|
The Suryanelli rape case (also called the Suryanelli sex scandal) refers to a case of kidnapping and subsequent rape of a 16-year-old school girl from Suryanelli, Kerala, India, in 1996.〔 The girl was allegedly lured with the promise of marriage on 16 January 1996 and kidnapped. She was allegedly raped by 37 of the 42 accused persons, over a period of 40 days. The remaining had abetted the crime. One of the accused is INC leader P. J. Kurien. After he was named, the issue was politicised, due to a then upcoming general election.〔 Several women's rights activists like K. Ajitha and Suja Susan George, and women's organisations, like NFIW and Anweshi, have taken an interest in the case.〔 On 2 September 2000, a Special Court in Kottayam found 35 of 39, of those who faced trial, to be guilty of various charges.〔 On 12 July 2002, the prime accused Dharmarajan was found guilty of various charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.〔 However, he left jail on bail on 25 October 2002 and then disappeared.〔 On 20 January 2005, the Kerala High Court acquitted all 35 convicts, except prime accused Dharmarajan, due to lack of evidence collaborating the victim's statement. The court found her to be untrustworthy.〔 The verdict was criticised by women's rights activists. On 4 April 2007, Kurien was acquitted by the Kerala High Court.〔 On January 2013, the Supreme Court of India repealed the acquittals awarded by the High Court and ordered a fresh hearing. In early February 2013, Dharmarajan appeared in a TV interview and said that P. J. Kurien was involved and the police covered it up.〔 This stirred a controversy and politicians began demanding Kurien's resignation.〔 Soon afterwards, Dharmarajan was arrested.〔 In May, he retracted his previous statements.〔 On 4 April 2014, the Kerala High Court upheld Dharmarajan's life sentence and acquitted 7 of the 35 surviving accused.〔 , the case is in appeal at the Supreme Court. ==Incident and investigation== On 16 January 1996, a 16-year-old girl (initially reported as 15),〔 from Suryanelli village in Idukki district, disappeared from her hostel. The family had come to Suryanelli because the father, employee of the Department of Telecommunications, had been posted there. The girl lived in the hostel of the Little Flower Convent School in Munnar, where she was a student. Her father reported her disappearance, but despite a police search she was not found. The girl reappeared after 40 days on 26 February 1996 at her father's workplace. The next day her kidnapping and rape was reported to the police.〔〔〔 The girl was examined by V. K. Bhaskaran (later public witness #73), a gynaecologist at Government Taluk Hospital, Adimali, on 28 February 1996. He noted the vaginal examination was painful and the vulva was oedematous. The doctor, during a trial in 2002, unequivocally stated that the victim had been subjected to "violent sexual acts". There was infection. The doctor said that intercourse would have painful, if done during the infection. He said the vaginal wall was not lacerated, during violent intercourse laceration occurs. The doctor said that there was no signs or evidence of resistance. However, the doctor did not rule out the possibility of rape, stating, "If, as stated by the victim, she was raped after being threatened and intimidated, then there would not be any sign of resistance on her body.’’ The infection, inflammation, ulcers and fresh tears, coupled with the victim's visible distress, signified violence. Additionally, he pointed out that contusions or abrasions occurring in the initial days would have healed by the end of the ordeal, given the timeline. 〔〔Deposition by Doctor Crucial in Suryanelli Case, Anand Haridas, http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/deposition-by-doctor-crucial-in-suryanelli-case/article4541767.ece〕 Later on 26 March 1996, the girl saw the picture of P. J. Kurien, a Indian National Congress (INC) politician and then a Minister of State in the Narasimha Rao cabinet, a newspaper. She accused him of sexually abusing her in the Kumily guest house and wrote a petition to A. K. Antony then Chief Minister of Kerala and an INC leader. Left Democratic Front turned it into an election issue. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), V. Rajivan, tasked by the government to lead the investigation, could not find any evidence to convict Kurien and he was exonerated. In the 1998 election, Kurien successfully contested from Mavelikara which included Idukki. But, CPI-M formed the state government now.〔 During this period, the press coverage had been largely unsympathetic towards the girl.〔 The new government appointed DIG Sibi Mathews to lead another team to re-investigate the accusation against Kurien. The police found that the itinerary of Kurien conflicts with the time and events. Kurien could not have been in Kumily at the time the girl specified.〔 The girl's family had asked for his trial though a private complaint to the Peerumedu court in March 1999.〔 In May 1999, various women's organisations demanded his implication and activist K. Ajitha threatened to start a hunger strike if he was not tried.〔 The court asked to Kurien to appear for a hearing on 7 June 1999 for a hearing. Kurien obtained a stay order to contest in the elections. In October 1999, during the 1999 election, Kurien lost to Francis George. The police named 42 persons as accused initially and 40 of them were found by 1999. The list included politicians and other notable persons.〔〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Suryanelli rape case」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|