Rape and its proof – And that’s how life is

By SuvarSaha, Sanhati. Translated from an op-ed by Jagori Bandyopadhyay in Anandabazar Patrika dated December 13, 2007.
We need proof. The government does not take any action until there is sufficient evidence to prove the crime. This is how it should be; this is how it is. Plain words. Plain, yet not so simple. The government will act once it has enough evidence to justify its action. Very good. But the journey from accusations to establishment of crime in the eyes of the law is not a trivial process. Can the Government shrug off its responsibility in ensuring that this process, the journey itself, is executed in a free, fair and lawful manner?
These thoughts occurred to me as I was listening to the charges and counter-charges that accompanied the accusations of mass rapes in Nandigram. “.. Eight people raped me. They raped my two daughters also, in front of my eyes. I don’t know where they are now…” – These words of a ravaged mother from Satengabari, under treatment in Tamluk Hospital, appeared in the news-papers on 16th November, 2007. The official report confirmed that there was evidence of rape, or so was the statement of the officer-in-charge of Nandigram Police Station Champak Choudhury, the Tamluk Hospital Superintendent, Sabitendra Patra.
During the recapture of Nandigram, two cases of mass-rape came to news on 10th November itself. The charges were leveled by two women from Satengabari and Sonachura.
On 17th of November, another woman from Gokulnagar registered a complaint at the Nandigram Police Station that she had been successively raped on 14th and 15th November by members of the recapture brigade. She was too terrified to get out of her home immediately. Finally, on Saturday (17th Nov.) she managed to flee to her husband, at the relief camp. Her Medical Examination was carried out at the Nandigram Hospital. She specified the names of Kalipada Das and Sagar Das as her rapists. A few hours later, Anup Karan, alias, Bachchu was arrested. He was identified as rapist by the ‘rape-victim’ from Satengabari. All this came out in the newspapers – that’s where we got to know.
On 18th November, we see Brinda Karat of the CPI(M) speaking to the TV Cameras. ‘If any incident of rape is proved, Government will take stringent action’. Her statement also appeared in the next day’s newspapers.
The very next day, i.e. 19th November, the State Women’s Commission visited Tamluk Hospital. They couldn’t talk to the woman from Gokulnagar. However, they talk to the mother from Satengabari. Having taken stock of the ground reality, of the members of the delegation commented ‘There is no evidence of Rape’. She further added, ‘The woman had given birth to 6-7 babies. So it is difficult to prove rape technically. Also, the incident happened on 6th November and she reported it on 10th. And before coming to the Hospital, she even washed that day’s clothes. Nothing can be proved like this!’
So, what does all this sum up to? Brinda describes the role of news media as biased. If rape is proved, Government will take action. Women’s Commission says there is no evidence of rape; it is very difficult to prove rape in these cases. Hence, if there is no evidence, then it is yet more difficult for the Government to take action. Virtually, impossible.
Every one, from Brinda Karat to the State Women’s Commission, knows all this very well. They know something else as well. Due to the fact that medical examination is not at all full-proof and conclusive in establishing rape, it is not considered to be the final word in such cases. On 2nd October, 2005, the Supreme Court bench of Justice H.K. Shoma and Justice G. P. Mathur clearly stated that if the testimony of the rape victim and the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong, then the crime can be established even without medical evidence.
This year, on 27th July, the bench of R. V. Ravindran and L. S. Panta upheld the life sentence of the accused, based solely on the testimony of the victim. And this is not only about Supreme Court. B. C. Deba was accused of raping a teen age girl inside a coffee plantation in Athur, Karnataka. This was in 1991. The raped girl tried to commit suicide by jumping into river. Subsequent medical examinations failed to establish rape. But right from the lower courts to the Supreme Court, her testimony was ‘coherent, logical, dependable and believable’. Consequently, all the three courts sentenced Deba to life imprisonment.
In rape cases, it is hard to establish the crime by depending only on medical evidence. This is because medical examination is reliable only if it is carried out within 24 hours of the incident, which is not the case in majority of such incidents. If the victim is married or is a mother, then it is many times more difficult to ‘prove’ rape. Even taking bath or washing of clothes destroys evidences. All these practical aspects of a rape case are known to every one, Brinda Karat, Women’s Commission or the Supreme Court. That is why, two years ago, the State Women’s Commission had welcomed the Supreme Court verdict.
Is it because of this knowledge that Brinda and the Commission are unanimously harping on the necessity of medical evidence in the rape cases? By concentrating on this one aspect of rape, are they somehow trying to confine the general idea of ‘evidence in rape case’ to a mere medical report?
It is not being implied that any complaint of rape coming from Nandigram needs to be considered true in its face value. Just as, we should not forget to look into the alleged rape of a woman from Kalicharanpur, on 5th March 2007. She was the wife of a local CPI(M) leader.
But at the same time, we can hardly forget what the Women’s Commission had to say after the Dhantala Rape in 2003 – ‘all concocted lies’. Going back to the 1990 Birati mass-rape case, we hear the ‘Democratic Women’s Association’ leader Shyamali Gupta saying ‘Those girls don’t have good character’. The association is not above the party regimen. So, may be, this is expected. But, on pen and paper, State Women’s Commission is an independent body!