Madras HC condemns lack of support for sexual abuse victims, closes sexual harassment case

The Madras High Court highlighted the legal system’s lack of support for victims of sexual abuse as it concluded a case in which the accused remained unidentified and the victim was summoned multiple times even three years after the first information report (FIR). as a witness.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that victims face double difficulties in such cases – firstly the trauma caused by the abuse and secondly the additional pain during court proceedings.

The judge pointed to an imbalance in the legal system, saying it amounted to punishing victims. He said he would not allow the ridicule to continue in this case.

A woman has filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the witness summons issued to her by the district court.

complaint

The woman filed a complaint in November 2020 and an FIR was lodged against her under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. She reported an incident in which a man on a blue scooter allegedly groped her during her morning walk. Police obtained images from nearby cameras to help identify and arrest the defendant, whose identity remains unclear.

An investigation into the matter has been completed and a final report has been submitted. The trial court also found an offense under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Thereafter, the victim was called as a witness.

Responding to the summons, the petitioner/victim approached the High Court and seeking justice after the painful incident, she filed a complaint seeking to identify and initiate legal action against the accused and provided evidence, however, in 2023 On August 11, she was summoned to the court and waited all day with no progress, reliving the painful experience.

Court’s Observation

The Single Judge noted that in the present case, the petitioner was actually molested in broad daylight and the police could not properly identify the accused and therefore, if the petitioner went to trial, she would be asked various embarrassing questions and she Will have to endure further mental anguish in court.

The court noted that there were only two so-called eyewitnesses, who could only recount the events and could not identify the defendants, but concluded that “in the best case scenario, sexual activity would have occurred in this case.” The petitioner was subjected to ill-treatment and nothing else”.

“There is no need for a criminal trial to merely dabble in incidents of sexual abuse even without identifying the accused. If this is allowed, it will actually be the victim who is humiliated and defamed, while the so-called accused will go free as he was not even involved in this case Recognized by anyone.”

The Court therefore considered that further consideration of the case would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, besides quashing the witness summons issued to the complainant/victim, the Court also quashed the entire proceedings in the present case in exercise of its special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court stated that the decision was based on the fact that the proceedings themselves would result in the punishment of petitioners who objected to sexual abuse.