SUDHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant/victim in S. C. No.1181/2009 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, the trial court). The respondents Nos.2 to 9 are the accused therein. The offences alleged against them are under Ss. 166, 211, 220, 323, 324, 330, 331, 341, 342, 348 and 354 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(ix)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SC/ST (PoA) Act).

(2.) The case arose from a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate - II, Thiruvananthapuram, as CMP No.675/2007 against the respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein and one Mr. Rajeev. The accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint are husband and wife. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are their daughter and son-in-law, respectively, and the accused No.5 is their close companion. Accused No.6 was the Sub Inspector and accused Nos.7 to 9 were the Women Police Constables at Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

(3.) The allegations in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: The complainant belongs to the Hindu Thandan community, whereas the accused belongs to the forward communities. The complainant was a housemaid in the residence of accused Nos.1 to 4. While so, on 20/7/2006, when she went there to attend the job, she was told by accused Nos.1 to 4 that about nine sovereigns of gold were missing from their house. She was questioned by them with the suspicion that she had stolen the items. At that time, her marriage was fixed. She was threatened, stating that she should give back the gold items. Though she asserted her innocence, without heeding the same, she was abused, questioned and humiliated by calling her caste name. She was also intimidated that if the place of concealment of the stolen items was not disclosed, she would be handed over to the police. Even after attending to all the work of the day, she was not given food or water and was confined in the house without being permitted to go back home. Then a false complaint was given to the police, following which the accused Nos.7, 8 and 9, the women police constables of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, reached the house and started interrogating her. She reiterated her innocence, but they insisted that she should confess the guilt. Later, by 4 o'clock, she was taken to the Fort Police Station, where the accused No.6, the Sub Inspector, directed her to plead guilty. Then, accused Nos.7 to 9 were directed to deal with her properly. Thus, they took her to the inner room and cruelly manhandled her. They beat her with a cane and a stick. Her head was hit against the wall. When she cried aloud, her neck was pressed and stamped on the abdomen. Entreaties made by her mother, who was standing outside, were neglected. She was dragged across the floor and caned all over the body; the beating continued from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. At that time, the accused No.1 came there, informed that the ornaments were available in their house itself and that they had no complaints. Then her parents and brothers were called to the police station, and after obtaining a signed statement that they had no complaint, she was let off. She was unable even to sit erect when she left the police station. Accused Nos.7 to 9 told her that if the incident was disclosed to anyone, she would not be allowed to live peacefully. On 21/7/2006, she went to the General Hospital and was admitted and treated there.