ASSEMBLY POLL '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS '98
ARCHIVES

SC pulls up Kerala HC for uncharitable remarks against rape victim

The Supreme Court has directed Kerala to expedite investigation into the alleged rape in 1996 of a girl in Eranakulam district in order to pave the way for the trial of the five accused -- all of them being very influential persons.

The direction was given by a division bench comprising Justices G B Patnaik and M B Shah while setting aside a Kerala high court order quashing the criminal proceedings against them.

The court's verdict came on two appeals -- one by the state of Kerala and the other by the State Women's Commission as well as the alleged victim -- against the impugned high court order dated November 4, 1997.

The high court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, had quashed the criminal proceedings against the five accused -- then assistant excise commissioner O C Kuttan, Kerala State Beverages Corporation Managing Director G Mohanan, Assistant Collector of Customs S Suresh Kaimal, businessman Tony Antony and Additional Director of Prosecution K C Peter.

The criminal proceedings against the accused were launched following the registration of a case at the Vanitha police station, Ernakulam on the basis of a vivid account given by the victim on July 23, 1996 describing how she was being exploited and sexually harassed by the accused under threat, coercion and allurement.

The Supreme Court judges said, ''It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognisable offence. Therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage it is not possible for it to shift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other.

''Bearing in mind the parameters already laid down and on a thorough scrutiny of the statement of the prosecutrix, which was treated as an FIR and on the basis of which a criminal case was registered and her subsequent statements dated August 24 and 25, 1996, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the high court committed a gross error in embarking upon an inquiry by shifting evidence and coming to the conclusion that no offence of rape can be said to have been committed.'' The judges also said it was wrong to conclude that ''she willingly had sex with those who paid money''.

The judges also did not approve of the uncharitable comments made by the high court against the victim.

''It is not possible and it was not necessary to make any comment on the character of the lady at this stage. We also have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction to record a finding that the lady exercised her discretion to have sex with those whom she liked or from whom got money and she willingly submitted herself to most of them, who came to her for sex,'' the judges added.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report