
Mr Rathore explained that the trial had dragged on for 32 years because of several factors, including the staggered arrests of the accused, alleged delaying tactics by the defence, an underfunded prosecution and systemic issues within the justice system.
When police filed the initial charges in 1992, six of the accused – who were only convicted last week – were left out because they were absconding.
Mr Rathore believes this was a mistake, as when the police finally filed charges against the six in 2002, they were still on the run. Two of them were arrested in 2003, another in 2005 and two more in 2012, while the last one was apprehended in 2018.
Every time one of the accused was arrested, the trial would begin afresh with the defence recalling victims and witnesses brought by the prosecution to give their testimonies.
“Under the law, the accused has the right to be present in court when witnesses are testifying and the defence has the right to cross-examine them,” explained Mr Rathore.
This put the victims in the horrifying position of having to relive their trauma over and over again.
Mr Rathore recalled how often the victims, who were now in their 40s and 50s, would scream at the judge, asking why there were being dragged to court, years after they had been raped.
As time passed, the police also found it challenging to track down witnesses.
“Many didn’t want to be associated with the case as their lives had moved on,” Mr Rathore said.
“Even now, one of the accused is absconding. If he is arrested, or if the other accused appeal against the verdict in a higher court, the victims and witnesses will be called to testify again.”
Sushma – who was one of three victims whose testimony played a key role in convicting the six accused – said that she had been talking to the media about her ordeal because she was telling the truth.
“I never changed my story. I was young and innocent when these people did this to me. It robbed me of everything. I have nothing to lose now,” she said.
*Name has been changed. Indian laws do not allow the identity of a rape victim to be disclosed.
Source link