WUNRN
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - AHRC
Urgent Appeal Case:
AHRC-UAC-169-2008
26 July 2008
INDIA:
Dalit Girl - 15 Years Old - Allegedly Raped, Repeatedly Assaulted,
Confined, and Trafficked by Village Head in Gujarat + ISSUES -
AHRC: Rape; abduction; minor sexual trafficking; caste based discrimination;
police corruption The AHRC has also written a
separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
calling for an intervention in this case. The
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Navsarjan,
a human rights organisation working on Dalit rights in Gujarat, regarding the
rape and subsequent trafficking of a 15-year-old Dalit girl. Four non-Dalit
villagers, including a village head are accused of the crime. The victim
though had filed a complaint to the authorities on 22 December 2007, it is
reported that no investigation is conducted into the case. The victim is also
not given appropriate medical attention. CASE
DETAILS: On 23
November 2006, Mr. Mohabbatkhan Rasulkhan kidnapped 15-year-old Dalit girl
Punam (name changed). Punam was studying in grade 7 at the government primary
school in Bavla town of Ahmedabad district, Gujarat. When Punam went missing
her parents immediately made a report at the Bavla Police Station that their
daughter was missing. It is
reported that Punam was raped, assaulted and kept in forced confinement and
later sold for sex trade at different places for a year by the accused. The
first accused Mr. Mohabbatkhan (age 35) reportedly raped Punam and assaulted
her with a chain while Punam was kept in confinement. Punam faced this ordeal
for several months in Gedia village of Patdi Block, Surendranagar district. A neighbor
coming to about Punam’s condition informed the village head Mr. Hiyatkhan of
Gedia village. The neighbor is from Dafer community, a Muslim sub-sect of the
locality. The village head Hiyatkhan (age 50), instead of taking any action
to save Punam, instead raped the victim under forced confinement for four
days. Hiyatkhan later sold Punam to Mr. Vilo Koli Patel of Jedhpura village
for INR 17,000 (USD 404). Vilo (age
30) raped Punam for three months in forced confinement. One day Vilo sent the
victim back to the village head Hiyatkhan accusing Punam that she has stolen
his money. The village head Hiyatkhan again sold Punam to Mr. Jignesh
Mahendrabhai Dave for INR 7,000 (USD 166) a few days later. Jignesh
lives in Jetapur village of Viramgam Block, Ahmedabad district. Jignesh also
raped Punam. On 14 November 2007, a Dalit woman living in Bavla town found
the victim in Jetapur village and informed this fact to the Punam’s parents. Immediately
Punam’s parents informed the Balva police about the incident and requested
for help. However, the police refused to accompany Punam’s parents to look
for Punam. This is a reportedly prevalent phenomenon, that the police deny
support to the Dalit’s who are victimised by non-Dalit persons, in particular
if the accused if from a dominant caste. The victim’s parents also requested
the village head of Jetapur village to help them to rescue their daughter,
which was refused and they were asked to come with the police. One month
later, on 21 December 2007, the Bavla police along with the victim’s parents
came to Jetapur village to rescue the victim. Bavla police registered a
complaint on the following day. It is alleged that the accused bribed
the police to influence the investigation. The First
Information Report (FIR No. I 256/07) against the accused was registered
under Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping), 366 (Kidnapping, abducting or
inducing woman to compel her marriage etc), 376 (punishment for rape), 114
(abettor present when offence is committed) of Indian Penal Code and the
Section 3 (1) (xi) and (xii) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. According
to the FIR registered by Bavla police, one of the alleged perpetrators Vilo
Patel is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused. Moreover, the FIR does not
mention that the village head of Gedia village Mr. Hiyatkhan had raped the
minor victim and sold her off to another perpetrator. Under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860, a public servant who has committed rape, shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment, which is graver than other cases. Even
worse, In the FIR it is mentioned that the victim, a minor, had known the
accused Mohabbat Khan for the past three months and the victim was promised
by him that he would marry her. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police in charge of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes Section, Mr. B.S. Pathan, responsible for investigation into this case
was off from work for one and half months while the perpetrators continued to
enjoy life even after committing grave crimes. No investigation into the case
has yet been conducted. Meanwhile,
the Bavla police took the victim up to the Bavla hospital for a medical check
on 23 December 2007, which lasted for two hours and in the absence of a
female doctor. The victim was taken to Ahmedabad civil hospital on the
following day, where the victim was merely given some medicine. The hospital
authority did not provide appropriate treatment or counseling to Punam. As of now
the victim suffers from physical and mental trauma, and cannot walk or move
well. Moreover, the neglect of the police authority allows the perpetrator
Munna alias Mohabbatkhan Rasulkhan to threaten the victim even now. The
victim reportedly said, “I have seen Munna on his motorbike. Even after I
returned, he has threatened to kill me, if I say anything about him. The
police said they will take me to the places where these men had taken me, but
did nothing.” ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS: It is a
known fact from international and domestic reports on violence against women
that the women in India face a number of obstacles in filing and prosecuting
cases of rape. If a woman is poor, belongs to the Dalit community and is a
minor, it is even more difficult for the victim to gain access to a fair
judicial process and to obtain justice. Bavla
police in this case not only neglected their duty to protect the victim,
which is reflected in the fact that the police refused to look for the
victim, but they also failed to register a complaint on behalf of the victim
leading to support the alleged perpetrators. It is said
in the FIR that the minor victim had known the accused Mohabbat Khan for the
past three months and the victim was promised by him that he would marry her.
This report in the FIR is incompatible with the victim’s actual situation,
ignoring the fact that the minor victim was kidnapped by the perpetrator
against her willing. It is also a statement against the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) 1876. According
to the Section 375 of IPC 1876, it defines rape as ‘when the man knows that he
is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that
he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married
(fourth definition).’ In addition, it is a rape ‘with or without her consent,
when she is under sixteen years of age (sixth definition).’ Accordingly, the
victim was given a promise of marriage by the perpetrator; even though the
perpetrator is not lawfully married yet and even the victim is 15 years old
the perpetrator cannot defend or minimise the charge of his crime. The
Section 376 (2) of IPC 1876, moreover, imposes graver charges on a public
servant who commits a rape against a woman. It states that ‘whoever, (b)
being a public servant, take advantage of his official position and commits
rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a
public servant subordinate to him; shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
be for life and shall also be liable to fine.’ In
particular, the fact that the public servant such as the village head in this
case, committed a rape and even sexual trafficking of a minor Dalit girl,
illustrates that many other non-Dalit villagers could have committed rape
against Dalit girls with the support of public servants, which is not
reported by the police misusing their authority. In this case, local police
failed to report that the village head had started selling the victim off to
another villager after raping her. In previous cases of the court of India,
the village head has been held to be a public servant. For example, Sarat
Chandra Dehury v. Sankirtan Behera, 1989 Cr LJ (NOC) 162 Orissa; Sukhdev
Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 Cr LJ 265 P&H. All these
heinous crimes have not yet been disclosed despite the passing of seven
months since the victim’s complaint. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 7(2) states that
investigation shall be conducted on top priority within thirty days. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police B.S. Pathan should take a statement from the victim
in accordance with the Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code of India and
immediately arrest all the perpetrators. The AHRC
has also written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence
against Women calling for an intervention in this case. ____________________________________________________________________ The Asian Human Rights Commission gives suggested Appeal details on the website link: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2950/ ARHC also provides a mechanism for follow up advocacy on behalf of the victim directly through the website link: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/support.php?ua=AHRC-UAC-169 About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984. Principles Guiding AHRC Programmes
|