Posts Tagged ‘School girl’

BHRPC comments on police report on rape of a patient by her doctor

May 12, 2012

 The Cachar district superintendent of police submitted a report to the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on allegations of rape of a patient by her doctor raised by the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC). Below are the comments of the BHRPC on the police report:

       1. The findings of the police investigation that the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused/alleged violator is established as stated in the report of the district superintendent of police (SP), Cachar is substantially correct.

        2. The medical report can not be relied upon for a number of reasons:

                             i. There was inordinate delay in conducting the test;

                             ii. The report goes against the circumstantial evidences;

                            iii. The report goes against the accounts of the witnesses as recorded by the police;

                      iv. The element of sympathy of the doctors who conducted the test towards the doctor who is the alleged violator creeping in and vitiating the objectivity of the findings can not be ruled out as both of them are colleagues and belong to the same profession.

        3. The findings of the police is correct because there are supports and corroborations among the accounts given by the victim/survivor in her First Information Report (FIR), her statement before the judicial magistrate recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 and the accounts of witnesses recoded by the police.

         4. As the report of the medical test is not reliable for the reasons stated above the claim in the report about the age of the victim/survivor being between 18 to 20 years can also not be relied upon.

      5. According to the statements of the victim/survivor in both the FIR and that which has been recorded under section 164 of the CrPC and the witness accounts, it appears that the victim was a minor at the time of violations of her rights.

       6. The facts and circumstances described in documents on record including the FIR, victim’s statement under section 164 of the CrPC, and the report of the SP clearly establish commission of offence of rape by the alleged violator upon the victim/survivor. Therefore, it is established that human rights of the survivor/victim have been violated.

     7. The filing of charge-sheet by the police will facilitate the criminal court to conduct trial on the criminal aspect of case in order only to fix criminal liability and proportionate penal measure called for under the law. It is not the domain of the trial court to consider human rights liability of the violator and remedies to the victim/survivor.

    8. Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Commission to fix human rights liability and more importantly to provide redress to the victim/survivor in terms of adequate compensation.

In view of the above submission, the BHRPC most humbly urges that the Commission may be pleased to:

  1. Recommend to the authorities to provide an adequate amount of compensation to the victim/survivor;
  2. While fixing the quantum of the compensation the Commission may take into consideration the aggravating factors involved in the case such as (a) that the alleged violator is a government servant paid from the state exchequer for acting as savoir for those who are suffering from physical distress; (b) that the victim/survivor went to the alleged violator in full trust as his position demands; (c) that the alleged violator took benefit of position of custodian of the victim/survivors at the moment of commission of the violating acts; (d) that the case has a clear custodial angle; (e) that the age and social and other circumstances of the victim/survivor are such that the minor girl has had an entire life full of colours but which has been destroyed beyond repair for no faults of hers and her life has become an undesirable and unbearable burden on her fragile shoulders; and
  3. Any other recommendations and/or actions as the Commission deems fit and proper for vindication of human rights of the victim/survivor and to meet ends of justice.

The statement of BHRPC on the matter can be viewed here.

Police report on alleged rape of a patient by her doctor in Assam

May 12, 2012

….

On perusal of relevant records of the case, it transpired that on last 27/11/2011 the complainant (name and address withheld by the BHRPC for protecting identity) lodged an FIR at Dholai PS interalia alleging that on the same day @ 4PM the complt. being accompanied by her sister in law (name withheld) had been to the chamber of Dr Dilip Paul at Sadagram (Dholai Bazar) where he refused to check her up. Instead, he asked her to be in his residential chamber for her check up and treatment. On her arrival at his residential chamber the accused doctor asked her to go inside while her sister in law was asked to wait outside. As soon as she entered the house, the accd. doctor closed the door and window from the outside and forcibly raped her.  Hence the case was registered and investigated.

In course of investigation the I/O examined the complt. (victim) and recorded her statement U/S 161 CrPC as well as recorded judicially U/S 164 CrPC. In both statements given to police and to the court, the complt. corroborated the gist of the FIR. The I/O also visited thePO, drew up sketch map. The I/O got the complt. medically examined at SMCH, Silchar and collected medical report where the concerned doctor of the SMCH, Silchar opined that (1) Evidence of recent sexual intercourse not detected (II) evidence of violent mark not detected in her private part and (III) her age is above 18 years and below 20 years. The I/O, also, in course of investigation examined the following witnesses who appeared to be acquainted to the fact or the case. Their statements were recorded U/S 161 CrPC.

WITNESS:

  1. (Name withheld by the BHRPC)
  2. (Name withheld by the BHRPC)
  3. (Name withheld by the BHRPC)
  4. Mrs Manjuma Sangami

The first three of the four witnesses examined above corroborated the gist of the FIR to the extent of their knowledge about the occurrence. The fourth witness Mrs Manjuma Sangmai being the wife of the accd. doctor relayed the story in her statement in the way to defend her accd. husband.

In course of investigation the accd. Dr Dilip Paul was arrested in connection with the case and examined and interrogated thoroughly vis-à-vis the charges leveled against him. Later on, he was released on bail as per the direction of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. During the investigation the charge under section 376 IPC found established against the accd. Dr Dilip Paul. Hence charge-sheet was already submitted against him on 13/03/12.

………

Sd/

Superintendent of Police

Cachar, Silchar

Date: 17/03/12

(This report (vide No. G/SR/1281 dated 16/03/12) was submitted to the Deputy Registrar of the Assam Human Rights Commission in response to the notice issued by the AHRC for report on the complaint filed by the BHRPC and has been registered vide AHRC Case No. 302/2/11-12.)

(In response to a letter of the Deputy Registrar, AHRC, the BHRPC submitted its comments on the report which is available here and BHRPC statement can be viewed here.

Assam police charge a government doctor of raping his patient

May 12, 2012

Press briefing

For immediate release

Assam police charge a government doctor of raping his patient

The police inAssam have filed a charge-sheet in the court against a doctor for raping his patient. The charge-sheet under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been filed by the officer-in-charge of the Dholai police station (PS) on 13 March 2012 at the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the district of Cachar after investigation of a case filed by a minor girl on 27 November, 2011. This is disclosed recently by the district superintendent of police (SP) in Cachar in a report (vide No. G/SR/1281 dated 16/03/12) submitted to the Deputy Registrar of the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in response to a notice of the AHRC.

The report states that the survivor lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at Dholai PS inter alia alleging that on 27 November, 2011 at about 4 PM the complainant being accompanied by her sister in law (name withheld to protect identity) had been to the chamber of Dr Dilip Paul at Sadagram (Dholai Bazar) where he refused to check her up. Instead, he asked her to be in his residential chamber for her check up and treatment. On her arrival at his residential chamber the accused doctor asked her to go inside while her sister in law was asked to wait outside. As soon as she entered the house, the accused doctor closed the door and window from the outside and forcibly raped her.

The AHRC issued a notice to the SP for a detailed report about the case after it registered a case of human rights violations (vide AHRC Case No. 302/2/11-12.) on the complaint filed by the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC).

The report of the SP, however, mentions that the medical test conducted after the investigation of the case started do not corroborate the allegations of the victim as well as those of the BHRPC against the doctor. It says that (1) evidence of recent sexual intercourse not detected, (II) evidence of violent mark not detected in her private parts and (III) her age is above 18 years and below 20 years.

The BHRC claimed that the victim/survivor is a minor girl studying in class IX.

However, on the examination of the witnesses of the complainant, witnesses of the accused and the place of occurrence the investigating police officer found that charge under section 376 of the IPC which provides punishment for rape is established, states the SP.

 When the AHRC asked the BHRPC for its comments on the report of the SP the latter submitted a detailed response pointing out why the medical report can not be relied upon. According to the BHRPC the medical report can not be relied upon because (i) there was inordinate delay in conducting the test; (ii) the report goes against the circumstantial evidences; (iii) the report goes against the accounts of the witnesses as recorded by the police; and (iv) the element of sympathy of the doctors who conducted the test towards the doctor who is the alleged violator creeping in and vitiating the objectivity of the findings can not be ruled out as both of them are colleagues and belong to the same profession.

The BHRPC also said that the filing of charge-sheet by the police will facilitate the criminal court to conduct trial on the criminal aspect of case in order only to fix criminal liability and proportionate penal measure called for under the law. It is not the domain of the trial court to consider human rights liability of the violator and remedies to the victim/survivor. Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Commission to fix human rights liability and more importantly to provide redress to the victim/survivor in terms of adequate compensation.

The BHRPC in its submission urged the AHRC to recommend to the authorities to provide an adequate amount of compensation to the victim/survivor; and while fixing the quantum of the compensation the AHRC should take into consideration the aggravating factors involved in the case such as (a) that the alleged violator is a government servant paid from the state exchequer for acting as savoir for those who are in physical distress; (b) that the victim/survivor went to the alleged violator in full trust as his position demands; (c) that the alleged violator took benefit of position of custodian of the victim/survivors at the moment of commission of the violating acts; (d) that the case has a clear custodial angle; (e) that the age and social and other circumstances of the victim/survivor are such that the minor girl has had an entire life full of colours but which has been destroyed beyond repair for no faults of hers and her life has become an undesirable and unbearable burden on her fragile shoulders.

Date: 12 April, 2012

Guwahati,Assam

For any clarification and more information please contact

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Mobile: 09401942234

Email:wali.laskar@gmail.com

The police report can be viewed here and the BHRPC comments can be viewed here.