In a recent judgment that has stirred significant controversy and scrutiny, a Kerala court acquitted 24-year-old DYFI worker Arjun, the sole accused in a harrowing case that involved the rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl in Vandiperiyar town, located in the Idukki district. This case dates back to 2021, and its conclusion has brought forth a wave of critical discussions regarding the judicial system's handling of such sensitive cases.

The ruling was delivered on Thursday, 14th December, by a special judge Manju V in the POCSO court in Kattappana. The decision to acquit Arjun was grounded in what the court termed a lack of "clinching evidence," highlighting significant and "glaring lapses" in the investigation process. This verdict has raised eyebrows and elicited critical responses, especially considering the grave nature of the accusations.

The acquittal of Arjun has undoubtedly reopened debates about the effectiveness and rigor of criminal investigations, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims such as children. The court's emphasis on the investigation's lapses points towards a larger issue within the legal framework – the need for more robust and foolproof investigative procedures that leave little room for doubt, particularly in cases of such severe nature.

While the verdict brings an end to this specific legal proceeding, it also opens the door for broader discussions about legal standards, the protection of children, and the responsibilities of investigative bodies. The community of Vandiperiyar, and indeed the wider society, must grapple with the implications of this verdict, reflecting on how justice is served and what improvements are necessary to ensure that cases involving the most vulnerable among us are handled with the utmost care and diligence.

The recent judgment in the case of the rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl in Vandiperiyar town, where the accused, Arjun, was acquitted, has left the victim's family in a state of profound distress and despair. The court's verdict, which found Arjun not guilty of the heinous crimes he was accused of, has not only raised questions about the legal process but also shone a light on the unending pain and suffering of the victim's family.

In its ruling, the court declared, “In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 449 (house trespass to commit an offence punishable with death), 376(2)(n) (punishment for committing rape repeatedly on the same woman), 377 (unnatural offences), 376A (punishment for causing death by rape), 376AB (punishment for rape on woman under 12 years of age), 302 (punishment for murder) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 5(i), (j)(iv), (l) and (m) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) read with section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and he is acquitted under section 235 Criminal Procedure Code.” This comprehensive statement from the court covers a range of severe charges, from house trespassing to murder, including specific statutes under the POCSO Act. The acquittal under these serious sections, especially in a case involving a minor, has understandably led to a public outcry and a feeling of injustice.

The emotional impact of this verdict on the victim's family was palpable. After the judgment was delivered, the victim's grandmother expressed her anguish and disbelief outside the court. In her heart-wrenching statement, she said, “The girl was born to her parents after a 14-year wait. However, he (Arjun) killed her ruthlessly and hung her in our prayer room. How can we forgive him? If this happened to your child, would you be able to endure the pain? Where is the justice?” Her words echo the unbearable pain of a family that had waited 14 long years for the birth of their child, only to lose her in such a tragic and violent manner. The grandmother's question to the public, imagining the horror befalling their child, is a stark reminder of the universal fear and sorrow that such incidents evoke in society.

The victim's mother, in her statement, conveyed the depth of her grief and the sense of helplessness that has engulfed her family. She said, “It remains a reality that my child was killed, but she is devoid of justice. We were not having a child for 14 years. She was killed, right? People in the locality know things he has done. He is acquitted. He is going to have a happy life. We lost our child, right? We will not go for appeal and will seek justice in our ways.” This heart-wrenching statement reflects the despair of a mother who has lost her long-awaited child in the most tragic circumstances. The mother's resignation to the reality of her daughter's death without justice is a poignant reminder of the sometimes unbridgeable gap between legal outcomes and personal closure. Her reference to the local people’s awareness of the accused's actions hints at a broader community knowledge of the situation, further complicating the family's grief.

The background of this tragic case adds layers of sorrow to the story. The incident took place in June 2021, when the lifeless body of the young girl was found strangled in Vandiperiyar’s Churakkulam estate. This discovery was made on 30th June 2021, a day that has since been etched in the memory of the community. The parents, who were away at work during the incident, were confronted with the most devastating news a parent can receive. The post-mortem examination revealed a horrifying detail - the child had suffered sexual torture before her death, adding a chilling dimension to the already gruesome crime. Arjun, the accused, was arrested by the police who claimed that he had been abusing the young girl since she was three years old. This allegation, if true, paints a picture of prolonged and unspeakable suffering that the child endured.

The mother's decision not to appeal the court's verdict and to seek justice in her own ways speaks volumes about her disillusionment with the legal system and her resolve to find peace in her own manner.

The Vandiperiyar case, involving the tragic death of a 6-year-old girl, was a complex legal matter that required a meticulous investigation and a thorough trial process. This case, notable for its sensitivity and the gravity of the accusations, was led by Vandiperiyar Circle Inspector TD Sunil Kumar.

The chargesheet, a critical document that outlines the charges and evidence against the accused, was officially filed on 21st September 2021. Arjun, the accused in this case, was charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The IPC deals with various criminal offenses including those involving violence and sexual assault, while the POCSO Act is specifically designed to protect children from offenses including sexual abuse and exploitation. This combination of charges under both laws indicates the serious nature of the accusations against Arjun, encompassing both physical and psychological aspects of the alleged crimes.

The trial commenced in May 2022 and involved extensive legal proceedings. The scrutiny of 48 witnesses indicates the depth and breadth of the investigation, bringing multiple perspectives and accounts to the courtroom. Additionally, the submission of over 69 documents and 16 pieces of evidence underscores the comprehensive nature of the evidence collection in this case. The volume of documents and evidence submitted is indicative of the efforts to build a robust case, taking into account various aspects of the alleged crime.

However, the trial faced significant challenges. According to reports, there was a crucial setback when a new judge took over the case. This change potentially impacted the prosecution’s momentum, which is an important aspect of any trial. Changes in the judiciary during a trial can affect the continuity and understanding of the case, potentially leading to delays and disruptions in the legal process.

The prosecution's argument sheds light on the nature of the alleged abuse. It was contended that the accused had been engaging in sexual exploitation of the girl since she was three years old, using chocolates as a means to entice her. This allegation points to a disturbing pattern of manipulation and abuse, exploiting the vulnerability and innocence of a young child. The use of something as innocent as chocolates in the context of such heinous acts adds a layer of deceit and betrayal to the crime.

According to the police, Arjun had confessed to sexually assaulting the girl and causing her death by hanging when she lost consciousness. This admission, as claimed by the police, paints a grim picture of the events leading to the girl's tragic death. The investigative team further alleged that the accused had a pornography addiction and had molested the girl on multiple occasions over a span of three years. These assertions suggest a pattern of predatory behavior and raise serious concerns about the safety and well-being of children in the vicinity of such individuals.

However, the defense painted a completely different picture. Defense attorney SK Adityan challenged the police's actions and the validity of their investigation. He argued that Arjun was wrongfully arrested and charged, primarily due to his affiliation with DYFI, a political organization. Adityan's statement, “Due to improper probe by the police, a youngster lost two precious years of his life. He was ill-treated, assaulted and forcibly made accused,” emphasizes the defense's stance that Arjun was a victim of a flawed investigation and police misconduct. This perspective portrays Arjun not as a perpetrator but as someone who suffered unjustly due to the investigative process.

Adityan further contended that the lack of compelling scientific evidence against Arjun was a critical factor in the court's decision to acquit him. He said, “We will demand a detailed probe to nab the real culprit and seek compensation for the physical and sexual hardship Arjun faced.” This statement suggests that the defense not only views Arjun as innocent but also as someone who endured significant hardships due to the accusations and the subsequent legal process. The call for a detailed probe to find the actual perpetrator reflects the defense's belief in Arjun's innocence and the need to rectify the injustices he allegedly faced.

Public prosecutor Sunil Maheswar Pillai reflected on the challenges encountered during the investigation. He stated, “The accused got enough time to destroy evidence. There was a dearth of DNA samples to ascertain he committed the crime. There were no lapses by the probe team.” This statement highlights a significant hurdle in the investigation: the alleged destruction of evidence by the accused, which could have been crucial in establishing guilt. The lack of DNA samples further compounded the difficulty in conclusively linking the accused to the crime. Pillai’s assertion that there were no lapses by the probe team indicates his belief that the investigation was conducted properly, despite these challenges.

The court’s observations add another layer to the understanding of the case. It firmly dismissed the notion of suicidal hanging, based on the victim's young age and the improbability of a child of such tender years contemplating suicide. This observation by the court is crucial, as it shifts the narrative from a possible suicide to a more sinister scenario.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the injury on the victim’s private parts provided evidence of recent sexual assault. This observation is particularly significant as it directly contradicts any theory that does not involve foul play. The court’s statement here is a clear indication of its conclusion that the victim had been subjected to abuse shortly before her death.

Lastly, the court affirmed that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the victim’s death as a result of homicide. This conclusion by the court is key, as it officially recognizes the death as a murder, dispelling any doubts about the nature of the incident. The acknowledgment of the death as a homicide is a crucial element in understanding the gravity of the case and the subsequent legal proceedings.

The court noted that the prosecution’s case was built primarily on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, unlike direct evidence, relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. In this case, the prosecution’s arguments included the accused allegedly luring the victim with chocolates, his statements to the police, the discovery of evidence, scientific analysis, and the past conduct of the accused. However, circumstantial evidence can be challenging to substantiate, as it often requires a strong and unbroken chain of events that lead to the conclusion of guilt.

A key aspect of the case was the allegation that the accused had lured the victim with chocolates on the day of the incident. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish this claim. This failure is significant as it weakens the narrative constructed by the prosecution regarding the events leading to the victim’s death.

The court also scrutinized the statements made by the accused. It observed that these statements did not reveal any new admissible facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This section deals with the admissibility of certain evidence discovered upon a statement made by an accused person in custody. The court’s observation suggests that the statements made by the accused did not contribute to uncovering any new, legally admissible evidence relevant to the case.

Furthermore, the court commented on the inadequacy of the scientific evidence presented. Scientific evidence, such as DNA analysis, is often crucial in criminal cases, especially in those involving sexual assault. The court’s remark that the scientific evidence was insufficient to substantiate the guilt of the accused indicates a major gap in the prosecution’s ability to link the accused definitively to the crime.

Lastly, the court addressed the relevance of the accused's conduct. It clarified that the statements made by the accused to the prosecution witnesses alone did not qualify as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. This section pertains to the admissibility of any fact necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact, or which supports or rebuts an inference suggested by a fact in issue. The court underscored that the actions of the accused, as presented by the prosecution, were insufficient to establish his guilt or prove his involvement in the alleged crime.

Political Reactions to the Vandiperiyar Case Verdict

The BJP and Congress, two of the major political parties in India, expressed their protest against the court's verdict. Both parties accused the ruling CPM of attempting to protect its worker, Arjun, suggesting a possible influence of political power in the judicial process. This allegation hints at a deeper concern about the impartiality of legal proceedings when they intersect with political affiliations.

Even the CPI, an ally of the ruling LDF alongside the CPM, expressed astonishment at the verdict. This reaction from within the ruling coalition indicates the unexpected nature of the verdict and the complexities involved in the case. The CPM, on its part, pledged to offer the necessary legal assistance to the family of the girl. This gesture can be seen as an acknowledgment of the tragic nature of the case and a commitment to ensuring justice, despite the accused being affiliated with their party.

BJP district general secretary B S Ratheesh specifically targeted the CPM, claiming that the party was involved in efforts to save the accused from the outset. He said, “CPM MLA Vazhoor Soman intervened initially to prevent the child’s autopsy. The verdict shows the prosecution failed to produce necessary scientific evidence, which hints at political intervention to protect the accused.” Ratheesh's statement alleges direct political interference in the investigation process, particularly in the initial stages, which he claims had a cascading effect leading to the failure of the prosecution to present adequate scientific evidence.

In response to these allegations, CPM MLA Vazhoor Soman countered the claims of political interference and misinformation being spread against him. He highlighted his actions by mentioning that in August 2021, he had written to the Chief Minister, urging the appointment of a public prosecutor, which led to the designation of Sunil Maheswar Pillai on 31st August. He said, “The verdict has come against expectations. I have written to the CM again demanding re-investigation.” Soman's statement indicates his surprise at the verdict and his ongoing efforts to ensure a thorough investigation into the case.

UDF district chairman Joy Vettikuzhy criticized the handling of the case by the police, attributing the shortcomings to political pressure. He stated, “The police could not file the FIR properly due to political pressure. The leaders and cops who worked to protect the accused do not deserve forgiveness from the public.” Vettikuzhy’s comment suggests a belief that political influence compromised the integrity of the investigation right from the beginning, specifically in the filing of the First Information Report (FIR), a crucial document in criminal proceedings. His statement reflects a broader concern about the potential for political interference in the justice system and its impact on public trust.

In a contrasting perspective, former DYFI Peermade block secretary Ramaraj sought to distance the organization from the accused. He clarified, “He only took part in some relief works held under the leadership of DYFI Churakkulam unit in 2018. The party, be it DYFI or CPM, will never support someone who did cruelty to a girl child.” Ramaraj's statement suggests that Arjun's involvement with DYFI was minimal and solely related to specific relief work. He emphasizes the party's stance against supporting anyone who commits such heinous acts, thereby attempting to separate the party’s ideology and principles from the actions of the accused.

CPI Idukki district secretary K Saleem Kumar expressed shock at the court’s verdict. He remarked, “Even before the court pronounced the verdict, the girl’s parents and defence lawyer had said the accused will be acquitted. There is mystery in their statements and the court’s verdict. We demand the HC’s intervention and a re-investigation to ensure justice to the family.” Kumar’s statement points to a sense of unease and suspicion surrounding the case, particularly regarding the predictions about the verdict’s outcome. His call for the High Court's intervention and a re-investigation reflects a desire for a deeper examination of the case, suggesting that questions remain unanswered and justice for the victim’s family might still be attainable.

CPM district secretary CV Varghese addressed the outcome of the case, expressing regret over the court's decision to acquit the accused. He stated, “The court acquitting the accused was unfortunate. We will do whatever is possible for a re-investigation.” This statement reflects a sense of responsibility and a commitment to pursuing further investigation into the case. Varghese’s acknowledgment of the need for a re-investigation signifies a recognition that justice may not have been fully served. Furthermore, he assured that the party would provide all necessary legal support to the girl’s family, indicating a willingness to stand with the victim's family in their quest for justice.

The High Court’s involvement adds a significant dimension to the case. The court demanded an explanation for the apparent serious lapse on the part of the police in preparing the charge-sheet for the case. This development highlights concerns at a judicial level regarding the handling of the case by law enforcement. The charge-sheet, a critical document in any criminal case, lays out the charges and evidence against the accused, and any lapses in its preparation can have significant implications for the outcome of the case.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the police had neglected to charge the accused under the Scheduled Castes – Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This observation is particularly crucial as it suggests a possible oversight in considering the caste-based aspects of the case, which could be vital given the nature of the crime and the victim's background. The court’s demand for clarification from the government regarding this deficiency in the police’s investigation underscores the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation, especially in cases involving vulnerable communities.

Suspicions have been aroused due to the omission of certain critical clauses in the charge-sheet. These clauses are considered essential for ensuring that the accused, if found guilty, receives the maximum possible punishment. The charge-sheet, a formal document detailing the charges and evidence against the accused, plays a pivotal role in criminal proceedings. The omission of crucial clauses can significantly weaken the prosecution's case, potentially affecting the outcome of the trial and the severity of the punishment meted out. This issue is particularly pressing in cases involving heinous crimes, where securing maximum punishment is often seen as a necessary step towards delivering justice.

Further complicating the situation is the police's apparent disregard for the plea from the girl’s family to include Section 325 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the charge-sheet. This specific section is meant to be applied in cases involving crimes against individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes, particularly in instances of rape. The family's request to include this section underscores the gravity of the crime and its implications within the context of caste-based violence. The failure to include this section in the charge-sheet not only reflects a possible oversight in addressing the full scope of the crime but also suggests a neglect of the caste-based dimensions that might have been relevant to the case.

As a result of these omissions and the overall handling of the case, the family of the victim has forfeited the financial assistance they were supposed to receive from the government. This loss of financial support adds another layer of hardship for the family, who not only have to cope with the tragic loss of their child but also with the financial implications that often accompany legal battles and the aftermath of such incidents.