'Men Are Glorified For Sexual Adventures; Women Are Objectified In Movies': Madras High Court While Upholding Conviction For Rape

"This is a shocking case of two accused, one of whom under the pretext of giving loans for cheap interest rates could lure women and exploit them sexually, forcing himself upon them and filming the acts and the other who is a mobile phone repair technician, making the videos earn him a fortune by selling them. The nasty trail of events is only a tip of the iceberg in our society where moral values and ethics have been trampled upon by unscrupulous and perverted elements. Perversity has encroached the minds of these undesirable elements to that extent, that one wonders about the total absence of conscience and morality."

The Court expressed dismay at the number of victims involved in the case. The prosecution had alleged that 29 women were subjected to harassment at the hands of the accused, out of which only six could come forward to complain, and only four were examined as prosecution witnesses.

While confirming the conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge, the Court added that men are usually glorified for their sexual adventures while women are stigmatized for the same. It observed::

"Treating women as an object of desire and portraying them so in movies and even in soap operas have a detrimental effect on the society. Education in the school is deprived for many and the family circumstances also cause such imbalances. Morality is the buzzword for this society to prosper and make such shameful acts a thing of past."

Background

The Sessions Judge had convicted the money lender accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 (4 counts) IPC and 66(E) (4 counts), 67A(4 counts) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). The mobile phone technician was convicted for offences under Section 292 IPC and Sections 66(B), 67(A) IT Act, and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

On the four counts of rape alone, the first accused was sentenced to life imprisonment, while the second accused had been sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment for his proven offences.

Police registered the criminal case in the aftermath of a tip-off from the village administrative official about the videos of some women in his locality circulated in internet. After that, two mobile phones used by the first accused for filming the women borrowers who approached him were recovered via a police raid.

The prosecution alleged that the sexual acts so videographed were further used as a tool for keeping the victims silent and coercing them for more sexual favours. When the mobile phones were handed over for repair by the moneylender, the second accused who was working as a mobile phone technician, downloaded the videos and circulated the copies on the web.

Court's Observations

In the two appeals filed by both the convicts, they submitted that production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was not complied with, which jeopardised the prosecution case.

However, the Court instantly dismissed the defence by citing that the Physics Division, Forensics Science Lab had already certified that the video files were genuine and not morphed. Additionally, the lab retrieved 105 such video files from the memory cards seized from the accused, copied them into a DVD and accordingly certified them.

Relying on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors (2020), the court pointed out that the mobile phones were recovered from A-1 & A-2 and they contained the sim cards as well as the memory cards.

"Ex. P13, Ex. P14 [photographs of victims sent for comparison with the contents of DVD] and Ex. P21 are the forensic reports which proved to be the last nail in the coffin. These reports elaborate not only on the contents of the video files recovered from the memory card but also certifies that the videos are genuine with no tampering or morphing in them. This certification is in compliance of the Section 65-B of the Information Technology Act. It is a matter of huge shame that technical defence is attempted to be put up by the accused to wriggle out of these damning charges. The old adage goes to say that as long as gullible persons exist, cheats will thrive.", the court observed in one of the concluding remarks in the judgement.

The Court also observed that the first accused has not denied that he had filmed the sexual acts but submitted that, at the most, it could have been consensual sex.' On the above contention raised by the accused, the Court noted:

"It is not just one woman but a group of women who are the victims. We have no reason to disbelieve the versions of the victims as it requires sheer courage and determination to tell the truth of such nature. P.W.3 and P.W4 were in fact ostracized by their society for coming out in open. The risk factor in such revelations is evident. But they faced it. They raised above their inhibitions and social status. They stood firm. They stood solid", the court underscored while iterating that there is 'no need for the victims to tell lies or imaginary stories' and that the prosecution witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination.

Concerning the mobile repair technician, the counsel had contended that the memory card containing the videos were not listed along with the other articles, including mobile phones and sim cards, that were seized.

The Court observed that the memory card was part and parcel of the digital phone belonging to the second accused, and the Trial judge has already made observations to that effect.

The criminal appeals were accordingly dismissed, and the second accused was asked to surrender before the Sessions Judge.

Case Title: Munna v. State of Tamil Nadu, Sivaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu