Not a Kirkol Chedchad

checked on 12-08-2012 -- no correction needed
Not a Kirkol Chedchad
Leena Mehendale

6th January, 2008.

The incidence at Juhu on the late night of 31st December, 2007 is being brushed aside as an event of "Kirkol Chedchad" (A routine trivial jibe at women). This is highly objectionable. The incidence is a conspiracy to gang rape, to say the least. Had it not been for the prompt action of some photographer and some policemen present on the site, the victim ladies would have faced much more henious and barbaric behavior than what they actually faced. Also, it was a pre meditated crime, planned and carried out in cold blood, even if the precise identity of the victims was not pre-decided. It has the analogy of a group of gangsters planning and looting the vehicles on the Mumbai - Ahmedabad highway, where the identity of passengers was not pre-decided but the category was.

The F.I.R. therefore must be registered as conspiracy and attempt of gang rape. All the media observers and enlightened citizens must see to it that a dilute F.I.R. is not allowed to pass.

This instance and especially the view point as expressed by some seniors that “such instances of Kirkol Chedchad keep happening”, make the issue more serious. It is a pointer to the mental attitude towards dignity of womanhood. It brings me back to a very important lacuna in IPC. Time has come to understand that the danger of groups of unashamed drunken goondaas is looming large on our streets and posing threats to out society. Therefore when such people have been captured in camera it should be considered as sufficient evidence to book a case against them. Unfortunately however our criminal procedure requires that the victim ladies must come forward, must disclose their identity and must keep repeating this shameful occurrence with them again and again, re-living the most horrible experience of their life. We think that unless and until the victim ladies undergo this ordial, the society cannot be freed from such goondaas. That is the legal fallacy under which we all live and which we all accept.

It is an extreme paradox that even as in all other types of crimes the victim is never the prosecutor and it is the State which is the prosecutor, yet in case of rape victims, it is the victim lady who is termed as prosecutrix and the evidence does not become complete without her statements. Her position in the witness box is further discriminated through the application of Section 154(4) of Indian Evidence Act under which the accused is allowed to make all attempts to prove that the witness lady had a bad character.

Let us consider the case of a crime of house breaking. Consider that the residents of the house were not physically present but some neighbors witnessed the incidence and captured the culprits and handed over to the police. How does the police investigate further? The police goes to the site of incidence, collect all the physical evidences of house - breaking, photographs etc. but not necessarily the statement of the owner of the house. And yet the F.I.R. can be registered and a charge sheet can be brought before the court. The same law and order machinery claims complete helplessness unless and until the victim ladies themselves come forward in a rape case.

Consider another case. You walk out of a building during the night and some group of goondas pounce upon you. You fall down, you are beaten up, your clothes are torn, your belongings snatched and suddenly you are freed and taken out of scene. Can you identity the victims even if some cameraman has photographed them? Which evidence is the conclusive evidence - the cameraman of his photographs or your statement stating you don’t recognize anyone? Would you like the goondas to be let out because you could not identify them? While you were being beaten up, would it have been possible for you to recognize the goondas?

It is time that we realise that the danger lies in letting such goondas loose on our streets. Rather than waiting for the actual statements of the victims, our law enforcing agencies should proceed on the basis of other evidence collected in the matter. In the given instance the camera photographs alongwith the statement of the photographer and the constables who actually rescued the ladies should be given due importance and the charge of conspiracy and attempt to gang-rape should be registered.

The Law department also must pay attention to these issues and bring out suitable amendments to the IPC and the Indian Evidence Act.

In the mean time the F.I.R. in the Juhu case must be registered as a conspiracy and attempt to gang rape rather than a case of "Kirkol Chedchad".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kept on janta_ki_ray_part2&3