Thanjavur Gangrape Victim Betrayed By The Very System She Sought Help From

A few cops idled near the crime scene, when we arrived at Pappanad village, around 25 km from Thanjavur town, on August 24. It was a dilapidated shed, with a bench in the centre, surrounded by thick grass. The area was unkempt, littered with debris and beer bottles lay scattered. The grass around the shed had been trimmed following a tragic gang rape less than a fortnight ago.

The small, bare, rundown structure belied the horrific series of events that had transpired here, when a 23-year-old woman had been brutally assaulted by six men just 10 days ago. The details were chilling: she had been forcibly held down on the bench, beaten with an empty beer bottle and physically overpowered into silence. The shed loomed beside the modest two-room house where the survivor’s father slept, oblivious, as six men assaulted his daughter.

Her father opened the door. He appeared fatigued and worried. He spoke very little. And when he did, it was in a hushed tone. The reluctance to talk to a stranger was obvious. Wait for my son in-law, he says.

Senthil arrives shortly. He is the husband of the survivor’s sister. Senthil leads us to the survivor’s refuge, a tiny room where she sat on the bare floor. Despite her evident exhaustion, she managed a wan smile and offered me a chair. Only 10 days had passed since the brutal attack. Her wounds were raw, but not visible. As she began to speak, the story unfolded—how a system defeats a woman who gathers the courage to speak up. Her story is an answer to those who blame victims for ‘not reporting (the crime) on time’ and raise countless questions challenging the credibility of a rape survivor.

Despite being brutally attacked by a gang of men, she was brave enough to tell her father and brother-in-law what had happened to her immediately after reaching home. She was brave enough to go to the nearby police station to report the crime with no delay. But her bravery was dismissed.

August 12, 2024, 3 PM

While going to college in the morning to get her certificates, she never imagined, even in her worst thoughts, what awaited her. After college, she went to the bank as her account had been locked for technical reasons. She was about to reach home when a man on a bike approached her and asked her to get on. He was Kavidasan, accused number one, whom she knew. She refused and walked ahead. He didn’t turn back but followed her and snatched her bag. “I tried to get my bag back; my bank passbook and other documents were in it. He grabbed me by my hair and dragged me into the shed. When I tried to resist, I was beaten with a beer bottle...” She paused, tears burst out and her voice sank.

There were six people in the gang. She couldn’t even cry. When she gathered some strength and tried to shout, they overpowered and beat her. Although the area was densely populated, no one was in the adjacent houses as everyone had gone to work. Her father was sleeping at home, very close to the shed where she was assaulted and beaten by a gang of four or more men.

After all of them left, she managed to put on her clothes and made her way home. She called her brother-in-law, who rushed over. There was no hesitation in her mind about reporting the crime; she was determined and clear.

4.30 PM

The survivor, along with her brother-in-law and father, reached the Pappanadu police station, less than a kilometre from her home. The woman officer in charge, Surya, refused to register a case based on the victim’s oral account of the assault, insisting on a written complaint. The officer didn’t bother to examine her wounds or arrange medical care. Too weak to write down the sequence of incidents, the survivor and her family were puzzled, disappointed and thoroughly confused about how to proceed.

5.15 PM

As her complaint fell on deaf ears at Pappanadu police station, she went to the All-Women Police Station at Pattukottai, 14 km away, along with her family members. She came against a brick wall there too. Instead of registering a crime, the cops advised her to go to the local government hospital for a medical examination. They were also advised to go to Orathanadu police station, jurisdictionally the ‘right place’, where her statement would be recorded. The police didn’t bother to take her to the hospital in their vehicle, despite fully knowing it was a case of gang rape.

6 PM

She reached the Government Hospital, Pattukottai, where she was asked to wait. Nobody paid attention to her. Neither the doctor nor the nurses bothered to examine her despite seeing her unwell and extremely fatigued. She recalls nearly fainting from the exhaustion of long hours of waiting and travel after enduring a brutal physical attack. The hospital authorities advised her to first go to the police station, register the crime and then return with police assistance. They insisted that since it was an allegation of rape, the crime needed to be registered first and the police had to be present for the medical examination. Despite repeated attempts, Outlook could not reach Meena Newton at the Government Hospital in Pattukottai, as she did not answer the calls.

10.45 PM

She reached Orathanadu Police Station, another All Women Police Station, 28 km from the Government Hospital in Pattukottai. From there, she was taken to the RMH Hospital in Thanjavur for a medical examination. After enduring a gang rape and brutal physical assault, the survivor finally received medical care—around seven hours later—and was admitted to the hospital.

August 13, 7 AM

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered.

In a crime that occurred around 3:30 pm in the afternoon on August 12, reported by the survivor within an hour, the FIR was registered after a 15-hour delay. The crucial initial hours, essential for investigating a rape crime, were lost. The survivor had to run from pillar to post for over 10 hours to receive medical care and have the crime registered.

When Outlook contacted the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), I Shahanaz, Orathanadu, she acknowledged a flaw on the part of the police and stated that disciplinary action had been taken. Inspector Surya, who refused to entertain the survivor’s complaint at the Pappanadu police station, was suspended. A notice was issued by the magistrate to Meena Newton at the Government Hospital, Pattukottai, where the survivor received no medical care. However, no disciplinary action was taken against the officers at the All Women Police Station in Pattukottai, which the survivor had approached, after being turned away at the Pappanadu police station.

Can the police demand that a victim submit their complaint in writing? Can they refuse to register a crime because it occurred outside their jurisdiction? The criminal code clearly states that they cannot. Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) makes this clear: “Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, irrespective of where it was committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication. If given to an officer in charge of a police station, it shall be reduced to writing by them or under their direction and read over to the informant. Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it.”

Delay in Filing FIR Would be Detrimental

A settled legal principle is that an unexplained delay in filing an FIR might potentially undermine the prosecution’s case. In the landmark judgement, Lalita Kumari vs State of UP, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of timely FIR registration in criminal procedures. “The registration of an FIR is the first step in accessing justice for a victim; it upholds the ‘Rule of Law’ by bringing the commission of a cognisable crime to the State’s attention. It also facilitates a swift investigation and sometimes even the prevention of the crime. In both cases, it strengthens the rule of law, reduces manipulation in criminal cases and minimises the occurrence of backdated or deliberately delayed FIRs.”

In Thulia Kali vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court underscores how delay in lodging an FIR can weaken the prosecution’s case. “Delay in lodging the first information report often leads to embellishment, a product of afterthought. With delay, the report loses the advantage of spontaneity and the risk arises of introducing a distorted version, an exaggerated account, or a concocted story due to deliberation and consultation. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the FIR be satisfactorily explained.”

A Gang of Six; FIR Against Four

According to the survivor’s statement to the police, Kavidhasan, a man from the village, allegedly forcibly took her to a shed where five other men, all from the village and familiar to her, were present. However, the FIR was lodged against only four men: Kavidhasan, Praveen, Thivakar and Leodharshan. All four were arrested on the same day the FIR was lodged—August 13. Among the four, Leodharshan is a minor. Kavidhasan has a record of committing crimes. He is an accused in a murder case in which a chargesheet has been filed.

According to the survivor, two others were guarding the area while the four accused allegedly gang raped her. This raises the question: how did the police omit two from the FIR? When asked, the Orathanadu ASP, I Shahanaz said: “The investigation is still ongoing. They can be booked at any time during the investigation.” However, this response doesn’t explain why the two individuals were omitted from the FIR despite being named by the victim. Her comment suggests that the police are investigating the roles of the remaining two without including them in the list of accused, despite the victim’s statement regarding their presence and involvement. CCTV footage from a nearby location, accessed by Outlook, shows six men leaving on two bikes at 4:02 PM on the day of the incident. Despite this corroborative evidence, the police omitted two persons from the FIR, claiming their roles are still under investigation.

Rapists at Court

The violations faced by the rape survivor didn’t end with the delayed registration of the FIR. When she was produced before the magistrate to record her statement, as required under Section 183 of the BNSS (164 CrPC), she endured another traumatic experience. At the court premises, she encountered Kavidasan and Thivakar. Thivakar allegedly approached her directly and asked her “not to mention his name”. She recalled the shock and deep sense of humiliation she felt when she was confronted by the rapists within 48 hours of the brutal attack she had endured.

The survivor in this case is an educated woman with a Master’s in Microbiology who was working for a private company in Chennai. She came home the day before the incident and has not returned to Chennai since. She spends her days and nights in a small room, living in complete isolation, with no clear idea about her own future.

As this correspondent is about to leave the room in which the survivor has confined herself, the latter asks a question to which there appears to be no definite answer. “Will this case be over in a month or two? When will I be able to go back to my normal life?”

Shahina K K in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu

(This appeared in the print as 'Speak Up, Shut Down')