COIMBATORE: Clearly distinguishing between duty and excesses, the Dharmapuri Principal Sessions Judge S Kumaraguru has, in his judgment in the sensational Vachathi rioting and mass rape case, held that the atrocities committed on the victims was the result of an “unlawful assembly” of uniformed men in the tribal village.A perusal of the 309-page judgment copy reveals that some of the accused forest and police personnel had defended the raids in Vachathi on June 20, 1992, arguing that they were there to merely discharge their official duties. The raiding team had gone to search for sandalwood.However, the judge pointed out that when the uniformed force entered the village male members were not present and the former began attacking women and children. “The lawful assembly (of uniformed men) because the unlawful assembly after 12’O clock. If really, the accused were to prevent the illegal transporting of the sandalwood, they (would) have raided the forest area. There is no necessity to attack the women, children and aged persons,” Kumaraguru said.“On available case records in hand, it clearly shows that with malafide intention the people (uniformed force) were unlawfully assembled for the purpose of teaching a lesson to the Vachathi village people and used criminal force against them,” he added.During the trial, the counsel for some of the accused including senior officials, had contended that prior government sanction was mandatory to prosecute their clients since they were public servants.Rejecting this argument, Kumaraguru said that the Supreme Court and High Court have held that sanction was required to prosecute an official only when he/she had committed an offence while discharging their duties. “The accused in this case are not facing charges for having done any act officially. On the other hand they are being prosecuted for their excesses on the guise of their official capacity. Therefore, the protective umbrella available under Section 197(1) CrPc, cannot be extended to the accused,” the judge observed.Further, pointing out that the forest and police personnel had agitatedly attacked women and children and damaged the properties of the Vachathi villagers; he said “these acts cannot be termed an official duty.”In this backdrop, the judge concluded that the absence of sanction from the government to prosecute the accused does not in anyway vitiate their prosecution in the case.(With inputs from M Sankararamanujam)
Comments
0 comment