Sexual assault victims often discouraged from filing FIR, disbelieved by authorities: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently highlighted that the stigma attached to victims of sexual assault and rape often discourages them from disclosing such crimes..There are a plethora of reasons why victims of sexual assault do not come forward with allegations, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said while declining to quash a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)..Firstly, victims of sexual assault are discouraged from filing criminal cases and are not believed by the authorities. This is coupled with the social stigma that a woman and her family faces from society when such an act is committed against her, Justice Chaudhuri said..The judge made the observation while dismissing a plea to quash a sexual assault case filed against a senior citizen for allegedly molesting his grand-niece when she was around 15-16 years of age.The victim filed the complaint years later after she turned 18. Hence, one of the grounds on which the case was sought to be quashed was the delay in filing the first information report (FIR). .The Court declined to accept this argument, while observing,“More importantly, sexual harassment and rapes are crimes which can cause lifelong trauma to the victims and it is impossible to mathematically calculate or prescribe a time limit as to when a person would recover and would be comfortable with filing a complaint.”.The Court added that allegations of sexual assault tag along with the victims and their families for the rest of their lives, since they have to face ostracisation by society in case the accused is proven innocent..In this case, the Court highlighted the prosecution’s submission that the victim had tried to tell her father about the alleged sexual assault after it happened. However, the father is stated to have “shut her down” by accusing her of lying and having a dirty mind.“Therefore, it is not that the victim did not try to raise a complaint against the accused after the act was committed. She at once informed her father, who did not believe her. Therefore, she could not confide in him again after she was violated the second time,” the Court said..The judge further noted that when the victim informed her brother about the sexual assault, they were allegedly threatened by their father and his family. Similar threats were also alleged to have been issued when the victim finally filed the criminal complaint. Therefore, the Court concluded that there appeared to be cogent reasons why the criminal case was filed after a delay.The Court added that such technical grounds cannot be the reason for quashing an investigation into a heinous crime like sexual harassment of a girl child.The accused argued that the sexual assault case was filed as counter-blast since there were long pending matrimonial disputes between the nephew of the accused (and father of the victim) and his wife, who is the mother of the alleged victim.The Court, however, was unconvinced. .The case before the Court involved allegations that the victim had been violated by her grand-uncle who was accused of touching her inappropriately and later flashing his private parts on two occasions in 2018 and 2019, when she was 15-16 years old. These incidents were stated have taken place during Rakshabandhan and Diwali celebrations at home, when her mother was out of station. Meanwhile, matrimonial disputes arose between the parents of the victims leading to several rounds of litigation between them.In 2021, when the mother suggested that her children may have to return to their father’s house due to financial constraints, her daughter vehemently opposed the suggestion. The prosecution submitted that it was at this juncture that the victim disclosed the sexual assault incidents to her mother, after which a criminal case was filed. It was submitted that as a result of the trauma undergone by the victim, she was diagnosed with facial paralysis in 2020..The Court was also told that the victim and her family was made to sit at the police station for a long time when they went to file a complaint. .In 2022, the accused uncle moved a petition before the High Court to quash the criminal case on various grounds, including that he was falsely implicated as a result of the matrimonial acrimony between his nephew and his wife (parents of the victim)..The Court, ultimately, dismissed this petition after noting that,“The matter at hand is not a rare case that justifies the Court's interference at the investigation stage. The allegation in the FIR makes out a prima facie case against the accused persons, and for this reason, the FIR registered should not be quashed.”.[Read Judgment]