India court acquits rape accused over typo, slammed by higher court

THE Madras High Court has reversed a trial court’s order setting a man accused of sexually assaulting a girl child free because of a typo error.

It said that a typographical error in recording the word ‘semen’ as Tamil word ‘semmann’, meaning red soil, cannot be the basis of acquitting the man who has been booked under the POCSO Act which looks to safeguard children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography.

Justice P Velmurugan, before whom the appeal from the victim’s mother who challenged the September 2018 orders of the trial court in Tiruvarur in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, came up recently, also slammed the lower court judge and the investigating officer.

Semen becomes 'semman', meaning red soil in Tamil
The typographical error saw the trial court judge treat the semen found in the genitals of the child as “semman” which was not uncommon on a kid playing on the ground. The child’s mother had said that a white-colour liquid was found in her daughter’s genitals. The policemen had written it as white-colour fluid, like semen. The trial court typist wrote it as 'semmann', which was wrongly interpreted as red soil. This error changed the entire case.

The Madras High Court judge said the defence side took advantage of this. He also cited a doctor’s report which clearly said the three-year-old child was sexually assaulted. He was also not convinced with the reasoning that there was delay in filing the case. The judge said the mother of the girl was an illiterate woman who lived in a remote village. Her working husband was also not with them when the incident took place in September 2017. So, it was natural for the hapless woman to take time to know how to deal with the matter.

The judge said the investigation was also not up to the mark and because of faulty investigations, the culprits often go scot-free. He said the trial courts also do not apply their minds at times and nor do they exercise their discretionary power to order re-investigation or call for relevant records. He added that they only search for proof beyond what is a reasonable doubt and the accused are acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. “But in cases like this, we cannot give much importance to the technical ground of proof,” the judge said and set aside the trial court ruling.