INDIA: Dalit girl raped and trafficked by village head in Gujarat

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Navsarjan, a human rights organisation working on Dalit rights in Gujarat, regarding the rape and subsequent trafficking of a 15-year-old Dalit girl. Four non-Dalit villagers, including a village head are accused of the crime. The victim though had filed a complaint to the authorities on 22 December 2007, it is reported that no investigation is conducted into the case. The victim is also not given appropriate medical attention.

CASE DETAILS:

On 23 November 2006, Mr. Mohabbatkhan Rasulkhan kidnapped 15-year-old Dalit girl Punam (name changed). Punam was studying in grade 7 at the government primary school in Bavla town of Ahmedabad district, Gujarat. When Punam went missing her parents immediately made a report at the Bavla Police Station that their daughter was missing.

It is reported that Punam was raped, assaulted and kept in forced confinement and later sold for sex trade at different places for a year by the accused. The first accused Mr. Mohabbatkhan (age 35) reportedly raped Punam and assaulted her with a chain while Punam was kept in confinement. Punam faced this ordeal for several months in Gedia village of Patdi Block, Surendranagar district.

A neighbor coming to about Punam’s condition informed the village head Mr. Hiyatkhan of Gedia village. The neighbor is from Dafer community, a Muslim sub-sect of the locality. The village head Hiyatkhan (age 50), instead of taking any action to save Punam, instead raped the victim under forced confinement for four days. Hiyatkhan later sold Punam to Mr. Vilo Koli Patel of Jedhpura village for INR 17,000 (USD 404).

Vilo (age 30) raped Punam for three months in forced confinement. One day Vilo sent the victim back to the village head Hiyatkhan accusing Punam that she has stolen his money. The village head Hiyatkhan again sold Punam to Mr. Jignesh Mahendrabhai Dave for INR 7,000 (USD 166) a few days later.

Jignesh lives in Jetapur village of Viramgam Block, Ahmedabad district. Jignesh also raped Punam. On 14 November 2007, a Dalit woman living in Bavla town found the victim in Jetapur village and informed this fact to the Punam’s parents.

Immediately Punam’s parents informed the Balva police about the incident and requested for help. However, the police refused to accompany Punam’s parents to look for Punam. This is a reportedly prevalent phenomenon, that the police deny support to the Dalit’s who are victimised by non-Dalit persons, in particular if the accused if from a dominant caste. The victim’s parents also requested the village head of Jetapur village to help them to rescue their daughter, which was refused and they were asked to come with the police.

One month later, on 21 December 2007, the Bavla police along with the victim’s parents came to Jetapur village to rescue the victim. Bavla police registered a complaint on the following day. It is alleged that the accused bribed the police to influence the investigation.

The First Information Report (FIR No. I 256/07) against the accused was registered under Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping), 366 (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc), 376 (punishment for rape), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of Indian Penal Code and the Section 3 (1) (xi) and (xii) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

According to the FIR registered by Bavla police, one of the alleged perpetrators Vilo Patel is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused. Moreover, the FIR does not mention that the village head of Gedia village Mr. Hiyatkhan had raped the minor victim and sold her off to another perpetrator. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, a public servant who has committed rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment, which is graver than other cases. Even worse, In the FIR it is mentioned that the victim, a minor, had known the accused Mohabbat Khan for the past three months and the victim was promised by him that he would marry her.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Section, Mr. B.S. Pathan, responsible for investigation into this case was off from work for one and half months while the perpetrators continued to enjoy life even after committing grave crimes. No investigation into the case has yet been conducted.

Meanwhile, the Bavla police took the victim up to the Bavla hospital for a medical check on 23 December 2007, which lasted for two hours and in the absence of a female doctor. The victim was taken to Ahmedabad civil hospital on the following day, where the victim was merely given some medicine. The hospital authority did not provide appropriate treatment or counseling to Punam.

As of now the victim suffers from physical and mental trauma, and cannot walk or move well. Moreover, the neglect of the police authority allows the perpetrator Munna alias Mohabbatkhan Rasulkhan to threaten the victim even now. The victim reportedly said, “I have seen Munna on his motorbike. Even after I returned, he has threatened to kill me, if I say anything about him. The police said they will take me to the places where these men had taken me, but did nothing.”

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

It is a known fact from international and domestic reports on violence against women that the women in India face a number of obstacles in filing and prosecuting cases of rape. If a woman is poor, belongs to the Dalit community and is a minor, it is even more difficult for the victim to gain access to a fair judicial process and to obtain justice.

Bavla police in this case not only neglected their duty to protect the victim, which is reflected in the fact that the police refused to look for the victim, but they also failed to register a complaint on behalf of the victim leading to support the alleged perpetrators.

It is said in the FIR that the minor victim had known the accused Mohabbat Khan for the past three months and the victim was promised by him that he would marry her. This report in the FIR is incompatible with the victim’s actual situation, ignoring the fact that the minor victim was kidnapped by the perpetrator against her willing. It is also a statement against the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1876.

According to the Section 375 of IPC 1876, it defines rape as ‘when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married (fourth definition).’ In addition, it is a rape ‘with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age (sixth definition).’ Accordingly, the victim was given a promise of marriage by the perpetrator; even though the perpetrator is not lawfully married yet and even the victim is 15 years old the perpetrator cannot defend or minimise the charge of his crime.

The Section 376 (2) of IPC 1876, moreover, imposes graver charges on a public servant who commits a rape against a woman. It states that ‘whoever, (b) being a public servant, take advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine.’

In particular, the fact that the public servant such as the village head in this case, committed a rape and even sexual trafficking of a minor Dalit girl, illustrates that many other non-Dalit villagers could have committed rape against Dalit girls with the support of public servants, which is  not reported by the police misusing their authority. In this case, local police failed to report that the village head had started selling the victim off to another villager after raping her. In previous cases of the court of India, the village head has been held to be a public servant. For example, Sarat Chandra Dehury v. Sankirtan Behera, 1989 Cr LJ (NOC) 162 Orissa; Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 Cr LJ 265 P&H.

All these heinous crimes have not yet been disclosed despite the passing of seven months since the victim’s complaint. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 7(2) states that investigation shall be conducted on top priority within thirty days. The Deputy Superintendent of Police B.S. Pathan should take a statement from the victim in accordance with the Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code of India and immediately arrest all the perpetrators.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities named below expressing your concern in this case. Please make a note that the teenage victim is the first minor victim speaking out about the rape and girl trafficking in Gujarat.

The AHRC has also written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women calling for an intervention in this case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER