SHILLONG: There is undue delay in getting justice as the mother of a minor rape victim has been running from pillar-to-post for justice while the rape accused Small Phawa is yet to spend a single day in jail.
Sources said that earlier in 2014, the mother had approached the Law department, but the delay in any pro active steps on the part of the department had compelled her to seek the help of Meghalaya Legal Service Authority (MLSA).
After the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday in the High Court of Meghalaya thanks to the intervention of MLSA , the respondent had sought more time to argue the matter and accordingly, the Court granted three weeks.
It was after the acquittal of the rape accused, by the fast track court, Jowai, that the mother of the minor victim had sought the intervention of Meghalaya State Legal Service Authority to appeal against the order before the High Court of Meghalaya.
Earlier on November 30 in 2011, the accused Phawa allegedly raped the school girl staying as his tenant along with her family at Riatsiatsim locality in Jowai.
In the order dated February 26, last year, the ad hoc judge of the fast track court, Jowai, OP Lytan, said that he was convinced that the prosecution had failed to establish or prove the case beyond reasonable doubt which entitled the accused to acquittal.
However, in letter addressed to the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Service Authority last year, the mother of the victim Rita Dhar said that since she is poor, she was unable to appeal against the order of the fast track court in the High Court.
The mother had maintained that her daughter was still a minor when she was raped by the accused.
“My minor daughter was raped by Small Phawa on November 30, 2011. Later an FIR was registered and charge-sheet was also filed, but after trial, the accused was acquitted,” the mother said in the letter.
She also added that the girl was under-16 when the incident occurred and the same was also acknowledged by the Judge.
However in 2012 during a press conference, Phawa had claimed that there was no rape since the act was consensual which was contradicted by the mother who reiterated that that since the victim was a minor, the question of consent does not arise as sexual intercourse with minor was considered was rape.
