CHENNAI: Despite a “poor and condemnable” investigation by the police, a trial court in Chennai last week rendered justice to a middle-aged woman who was sexually harassed by her 56-year-old neighbour on Pongal day in 2021. The court solely relied on the victim’s testimony to pronounce the accused guilty.
In her order, Anitha Anand, 17th metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet, dubbed the testimony cogent, flawless, and trustworthy. She relied on Supreme Court judgments to award a one-year rigorous imprisonment to the accused.
The case was registered by the Choolaimedu police based on the victim’s complaint that her neighbour had trespassed into her house, forcibly bit her, intimidated her with a knife, and compelled her for sexual intercourse. Though she managed to run out of the house, he caught up and threatened her against revealing the incident to anyone.
However, four days later, she filed a complaint. During the trial, the defence lawyer questioned the delay in filing a complaint and said the investigation was flawed as the accused was not interrogated, there was no medical record from the clinic visited by the complainant, and her children were not inquired with.
“In a society where victims consider this kind of harassment as a dishonour for them and their family, a woman of two children cannot be expected to open up immediately,” the magistrate noted. She said there was no scope for suspicion in the victim’s statement. The magistrate also rejected the accused’s efforts to raise doubts in the prosecution’s case as “baseless conjectures”.
She pointed to several holes in the probe — the officer had not taken any step to arrest the accused, a Tamil Nadu Electricity Board staff, for six months, only close relatives of the accused had been examined as witnesses, and no effort was taken to collect the victim’s medical records to prove the case.
“The investigation is found to have been purposely done to create flaws and defeat the case of prosecution,” the magistrate said, mentioning that higher officials should sensitise the investigating officers.
The accused was convicted under Section 354A and 506(ii) of the IPC and was also ordered to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation.