The Unnao Story: A Legal Viewpoint

Introduction

Strongly criticizing the handling of the Unnao rape case and expressing displeasure on the
road accident which took place last Sunday (28/07/2019) that left the 19-year old victim and
her lawyer critically injured and her two aunts dead, the Supreme Court on Thursday
(01/08/2019) transferred the four cases related to the matter from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi. The
order also provided for a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs from the Uttar Pradesh Government
and CRPF security cover for her, her family and her lawyer.

The Supreme Court via its order appointed Dharmesh Sharma, District Judge, Tiz Hazari
Courts, Delhi to conduct the trial in the four cases related to Unnao rape. The bench led by
the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi transferred the cases from the CBI Court, Lucknow
to Delhi by initiating suo moto proceedings based on the letter sent by the family of the
victim seeking protection from intimation by accused. The mother of the victim had also
approached the Apex Court last April seeking transfer of trial outside Uttar Pradesh giving
the same reason, i.e., intimation by accused.

First case was for the rape allegedly committed by BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. Second
case was for the offence of gang rape allegedly committed by the legislator’s supporters and
friends a week after the crime committed by him. Third case has been registered against the
father of the victim under the Arms Act. Her father died while in the custody and the fourth
case has been registered with respect to this by her mother. All of these cases have to be dealt
within 45 days, the Supreme Court directed.

Keeping in mind that the recent road accident occurred in Uttar Pradesh and that it would be
difficult to prepare a report if the case is transferred to Delhi, the Supreme Court has allowed
CBI to conduct investigation with respect to the truck collision and submit the report of the
same within 14 days.

What is the background of this issue?

The Unnao rape case involves the gangrape of a 17-year-old girl allegedly by the BJP MLA
Kuldeep Singh Sengar, his brother Atul Singh and their accomplices on 4 June 2017. A case
was registered under Section 363 and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However,
the victim was allegedly not allowed to name the BJP MLA as the police refused to mention
him by name.
Two chargesheets have been filed in the case so far. First one names the BJP MLA, Kuldeep
Singh Sengar as the accused in the allege rape case of the 17 year old. The second one names
him, his brother, three policemen and five other people for allegedly framing the Unnao
survivor’s father.

The trial in the Unnao rape case did not move an inch even when there was invocation of
POCSO and the main accused in the case was a legislator. The Protection of Children from
Secual Offences Act states that all the cases should ideally be dealt with within a year from
the date of taking the cognizance. Also, the Supreme Court in an order in December 2017
said that all cases against MPs and MLAs must be decided within one year and it also laid
down the establishment of special courts for the said purpose.

What exactly is POCSO?

POCSO or The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) 2012 was
established to protect the children against offences like sexual abuse, sexual harassment and
pornography. It was formed to provide a child-friendly system for trial underneath which the
perpetrators could be punished. The Act defines a child as any person below eighteen years of
age. It also makes provisions for avoiding the re-victimisation of the child at the hands of the
judicial system. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 received the
President’s assent on June 19, 2012. It was notified in the Gazette of India on June 20, in the
same year.

The Act defines different forms of sexual abuse which includes penetrative and non-
penetrative assault. It also involves sexual harassment, pornography, etc. Under certain
specific circumstances POCSO states a sexual assault is to be considered “aggravated if the
abused child is mentally ill or when the abuse is committed by a member of the armed forces
or security forces or a public servant or a person in a position of trust or authority of the child,
like a family member, police officer, teacher, or doctor or a person-management or staff of a
hospital — whether Government or private.”

How is POCSO different from Section 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

1. Burden of Proof on the Accused: Section 29 of the Act provides that where a person is
prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3,
5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has
committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, unless the contrary is proved.
2. POCSO Act is gender-neutral law, wherein the law takes cognizance of sexual crimes
committed against both girls and boys under the age of 18 years. IPC presumed that only
females are the victim of sexual crimes.

3. POCSO Act ensures punishment for all perpetrators irrespective of age and gender.
Unlike IPC which only punishes a male for an offence of rape, POCSO Act is gender neutral
in nature.

4. Calibration of Offences: POCSO Act addresses a wide range of sexual offences which
include anything from complete and partial penetration; non-penetrative sexual assault;
stalking of a child; showing children pornography; using the child for pornography;
exhibitionism etc. The law protects children from both physical and or non-physical contact
forms of abuse unlike the Indian Penal Code.

5. Severer Punishment when Protectors are Perpetrators:

POCSO Act provides for more severe punishment, when the sexual offence is committed by
a person in a position of trust or authority such as police officer or a member of security
forces or public servant etc. (Sections 5 and 9).

The role of Supreme Court in this case.

A suo motu cognizance is a Latin term which means an action taken by a government agency,
court or other central authority on their own apprehension. A court takes a suo motu
cognizance of a legal matter when it receives information about violation of rights or breach
of duty through media or through a third party’s notification by letter, telegram, or other
means of communication.

It is seen that the Supreme Court sou moto initiated proceeding based on the letter written by
the survivor’s family. Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the necessary
resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or
encroached upon. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or
cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual.

The Supreme Court also took suo motu cognizance and asked the Central Government to
work with companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook and WhatsApp to suggest list of
keywords to block explicit videos that depict rape, gang rape and child pornography. An
NGO named Prajwala wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India in 2015 and sent a pen drive
containing two videos. The letter asked the court to take appropriate measures against the
culprits who were committing gang rape in a video. The Supreme Court converted the letter
into a PIL.

The Indian courts have taken suo motu cognizance in the following instances:

1. Contempt of court: Contempt of court means disobedience towards the court and
ignorance to rules and regulations, code of conduct and ethics followed in a court. The court
generally initiates a case for suo motu contempt against an officer who prevents delivery of
justice or challenges the dignity of court.

2. Reopen old cases: If some new and substantial evidence is discovered after a case is
closed, the courts have the power to take suo motu action and reopen the case to try it again.

3. Order probe for a new case: If any court is of the opinion that some injustice is being
done to an aggrieved person or a section of people, the court can order probe at any level by
any government authority, police department, the CBI, etc. The court may also take such
action after receiving a letter from the affected section of people or on the basis of any news,
documentary or media source.

Though the rights conferred by the constitution other than fundamental rights are also valid
rights protected by the judiciary, in case of fundamental rights violations, the Supreme Court
of India can be approached directly for ultimate justice per Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have been given the right to petition
directly the Supreme Court or the High Courts for the enforcement of their fundamental
rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. Poverty-stricken
people may not have the means to do so and therefore, in the public interest, anyone can
commence litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "public interest litigation".
In some cases, The Supreme Court has acted suo moto on their own on the basis of
newspaper reports.

Conclusion

It is evident from the recent events that the BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengat is one influential
person, specially in his home town and the Supreme Court is well aware of this fact. After the
transfer of the cases from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, the SC also ordered the transfer of Mahesh
Singh, the uncle of the rape victim and a key witness of the case to Tihar Jail from Raebareli
Jail. The crime, the audacity of the crime and the plight of the victim’s family has inspired
people to explore the issue in question and the media channels, after the recent road accident
have become hype active in portraying the BJP MLA as a criminal.

Now that the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India himself has interfered in the
matter, it is expected that in the end justice will prevail and all the offenders related to this
heinous act will be punished. The Supreme Court is also expected to lay down stricter and
stringent laws on protectors becoming perpetrators.