Fifteen years on, 36 accused in Paravur sexual exploitation case still at large

Fifteen years into the registration of the Paravur sexual exploitation case in connection with the sexual abuse of a minor girl by 148 persons, 36 accused in the case are still at large.

The trial of six accused in the case is set to begin on Monday. The trial court here has acquitted 13 accused as the survivor reportedly turned hostile or failed to identify them in the court.

The prosecution case is that the survivor, then a 16-year-old, was sexually abused over a period of around one year from May 3, 2010 with the support of her parents. The father of the survivor took her to various locations and sold her for money. He also reportedly threatened to kill her and her brother when she opposed his acts, according to the prosecution case.

The sub-inspector of the North Paravur police station registered the case following a complaint filed by the girl and her aunt on March 7, 2011. The father of the survivor is currently serving a jail term after the court found him guilty of the offences booked against him a decade ago.

The case triggered widespread public protest and the then government had provided the survivor five cents and a government employment as part of rehabilitating her.

The accused have been charge-sheeted in 61 cases and trial completed in 34 cases. Trial is pending in 10 other cases. The trial also saw 21 persons convicted. However, 13 persons were acquitted in the case as the survivor, the first and crucial witness in the case, turned hostile and failed to identify them in the court, said T.P. Ramesh, the third Special Prosecutor in the case.

Earlier, the trial was conducted by the late Mohan C. Menon. Sreelal Warrier, who later appeared in a few cases, said there was a good conviction rate in the cases he conducted.

The 13 accused were acquitted as the statements of the survivor, especially her inability to identify the persons, whom the prosecution had alleged to have committed the offence of rape, went in favour of the accused. If the victim failed to identify the accused in the court hall during the trial, the accused would get the benefit of doubt and might eventually get acquitted, said Mr. Ramesh. The accused were charged with Section 366 (A) for procuring a minor girl for illicit intercourse, Section 372 for selling or hiring out a minor for prostitution or illicit intercourse, Section 373 for buying, hiring, or otherwise obtaining a person under 18 years with the intent that she be used for prostitution, illicit intercourse, or any unlawful/immoral purpose, Section 376 for rape and offences under the Juvenile Justice Act.