Walayar Rape-Death Case | Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Victim's Parents To Quash CBI Chargesheet Adding Them As Accused

The CBI has completed their re-investigation into the case and has submitted the charge sheet. In the charge they have arraigned parents of the victims as the accused among others.

As per the petition, the chargesheet has alleged that the petitioners abetted the main accused to committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Further, the chargesheet alleges that the petitioners burned the dress and school bag of the child 3 days after her death. It is also alleged that they abetted one of the accused to stay in their house causing mental and physical agony to the child. It is further stated that the parents did not protect the children and thereby abetted the accused to commit rape on the victim.

The petitioners are alleged of committing offences under Section 16, 17 (abetment) of the POCSO Act, IPC Sections 109 (abetment) r/w Section 376(2)(f)(i)(n) (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 201 (causing disappearance of the offence) and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The petitioners have alleged that this was a planned investigation to save the actual culprits conducted with "extraneous considerations". 

“..the investigating agency, camouflaging all materials, including scientific conclusions, conducted a planned investigation to save somebody from the clutches of law, and instead of conducting a fair, impartial and independent investigation, the investigating agency, with extraneous consideration, without booking the real culprits, brought unnecessary and baseless charges against the petitioners, who are poor and helpless parents of the children”, the petitioner urged.

The petitioners have urged that one of the accused, Madhu @ Valiya Madhu was their close relative. They admitted that certain isolated incidents have happened from his side. However, they said that did not hide that during the investigation and it cannot be said that they abetted the accused to commit those offences.

As per the petitioners, when the mother of the victim came to know about the accused raping her child, she asked him to not visit the shed again. She did not then report the matter to the police considering the age of the child. The petitioners pointed out that the High Court had considered this matter in the appeal and remarked that the victim's family come from a socially and economically backward background and the way in which they look at their life is also important.

The petitioners pointed out that they have been pursuing the case from initial stage to find the real culprit through various litigation before various courts and has led several protests for this purpose.

The petitioners also pointed out that the charge sheet has concluded that the death of the victims was by suicide by completely negating the scientific evidence. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to direct a further investigation into the homicide angles.

Background

In the Walayar case, two sisters, aged 13 and 9 years, belonging to the Scheduled Case community, were found hanging in their one-room house on separate days within a span of 3 months in 2017. Post-mortem reports disclosed that they were subjected to rape before their deaths. The post-mortem report of the younger girl even suggested the possibility of homicidal hanging. The Special POCSO Court acquitted all the accused in 2019. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation. The Court also noticed the absence of scientific evidence.

The details of the judgment by the Special POCSO Court, Palakkad can be read here, here and here. Against this, an appeal was preferred by the State Government. The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered a re-trial. Later, investigation of the case was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In January 2025, the CBI submitted the charge sheet before the CBI Court, Ernakulam.

The petition is moved by Advocate P. V. Jeevesh

Case Title: xxx And Another v The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Case No: Crl.MC 2890/ 2025