Women face violence from the womb till grave; women with disabilities suffer double the discrimination: Madras High Court

Despite harsh laws, women continue to face violence from womb till grave, observed the Madras High Court recently while confirming the conviction and sentence of three men who were caught trying to disrobe a deaf and mute widow, in an alleged attempt to rape her (Saravanamuthu and ors v. State). .Justice K Murali Shankar took note that "women with disabilities are often doubly discriminated against, as women and as people with disability.".In confirming the trial court's conviction and seven years' rigorous imprisonment sentence for offences punishable under Section 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) and Section 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), the Judge commented:."Despite the imposition of severe punishments, the attitude of society towards women is not changed completely. Violence is something she is born with, from womb till grave. In the present case, the victim is a woman with speech and hearing disability, considering the nature and seriousness of the offence committed against the hapless lady, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be excessive.".The Court took serious note that the victim was a deaf and dumb lady and that the accused committed the sexual assault while taking advantage of the challenges she faced. The Court agreed with the prosecution's case that if others had not intervened at the right time, the accused would have committed rape on the victim. .The Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeal moved by the three accused against a 2016 trial court verdict. ."Every one accepts that we are to treat women well. But that is not enough. It's time to work, to make sure that all men treat women well. With the fond hope that this happens in our society, the accused herein cannot be dealt with leniently and accordingly, the Criminal appeal stands dismissed." the Judge added..By way of background, the victim, belonging to the Arunthathiyar community, had gone out to graze goats in November 2013 when the incident took place. Two of the three accused men are stated to have cupped her mouth and held her hands, while the third accused raised her garments, purportedly in an attempt to rape her. .Two boys, who had accompanied her, tried to stop the accused. After being pushed off, these boys went and informed the victim's father of what was happening. The accused men ran away after the father came to the scene of the crime. By means of signs and gestures, the victim told her father what had happened, the Court was told. .In the police complaint registered subsequently, the three men were accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In 2016, the trial court convicted all three under Sections 354B and 342 of the IPC, challenging which the three accused moved the High Court. .The accused alleged that a false case had been foisted on them because they refused to accede to the demands made by the police to stand in as accused in another case. The Court rejected the theory outright, terming it a "usual routine theory spinned up to avoid the consequences.".Rather, the High Court found that there was reliable witness testimony and that the accused had been correctly identified in a Test Identification Parade, to support the case of the prosecution. The Court also rejected the contention raised by the defence that the two boys witness to the incident were "interested" witnesses since they were related to the victim's father. ."The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished and a witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances, of a case cannot be called as interested," the Court explained. .The Court, therefore, declined to set aside the trial court's ruling and dismissed the appeal..Senior advocate V Kathirvelu appeared for the appellants, whereas government advocate (criminal side) SE Veronica Vincent appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]