At first glance, Komal is like any other 10-year-old with a fascination for chocolates and games. But behind the appearance of a carefree childhood is a grim reality. Komal (name changed) was repeatedly raped and impregnated by her maternal uncles. But if she understands what was done to her, it does not show. Interacting with the police and reporters she is required to meet these days, she makes it clear that her priority is games, toys and goodies. The case, replete with twists and turns, is being closely monitored by the Supreme Court. New revelations are cropping up thick and fast as the trial proceeds in Chandigarh district court.
Representational Image
The Apex court has directed the Centre to formulate permanent medical boards in each district to prevent delay in abortions in underage rape pregnancies.
This is not a bleak, silent household one would associate with a crime of such magnitude. The yard is abuzz with the chatter of girls playing badminton. Komal loves a match with her father and sister. She bounces with joy when she scores. Surrounded by lush greens, her house provides ample space to play. Komal lives in the servant quarters with a family of four. The house is surrounded by trees and there are medicinal plants in the garden. For the 10-year-old from Nepal, this would have been idyll, had she not been subjected to abuse by her maternal uncles.
Komal bore the abuse silently. Never did she scream or call out, say her abusers, who gave her chocolates and generally made her watch her favourite cartoon as they raped her. They followed up by threatening to kill her parents if she told anyone or even inflict similar pain on her sister, who is two years older.
Komal attended school regularly and played badminton too. One evening, a woman in the neighbourhood told her mother that the child seemed to have a bloated stomach.
Her mother took this as good news, saying she must be regaining her health after undergoing heart surgery. She also attributed the "bloating" to medication.
After a few says, the woman from the neighbourhood observed that the bloating had not eased. Again, Komal's mother did not think much of it.
They took her to a doctor only when Komal complained of severe stomach ache one day and were told the child is pregnant. Finally, Komal told them about her uncles. When the mother asked for an abortion, she was told the law did not permit it at this stage.
The hearing at Chandigarh district court was just another day out for Komal, who came dressed in a yellow suit. She was trying to curb her impulse to play as the court turned down her plea for abortion citing medical reasons. All she was told was that she had pain in the stomach.
Representational Image
The Times of India reported the case on the national page and help poured in from India and abroad. Amnesty International and many NGOs came together to help Komal and her family.
Advocate Alakh Alok Srivstav moved a PIL in Supreme Court praying for Komal's abortion. But the Apex court turned down the plea on the basis of reasons cited by the medical board constituted by the SC. The court directed Chandigarh administration to look into the matter and take care of Komal's needs.
On August 17, 2017 Komal delivered a baby girl through C-section. Her family refused to see the newborn, who can be adopted soon.
Police investigations were on all this while and Komal also identified the accused in court. Police conducted a DNA test to establish the child's paternity but it turned out to be negative. This established the presence of another rapist.
After investigations, police caught the second maternal uncle, who was about to flee to Nepal. Komal identified the second accused in court and said he started raping her even before the first maternal uncle did. She said her abuse by the second uncle started around last December while the first maternal uncle started raping her in April. She also said the second maternal uncle threatened to kill her parents if she told anyone.
The DNA report run on him confirmed he had fathered the child.
Representational Image
Both accused confessed in police custody and prosecution evidence in both cases is with the Chandigarh district court. But the first maternal uncle added another angle to the case saying Komal's father molested his minor daughter when she came to India last year and had falsely implicated him in the rape case.
The second accused also pleaded innocence in court. The first maternal uncle is likely to move an application in court praying for the statement of his daughter against Komal's father, who allegedly molested her.
His daughter could come from Nepal if the application is allowed. The trial is expected to end by the second week of November. Meanwhile, the question of the children's safety in this household remains to be addressed.
July 14: Case registered against accused
July 15: Accused remanded in police custody
July 16: Accuse remanded in judicial custody
July 18: Chandigarh district court dismisses abortion pleas of minor citing medical reasons
July 28: Supreme Court dismisses abortion plea of minor citing medical reasons
August 17: Minor girl delivers baby girl
August17: DNA test of accused conducted
August 25: Chargesheet filed against accused (first maternal uncle)
August 30: Court frames charges against accused
August 31: Rape survivor and her mother record statement in court
September 12: DNA report negative
September 19: Second maternal uncle arrested
October 10: DNA report of second maternal uncle submitted in court, chargesheet filed against him
October 25: First maternal uncle accuses 10-year-old's father of molesting his minor daughter.Second maternal uncle also claims innocence
Under the MTP Act in India, abortion is a qualified right. It can only be performed by a registered medical practitioner before 12 weeks of pregnancy. In case the woman has been pregnant for more than 12 weeks but less than 20 weeks, opinions of two medical practitioners are required. Abortion is permitted only if continuing the pregnancy poses a 'substantial risk' to the woman's life or to her 'physical or mental health'. Alternatively, if the child that is yet to be born faces similar substantial risk - in that it would suffer from 'physical or mental abnormalities' or may be 'seriously handicapped' - an abortion may be allowed.
The basis of the instructions by the Supreme Court was the abortion plea by the 10-year-old rape survivor, where the SC instructed states and the UT to form such medical boards to save time.