People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXVII
No. 07 February 17, 2013 |
On the Suryanelli Gang
Rape Case in Kerala Brinda Karat, former MP
and Polit Bureau member of the CPI(Mt)
met Dr Hamid Ansari, vice president of I AM writing
to you in connection
with the charges made by the victim in a gang rape case
in Kerala dating back
to January 1996, against Prof PJ Kurien who now holds a
constitutional post as
the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha. I met the rape
survivor recently and
she informed me that in the light of the Supreme Court
judgement which has
vindicated her fight for justice, she has requested the
Kerala government to
reinvestigate her complaint against Kurien. Prof
Kurien has claimed
that he has been “exonerated” in three investigations
and also by the High
Court and the Supreme Court. He has claimed that the
Supreme Court judgement
has nothing to do with him. The defence is most
misleading. There
were two parallel
cases filed in what has come to be called the Suryanelli
gang rape case. The
first was by the state against 40 men named in the FIR.
The other was a private
complaint by the victim directly to the court. She said
she was constrained to
do this since the police had refused to include the name
of PJ Kurien in the
list of the accused although she had identified him as
one of her tormenters. In
the main petition, the In
the private petition
against PJ Kurien, the lower court held that there was
prima facie evidence and
that his name should be included. Kurien appealed to the
High Court which did
not grant him any relief and asked him to go back to the
lower court. His
appeal was heard by an Additional Sessions Court in 2006
which again rejected
his petition and held that the allegations are clear,
specific and unambiguous
and that therefore the victim should be given a chance
to prove her case. Thus
three courts had
rejected PJ Kurien’s appeal to have his name excluded
from the list of accused. Meanwhile
in the main
petition, the appeal of the accused was upheld by a
division bench of the High
Court in 2005. All the accused were acquitted and it was
stated that the 17
year old girl had consented to have sexual relations
with all the 40 men. An
appeal was filed against this by the state government in
the Supreme Court. It
was mainly on the basis
of this acquittal in the main petition that the case
against PJ Kurien was
rejected later by the High Court and also by the Supreme
Court. However
following the My
appeal to you is to
take steps to protect the dignity of the constitutional
post of deputy chairman.
In the light of the Supreme Court judgement for
reinvestigation in the main
petition, it is unthinkable that an individual accused
in the case by the
victim, can occupy the Chair until he is cleared by a
reinvestigation. In
the forthcoming parliament
session, the anti-sexual assault ordinance is also
scheduled to be discussed.
The status of