The Calcutta High Court recently emphasized the stigma attached to victims of sexual assault and rape, which often deters them from reporting such crimes.
A single-judge Justice Bibek Chaudhuri declined to quash a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and stated that there are numerous reasons why victims hesitate to come forward with allegations.
Justice Chaudhuri noted that victims of sexual assault are discouraged from filing criminal cases and often face disbelief from authorities. Additionally, they and their families endure social stigma when such acts are committed against them. The judge made these observations while dismissing a plea to quash a sexual assault case filed against a senior citizen accused of molesting his grand-niece when she was around 15-16 years old. The victim filed the complaint years later, after turning 18.
The plea sought to be quashed based on the delay in filing the first information report (FIR), but the Court rejected this argument, stating that sexual harassment and rape can cause lifelong trauma, making it difficult to set a specific time limit for reporting such incidents.
The Court highlighted the prosecution’s submission that the victim had tried to tell her father about the sexual assault when it occurred, but her father allegedly dismissed her claims and accused her of lying. The judge acknowledged that the victim had tried to raise a complaint but couldn’t confide in her father after being violated a second time. The victim and her brother allegedly faced threats from their father and his family when the victim finally filed the criminal complaint, which explained the delay.
The Court emphasized that technical grounds should not be a reason for quashing an investigation into such a serious crime like sexual harassment of a girl child. The accused argued that the sexual assault case was a counter-blast due to long-pending matrimonial disputes between the nephew of the accused (father of the victim) and his wife. However, the Court remained unconvinced.
The case involved allegations that the grand-uncle had inappropriately touched the victim and exposed himself on two occasions when she was 15-16 years old. The incidents allegedly occurred during Rakshabandhan and Diwali celebrations at home, while her mother was out of station.
The bench dismissed the petition seeking to quash the criminal case, stating that the allegations in the FIR presented a prima facie case against the accused and therefore should not be quashed at the investigation stage.
