SUDESH JHAKU Vs. K C J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is "rape" as defined in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code confined only to penile penetration of vagina? What about penetration of a bodily orifice (vagina, anus or mouth) by a penis or other part of the body, or by an object? Would it fall within the meaning of the words "sexual intercourse" and "penetration" as used in the said provision? These are some of the questions which have arisen in this petition. The other questions raised are also of no less importance. On such question revolves around the ambit and scope of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The second is about the precautions to be taken with regard to the recording of the statement of a child witness in a case of sexual abuse. The questions, arise from a sordid story coming from the lips of a child at present aged about eight years. However, let me first introduce the main characters. The narration would follow.

(2.) K CJ is at the centre-stage. He is a married man with three daughters, the youngest being B. SJ is his wife. The said three daughters are from her womb. He was an Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the same Ministry worked JV and BB besides two women AK and BK. The year was 1994. B, by that time, had seen about six summers of her life. This little girl used to be taken by her father to his office and from there to a hotel room in or around the Pavilion Restaurant. The others to accompany them were the persons named above. Ensconsed there, they would consume alcohol, watch what are generally known as "blue films" and revel in sex orgies. And, during those naked games of raw flesh, KCJ would make his own daughter consume alcohol, remove her clothes, and thrust his fingers in her vagina and anus. If the child is to be believed, she was not safe even within the fourwalls of the house she called her home. This is how she describes her experience there:

(3.) This yin yang of pain and lust forms part of her statement recorded on May 2, 1995 by a Metropolitan Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On July 20, 1995 the C.B.I, filed charge sheet not only against KCJ but against his above named office colleagues as well. It was under sections 376, 377, 354, 366 A read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. On February 7, 1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge charged KCJ under Sections 354, 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The others were charged under section 109 for having abetted the commission of offences under sections 354 and 377.