The Calcutta High Court was recently left disturbed after a woman admitted that she had filed a false case against three men, accusing them of raping her daughter, under political pressure [Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr].
The Court noted that three men spent almost a year in jail on account of the false rape case before the complainant admitted that it was only lodged due to her abject poverty and due to pressure by local politicians who promised to help her family.
"Can one’s poverty be a good ground for making false allegations against an innocent person?" the Court asked.
A Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray proceeded to direct the trial court to close the case against the three accused.
"The relevant case will be concluded/terminated in the said court and not before this High Court," the Bench clarified.
Notably, the High Court also ordered the trial court to conduct an enquiry into the woman and her daughter on whether they would be liable under law for lodging a false complaint and fabricating evidence.
"As a result of such an act, three innocent persons being the petitioners herein, have spent almost one year behind the bar, and this fact, therefore, should also be taken into account by the Learned Judge. After enquiry, if the Learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, finds that the defacto-complainant and/or her daughter (if major) are responsible for fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ... he shall initiate criminal proceedings against them," the Court said in its September 24 order.
The woman had claimed that the three men had raped her minor daughter. The accused were booked for rape under the Indian Penal Code and sexual assault under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act). The accused persons had languished in judicial custody for nearly a year.
During a bail hearing, however, the woman admitted that she had lodged a false case against the accused under political pressure. The High Court took a serious view of this. Therefore, apart from granting the accused bail, it also initiated a suo motu case, wherein it asked the woman to explain why she should not be prosecuted for filing the false case.
The woman offered an unconditional apology and explained that the false complaint was made under immense pressure from local political leaders. She added that her husband has been bedridden since 2017 due to a broken spinal cord and that their income was very limited. They relied heavily on State-sponsored grants from various social schemes, she said. She mentioned that at the end of July 2023, some local political leaders approached her to fabricate a false story.
The Court was told that these leaders had switched their allegiance from the ruling party to the opposition and had promised that the woman's family would be included in more social schemes and given more financial aid if she filed a false case.
Her counsel urged the Court to take a lenient view by referring to a 2018 poem titled "A Tea Seller and a Judge," written by Advocate Bharat Chugh, who was then serving as a railway magistrate.
The poem tells the story of a minor tea seller who, compelled by abject poverty, violated the provisions of the Indian Railway Act, 1989, while hawking in trains and railway stations. The magistrate had ultimately acquitted the young boy, given the circumstances that led to his actions.
The High Court, however, pointed out that no innocent person suffered in the tea seller's case.
"He (tea seller) violated the provisions of law due to his poverty. But, we must reiterate that poverty cannot be a ground for lodging false complaints against innocent persons. The contention of the defacto-complainant as such does not impress us," the Court said.
The Court also found that her daughter may not have been a minor when the rape case was filed, after being told that the daughter has been married and divorced twice.
The Court noted that while the POCSO act usually protects children even if they make a misleading complaint, this protective umbrella would not grant immunity to the daughter in this case.
"If a victim misleads the authority regarding her age and persuades the authority to take legal action against an innocent person by claiming that she is a minor, we think that the benefit of the provisions as envisaged under Section 22(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 is not available to such victim who is not a minor at the time of lodging false complaint," the Court said.
Advocates Sabir Ahmed and Somnath Adhikary appeared for the petitioners (accused).
Advocate Soumyajit Das Mahapatra appeared for the complainant woman and her daughter.
Advocates Arindam Sen and Shiladitya Banerjee appeared for the State.
[Read Order]