‘They knew about the sexual assault of elder girl, but spoke out only after death of younger girl’
Despite knowing about the sexual molestation of their elder daughter, the parents of the deceased Walayar girls, who are on a warpath demanding justice, remained silent on the attack till the death of the younger daughter, inculpated a judicial commission and trial court.
It was about two months after the death of the younger daughter that they raised the allegation of sexual abuse to the police. If the parents were “really bothered about the welfare of the daughter, definitely they would have taken action against the accused, at least after the death of the victim,” noted the trial court, which acquitted all the accused in the case.
The observations of the trial court were quoted in the report of the State government-appointed P.K. Haneefa Commission, which was accessed by The Hindu.
Tardy probe, prosecution
The commission had held sub-inspector P.C. Chacko and prosecutors Latha Jayaraj and Jalaja Madhavan responsible for the tardy investigation and prosecution.
It was to Dy.SP Sojan that the parents made the statements that the mother had “witnessed the penetrative sexual assault committed by the accused on the victim.” The long delay in the parents giving the statements against the accused “itself is a doubting circumstance with regard to their deposition,” the court noted.
Mr. Sojan deposed to the commission that the parents were aware that the accused, Valiya Madhu and Kutty Madhu, had sexually assaulted the elder girl. However, he said he refrained from registering a case against them for not informing the police about the crime, apprehending that they would not give evidence against the accused if booked, the panel noted.
Though the mother had given the statement to the police implicating Valiya Madhu and Kutty Madhu, she retracted her statement before a magistrate by dropping the name of one of the accused, the court noted.
Though the father deposed that he did not file a complaint against the accused, considering the future of the victim, it was later revealed that he had not cited any such reason to the police. Though he told the police that he saw the accused inappropriately touching the girl, he subsequently denied it. The contradictory statements showed that even at the time of recording of his statement, he had no case that the girl was abused by the accused, the trial court noted.
The court found that the statements of some of the witnesses were either fabricated or gathered under compulsion against the accused to put him behind the bar. It also noted that the prosecution failed miserably in proving the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.