nowhere did the court say that her complaint should not be registered as an FIR or that no fresh FIRs germane to the case should not be registered, but that is the extraordinary interpretation made by the SIT of the court order. In its status report filed before the special bench of the Allahabad High Court, which is supposed to monitor the case, the SIT makes absolutely no mention of the girl’s complaint of rape. On its part, the High Court accepted the status report at face value. In the light of such a blatant omission, the concept of “monitoring” by a bench of the High Court especially set up for the purpose, surely needs clarification.
When we further asked the SIT officers whether, in the light of their interpretation of the limited scope of the Supreme Court order, they had passed on the woman’s complaint to the local police and administration to register an FIR, they said it was not “their mandate.” In other words, neither are they acting on her complaint nor have they asked anyone else to do so. Thus the main issue of the rape of a young woman has been eliminated by the SIT. In legal papers, her voice is silenced, she does not exist except as an extortionist. In the meanwhile in every press conference being held the SIT focuses entirely on the issue of extortion, damning the girl. So, while sabotaging the legal aspect, at the same time public perception is sought to be influenced against the girl.

What of the man she has accused? Chinmayanand was arrested on September 20 on the charge of 376c This concerns the abuse of a position of authority to “induce a person to have sexual intercourse” not amounting to rape. The SIT came to this conclusion in the course of their investigation into the charge of extortion. In the words of a senior officer of the SIT, “In one case, the girl is the victim and in the other, the accused. We have taken into account both cases.”

Many decades ago, when we were fighting for justice in the Mathura rape case, the guilty police personnel claimed that the girl had no marks of injuries on her body which proved that it was not rape but consensual intercourse. At that time, the Supreme Court had upheld this perverted reasoning which takes violent sexual assault out of the context in which the victim finds herself. It took several years of hard struggle to get the law changed. Today, in 2019, the Chinmayanand case shows that de-contextualisation of rape and sexual assault and a total ignorance or insensitivity of the condition of a rape victim and her subsequent actions remains deeply ingrained in the minds of those expected to bring justice to the victim.

Even if we accept the case of extortion against the girl, can rape be equated with the accusation of extortion as done in the approach of the SIT? What was the context in which a young woman denied justice acts in a particular way? If she is guilty of extortion, does it mean that she was not a victim of violent rape? We asked these questions of the SIT members. They did not have much to say on this aspect. They did reiterate that they had consulted the legal department before filing the cases.

A grave injustice is being committed right before our eyes. Eight years ago, Chinmayanand was accused of rape by an inmate of one of his ashrams and a case of rape was filed against him in November 2011. The complaint was that he had held her captive and she had been assaulted for several years. When the Adityanath government came to power, it made a request before the CJM of Shahjahanpur to withdraw the case of rape against Chinmayanand. The CJM refused and issued a warrant against him. The case went to the High Court which granted a stay on Chinmayanand’s arrest.

In the current case, the woman was just 21 when she was first assaulted. She did what she did to save herself. She showed courage in taking him on, knowing that the system was in his support. Today, she is being taught that you cannot challenge a rapist when he is a VIP. Everything is being done to break her spirit. What is the message being sent to other victims of rape and sexual abuse and assault? Stay silent, otherwise you will end up in jail. She wept on the shoulder of her younger brother when we were permitted to meet her in jail. She showed him bruises on her arms when she had been grabbed by the policewomen who had come to arrest her. She said she felt humiliated. What about me, she said, what about what I have suffered. He consoled her with the news that there are many people who support her struggle for justice. She brightened up and reiterated her resolve to get justice.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the RajyaSabha
 
 

The post I feel humiliated, says jailed student fighting Chinmayanand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: PTI

Though media reportage on the matter has ranged between nil to limited, CJP has been following the case ever since it came to light. Some examples of the possible instances of investigative lacunae up are as follows:
1.       The police allegedly recorded an FIR attributing the information to the owner of the field where the body was discovered. However, the man later claimed in an interview to a local journalist that he was not the one to discover the body. He also said that he was not given a copy of the FIR.
2.       The post mortem was allegedly not conducted within 24 hours of the body being discovered, leading to possible loss of key forensic information.
3.       The post mortem found several serious injuries to the victim’s private parts including tears in her uterus, but these were not mentioned by the police in their public statement where they only limited themselves to talking about strangulation as the cause of death, purportedly to put a shroud over the brutality of the crime, limiting it to just a murder case, when clearly there was a grievous sexual assault that preceded the victim’s eventual death.
4.       The police claimed that investigation was taking time as they were unable to identify the victim. However, the identity of the victim should never be a hurdle in conducting inquiries pertinent to the case.

Reliefs sought in CJP’s petition
Our petition emphasises that “the police, clearly failed to follow protocol in terms of primary investigation and on top of that are making false claims with respect to the post mortem and are representing false facts and the reason for the same is still unknown.” Our petition urges the National Human Rights Commission to “take suo motu cognisance of this case under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA)” and also seeks “an inquiry into this case involving the SP of Sultanpur District and the police personnel concerned with this case (FIR no. 0423 of 2019)”

With each passing day, as the perpetrators of this abominable crime roam free without being held accountable for their nefarious acts, hope of justice fades. But CJP believes that even when a victim dies, the law of the land shouldn’t. It is with this belief that we have moved NHRC.
The complete petition may be read here:

Related:
Mutilated body of girl found hanging from tree in Sultanpur, Badaun 2.0?
Over a fortnight, no arrests: Activists protest ‘police inaction’ in Sultanpur rape case: UP
 

The post CJP moves NHRC in Sultanpur Rape Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.