Sreya Kanugula
The High Court of Kerala granted bail in the recent case of a woman who was accused of sexual molestation of her son, stating that there were numerous discrepancies that they found in the investigation conducted by the police until then.
It was also opined by the Court that the allegations made were shocking, unusual, and unbelievable against this woman and they would require a preliminary natured probe to ascertain the complaint’s supposed genuineness.
The case had prompted Justice V Shircy to give general notice to the Chief of the State Police to give instructions to all of Kerala’s station house officers in order to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” before “embarking upon registration of a crime when such unusual, unbelievable, inhuman and wild allegations are raised, that too against a mother.”
“It is true that while considering a bail application, it is not necessary to go deep into the details of the investigation and have a meticulous evaluation of the materials so far collected by the investigation agency. Usually, it will not be done. But this case appears to be quite strange, shocking and an unusual one, where a mother is put on the dock with very wild and ferocious allegations,” stated the Court.
The observation on the purity of motherhood was also by the judge concerning how it was ignored completely in the case.
“A mother carries her child for nine lunar months in her womb and so the relationship of a mother and child are connected even before his or her birth. The unconditional love, affection and warmth of a mother towards her child cannot be compared or equated with any love in the world. No mother ‘worthy of the name’ will resort to such a disgraceful act.” the judge said.
A complaint of criminal nature was lodged against the accused woman by her separated husband, in which it was alleged that she had molested her now 13 years aged son since the age of 10 onwards.
The court had noted that the minor victim had told the investigating police how his mother would disrobe him, would touch his private parts and urge him to “kiss her body” and that he had improvised his events a little while giving an official statement to the Judicial First Class Magistrate and while undergoing a medical exam.
In front of the Magistrate, the minor had stated his mother would also make several video calls at nighttime, inappropriately touch his privates later, and would lie down upon his body.
Justice V Shircy emphasised how the minor had improved the version given a little despite the contention of the State on how the child’s consistent version given in front of the police, the Child Welfare Commission as well as the Magistrate, appeared “to be not perfectly correct.”
The Court took pertinent notes on how the submissions made by the complainant were filed in the wake of several cases registered against her since April 2019 by her separated husband to maintain the custody of their children in his hands.
The challenging petitioner-woman stated that she had been forced to leave her matrimonial home right after her husband began residing with another woman. All 4 of her juvenile children were previously staying with her before the allegation was made upon her husband taking three of the kids to Sharjah along with him, without her knowledge or her consent.
While residing in Sharjah, the son of the separated couple had attended a Madrassa instead of regular formal school. The husband informed the Court that their son was gloomy and looked depressed and when enquired upon the reasons for his melancholy, was when the child divulged upon the molestation committed by his mother.
This was when the husband made his return to Kerala along with the child in order to lodge the criminal complaint, the court was informed.
It was viewed by the Court that the formal complaint hadn’t been lodged till November 10th in 2020 despite both the child and his father arriving back to Kerala in September.
The husband had stated that the child was taken to counseling during this short period which wasn’t accepted by the court since there was limited material to prove this claim.
“The details of the same have not been probed into by the investigation agency though they are duty-bound to do so,” the Court stated.
The Court stated that the delay in the lodging of this complaint, discrepancies in the number of days the child was counselled along with the former cases filed against the accused by the husband and the “wild and ferocious” allegations made as opined by the Court, it eventually led to the statement of asking the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the case.
“The investigating agency should not have jumped into the conclusion to register this case against the petitioner especially when such an unusual complaint was raised against a mother,” the Court insisted.
“If the child involved in the case was brainwashed or tutored by any one to make such wild allegations against his mother, they have also to be booked and proceeded with, in accordance with law”, it was further added by the judge.
Mr KR Rajkumar was the lawyer that appeared on behalf of the petitioner while the Sr. Adv. public prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy represented the State.