The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected bail to 27 persons, including main accused Dharmarajan, in the Suryanelli rape case, but noted there are “several points of disbelief” in the prosecution version that the minor victim was confined for long periods and gang-raped in an ordeal lasting 40 days.
A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice P.C. Pant asked how the victim, then a 16-year-old, visited a movie hall and travelled long distances alone without even trying to escape from her captors.
Justice Misra asked the State why the “madams” of the two houses she stayed in for five days each were not made accused.
“There are so many points of disbelief,” Justice Misra remarked, while asking the State counsel at one point the definition of gang-rape and whether the circumstances of the case meets the ingredients of the offence.
'Enticed with marriage'
“She travelled kilometres on her own... You say she was enticed... enticed with what,” Justice Misra asked. “With marriage,” the State counsel replied.
Refusing to grant any interim relief to the accused, the Bench posted the case for March 2016 for final hearing.
In April 2014, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had confirmed the life-term awarded to prime accused Dharmarajan in the case.
The case relates to the abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor girl hailing from Suryanelli in Idukki district by several persons in 1996.
The prosecution case was that the schoolgirl was enticed, abducted and sexually exploited by a bus conductor on January 16, 1996.
She was later handed over to two others, including the prime accused Dharmarajan .
Raped 67 times
The girl was later take by them to several places and, according to the prosecution, was raped 67 times by 37 different people during 40 days from January 16, 1996, to February 26, 1996.
As many as 35 accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for varying terms from 10 years to 13 years by the Kottayam Special Court on charges of rape, gang rape, and kidnapping.
However, the High Court had acquitted all the accused except Dharmarajan.
On an appeal by the State government, the Supreme Court had reversed the High Court verdict and asked it to consider afresh the appeals filed by the accused as it found that the evidence in the appeal had not been considered independently by the High Court.
