R.K. Raghavan
The judgment in the Bilkis Bano case
deserves careful study by policemen, lawyers, prosecutors, activists
and, most importantly, trial court judges.
There is all round satisfaction that the violence inflicted on Bilkis
Bano, the 21-year-old who was gang-raped by a Hindu mob at Randhikpur
village in Gujarat on March 3, 2002, has been at least partially
avenged. Although seven of the accused put up by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) for trial before Special Judge Dalvi of Mumbai were
acquitted, it is gratifying that 11 were convicted and sentenced to
life.
This judgment is significant in many ways and deserves to be studied in
detail by policemen, lawyers, prosecutors, human rights activists and,
most importantly, trial court judges all over the country. If these
groups do not take up this exercise seriously, with a view to learning
from the principles enunciated by Judge Dalvi, victims like Bilkis will
not in the future receive justice from the system.
Also, I do not believe that the kind of violence perpetrated on Bilkis
will not be repeated elsewhere in the country. This is because the rape
of Bilkis was not motivated merely by communal hatred. It was the
product of several human weaknesses, chief of which was, of course,
sheer lust.
The recent molestation episode on New Year’s eve in Mumbai and the
series of carnal attacks on women tourists in Rajasthan (including the
one involving Orissa Director General of Police B.B. Mohanty’s infamous
son) fortify the impression that women are not exactly safe in our
environs. There may be an element of generalisation here.
Notwithstanding this, it would be arrogant and naive to rationalise the
Bilkis case and other incidents in India by taking the position that
women are not safe in other parts of the world either. The most obvious
feature of the Bilkis case is the gaping holes seen in our criminal
justice system. The Gujarat Police first dropped action in the case on
the grounds that there were far too many inconsistencies in Bilkis’s
version of the incident.
In the context of Godhra and what followed in 2002, Gujarat was not the
best of places where a Muslim woman could succeed in establishing her
credibility. She had to do much more to convince the police that she
was speaking the truth. Fortunately for her and those backing her, the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Supreme Court came to
her rescue by transferring the case to the CBI. And the CBI rose to the
occasion wonderfully well, as evidenced by the Dalvi verdict.
I know the CBI has many detractors. However, here is one instance where
even diehard sceptics of the CBI’s objectivity and professionalism
would concede that the investigating agency did undo injustice. (If the
Bureau has been found wanting in some corruption investigations, it is
simply because of the ruling party’s desire to bail out its favourites
and the element of subtle pressure it brings to bear on investigators.
Here and there, judges have also been guilty of questionable rulings
that will not stand up to scrutiny in higher and more objective fora.)
Scientific investigation
The CBI unravelled important facts of the inhuman crime against Bilkis
through scientific investigation with the help of the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory. A mass grave of the victims was located and the
remains of some victims were collected. Their identities were
established with the help of photographs seized by the CBI during its
investigation.
Examination of witnesses was the next most challenging task. When
witnesses are hard to come by even in routine crime, it is impossible
to locate credible witnesses who speak with clarity and without fear in
a case of mass communal fury. An investigator’s skill is tested
severely here. The CBI had a team that discharged its role commendably
under trying circumstances and in a hostile environment.
Witness protection exists in a rudimentary form in our country. We have
to borrow from the United States, which has a nearly foolproof
legislation. Bilkis was initially unwilling to depose for fear of
reprisal. It was only after repeated assurances that she came forward
to relate the happenings of March 3, 2002, as best as she could.
Fortunately, we have provision in our criminal law for an in camera
deposition. This helped Bilkis a great deal in coming out with a cogent
and uninhibited account of the attack on her. It was possibly this that
convinced Judge Dalvi that she was speaking the truth. The evidence of
a few other reliable eyewitnesses may have also had a bearing on how
the Judge viewed the happenings.
Judge Dalvi displayed pragmatism and courage, without which the 11
convictions would not have been possible. The apex court has repeatedly
expressed its views on the quality of evidence that should persuade
lower courts and High Courts to opt for a conviction in rape cases. The
sum and substance of the Supreme Court’s stand is that trial courts
should not go by the number of persons supporting the prosecution. They
should look for credibility rather than quantity.
Naturally, the victim’s account in a case of rape is sacrosanct. A
conviction should be the response even if the victim alone states the
basic facts as long as her demeanour before the trial judge inspires
confidence. The 11 convictions in the Bilkis case are based almost
wholly on oral evidence. This alone shows that Judge Dalvi was
pragmatic and humane.
The Gujarat Police did not distinguish themselves in the case. Their
decision to drop action on the first information report (FIR)
registered on Bilkis’s complaint was dubious. There is more than a
suspicion that the move was made under extraneous pressure. This
allegation is difficult to prove but is one that is supported by public
opinion.
When a police force is under the thumb of the State government, we can
hardly expect professionalism from the police. The hopes raised by the
Supreme Court ruling of September 2006 on police reforms have proved
unwarranted. The apex court has been unable to push through the reforms
it has in mind, and State governments, reluctant to give up their
stranglehold on the police, are resorting to every trick in the trade
to sabotage the introduction of changes in the way the police work and
are controlled by the political executive.
Even after the CBI filed a charge sheet in April 2004 against 12
private individuals, six policemen and two doctors, there was no great
assurance that the trial would be free and fair. There was a nagging
fear that the State government would undermine the process and help the
accused go scot-free. This was the apprehension that influenced Bilkis
to approach the Supreme Court for a transfer of the trial outside
Gujarat. The proceedings were transferred to Maharashtra and Judge
Dalvi was appointed to hear the case. This was an unusual procedure
that helped the victim to obtain justice.
How many women victims have the tenacity of Bilkis? How many get the
backing of the judiciary, the NHRC and the media? The rate of
victimisation of women is climbing, at least in perception if not in
terms of statistics, and government and social institutions can hardly
cope with the volume and growing audacity of anti-social elements.
Unless the community organises itself in the form of a large number of
dedicated groups, Bilkises will go unavenged.
We talk of police insensitivity to crimes against women. The way Bilkis
was handled undoubtedly strengthens this view. No solution seems in
sight. Training methods have had very little impact. Women police wings
have brought in marginal relief. The strong belief that policewomen
themselves indulge in unethical practices has, however, reduced their
effectiveness.
A final thought. I am more than convinced that our movies
systematically promote harassment of women. I am willing to be
challenged on this. Even some enlightened producers have been guilty of
depicting eve-teasing as if it were mere fun and frolic, which it
definitely is not.
As long as this light-hearted approach is fashionable and lucrative, I
do not see any prospect of a drop in crimes against women.
http://www.frontline.in/fl2503/stories/20080215250312800.htm
Copyright © 2008, Frontline.