SHILLONG, Oct 10: The High Court of Meghalaya on Monday said whenever there is a whiff of coercion or threat on the survivor of sexual abuse or the informant, the state should step in to ensure that justice is done by giving protection or counselling to the victim and relatives.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh made the observation in connection with a judgment and order of October 31, 2019 by which an accused was acquitted of charges under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
A relative of the alleged survivor of sexual abuse had moved the court seeking leave to appeal against the judgment.
The court said it was evident from the impugned judgment that the acquittal was based on the evidence of the alleged survivor. The alleged survivor clearly and categorically testified at the trial that the accused had not committed rape on her, the court said.
It said there were serious anomalies in the matter, not the least of them being that the alleged survivor, then a minor, was impregnated and she could not indicate who the father of the child was.
“No attempt appears to have been made to conduct a DNA test to ascertain who may have been the father. In this case, the accused was the stepfather of the alleged survivor. It is well known that incidents of incest and sexual abuse of minors are rife and, more often than not, it is a person in the position of a guardian who commits the offence,” the court said in an order.
It observed that the distressing Indian psyche is such that it is the survivor who is blamed and shamed and made to feel that it was the survivor’s fault that brought suffering upon her.
“Wives of sexual offenders tend not to depose against their husbands, whether for physical fear or the fear of being abandoned. Similarly, step-children who are abused are reluctant to complain, since they may have no alternative means of sustaining themselves. These are matters where the State should be proactive, and whenever there is a whiff of coercion or threat on the survivor or the informant, the State should step in to ensure that justice is done, whether by giving protection to the victim or by counselling the victim and other relatives,” the court said in the order.
Stating that the state commission for women may also have a role to play in such cases, the court expressed surprise that the government did not “prefer” an appeal or try to get to the bottom of the case by insisting on a DNA test.
“Sexual abuse of children is a social malaise that is deep-rooted and if the State does not treat the matter seriously and confines its role to the mere prosecutor’s job that it has to discharge in law, the larger menace may not be arrested,” the court said.
The alleged survivor is now 21 years old, the court said, adding, she has not stepped forward to prefer an appeal, for reasons that may not be difficult to gauge.
“However, the law does not permit any surmise or conjecture and the alleged survivor’s statement has to be taken at face value. There is no doubt that the applicant in this case seeks to espouse the cause of justice and take up cudgels on behalf of the alleged survivor as the alleged survivor may be in a situation where she cannot choose as she wants,” the court said.
Nevertheless, it added, since the applicant seeking leave to appeal is neither the informant nor the alleged survivor and the order of acquittal is based on the alleged survivor’s complete denial of the incident, no leave can be granted to the applicant to prefer the proposed appeal.
“It is hoped that the applicant pursues the good cause otherwise in accordance with law. It is also hoped that the state has an adequate explanation to justify its failure to prefer an appeal or take appropriate measures in the matter,” the court further said.
