CHILD Protection & Rights > Anchorage
Case History
Current Status:
Supreme Court upholds CHILDLINE Case
On 18 March, 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal by CHILDLINE
India Foundation and the Maharashtra Government against the Mumbai
High Court Judgement ( Cr Appeal no 476) in the Anchorage case.
Justices, P Sathasivam and Dr Balbir Singh Chauhan upheld the
Sessions court judgment and sent Alan Waters and Duncan Grant
back to jail to run their sentences. The British Paedophiles had
been convicted by the Sessions Court in Mumbai and had appealed
in the Mumbai High Court whch had upheld the appeal.
In the Supreme Court ( case 1a, Supplementary list, Court 10, Fali Nariman appeared for CHILDLINE India at the admission stage and the case was argued by Advocate KV Vishwanathan. The Maharashtra Government, which had also appealed the High Court judgment was represented by Advocate Arun Padnekar.
The Supreme Court rejected arguments of Duncan and Walter's Counsel, Naphde and sent them back to finish their jail terms.
Supreme Court Admits Anchorage Case for Hearing
On a Special Leave Petition filed by Mahrukh Adenwala and CHILDLINE
India Foundation, the Supreme Court has, after a hearing this
morning Aug 1st, 2008, has admitted the case, for hearing, against
the decision of the Bombay
High Court to acquit the Anchorage Case accused. The Maharashtra Government
Petition was also heard as represe3nted by the State Advocate General
The Supreme Court has indicated a three week period for commencement of
hearing and asked the Police to withhold the Passport and has also requested
the Consulates not to entertain requests for Visa.
Under Sec 390 of CrPC
notice is being issued to the accused to show cause on why they should not
be arrested and action taken against them.
This admission by the Supreme Court indicates that the highest court has
upheld the relevance of the points of Law raised by the petitioners and it
is expected that the eventual judgment of the Supreme Court will be a
landmark on laying down the criteria for prosecution in child sexual abuse
and Paedophile cases.
CHILDLINE India's stand that the High Court Judgment did not question the
facts of the case but was based on technical aspects has been upheld. Mr.
Fali Nariman repesented the petitioners in the case. The struggle by
CHILDLINE India to secure justice for children abused in the Anchorage case
is not over yet.
History of the Case:
In early 2001, on its phone helpline
1098, CIF had been receiving reports of abuse at the Anchorage
Shelters. Similar reports had also reached the High Court appointed
Maharashtra State Monitoring Committee on Juvenile Justice. The
Committee in August 2001 visited the Anchorage Shelters and submitted
a report to the High Court confirming the strong suspicion of
sexual abuse and recommending a police investigation. The sexual
abuse of the boys at Anchorage Shelters was also brought to the
notice of Advocate Ms. Maharukh Adenwalla who works on issues
of child rights, and she brought the same to the attention of
the Bombay High Court in a matter in which she was amicus curae.
The Bombay High Court passed directions to protect the boys at
Anchorage Shelters. Thereafter, CIF lodged a detailed complaint
at Cuffe Parade Police Station on 24-10-2001, but the police
refused to investigate the said complaint as the matter was sub-judice.
At the instance of Advocate Ms. Maharukh Adenwalla, the Bombay
High Court directed the police to investigate the complaint filed
by CIF. Police investigation revealed that two British nationals,
Duncan Grant (Accused No. 1) and Alan Waters (Accused No. 2),
used to run the Anchorage Shelters, which housed a large number
of street children aged between 8-18 years. Willyam D'Souza (Accused
No. 3), an Indian, and a former pimp for homosexual tourists,
was the Manager of the shelters. The investigation revealed that
Grant and Waters were sexually abusing the children under their
care and that a large number of foreign paedophiles were regularly
visiting the Shelters and taking the children to Goa where the
children were also being sexually abused. The acts of abuse documented
by the police investigation are: (a) oral sex forcibly performed
on the boys, (b), forced manipulation of the boys' penis, (c)
boys made to forcibly manipulate the accused's penis, (d) sadistic
beatings of the boys, (e) biting of the boys for perverse pleasure,
etc.
The trial was delayed on account of the fact that Grant and
Waters had absconded from India after the facts became public.
The Government, through Interpol, issued international red corner
alerts for the arrest of Grant and Waters. Waters was arrested
on his arrival at New York airport, and after a lengthy extradition
process and after he exhausted all appellate avenues, he was
extradited to India to stand trial. Duncan Grant was found to
be hiding in Tanzania where he had started similar shelters for
children. He was deported to Britain and forced to return to
India to stand trial.
The Sessions Court Case :
During the trial, three of the five victim boys were bought
over by the Accused by offers of large amounts of cash and even
a house. However, two of the victim boys showed exemplary courage
and integrity by stepping into the witness box, deposing about
what they had endured, and facing a grueling cross examination
by a top defence lawyer. Their evidence, which emerged unscathed
through this ordeal, mirrors their helplessness and innocence.
They have spoken in clear terms about the prolonged abuse they
suffered at the hands of the Accused, the nature of the sexual
acts perpetrated on them, and their desperation and poverty which
prevented them from leaving the shelter or filing a complaint.
Their evidence was corroborated by other sources, including the
evidence Ms. Adenwalla and one of the members of the High-Court
appointed Committee on Juvenile Justice, both of whom had personally
and independently spoken with the victim boys and verified their
claims of sexual abuse. The Defence came out with the case that
at the instance of some people who wanted to take over the Anchorage
Shelters Advocate Maharukh Adenwalla and CIF had bribed and tutored
the victim boys to falsely implicate Grant and Waters. The trial
judge found the Defense case to be untenable and far-fetched;
Consequently, the Sessions Court held that it had been proved
beyond any doubt that the Accused persons had sexually exploited
a large number of street children. Fully aware of how difficult
and rare such prosecutions are even though such offences are
on the increase, the judgment of the Sessions Court, while convicting
them under sections 120 B, 107, 373 and 377 IPC sentenced Grant
and Waters to six years imprisonment and a fine of £20,000/-
each, stated that a deterrent punishment, was being imposed in
order to help wipe 'out the name of India from the map of
sex tourism. . let paedophiles all over the world know that India
should not be their destination in future.' The said judgement
was hailed as a landmark judgement in its field by lawyers, academics
and the public.
The Bombay High Court Case :
Allan Waters and Duncan Grant filed an Appeal in the Bombay
High Court ( Cr Appeal no 476) against the state with Mahrukh
Adenwalla as respondent. William D'Souza filed an appeal (no
681) against the state and the State also filed an appeal (603)
against all three for enhancement of sentence. The case was argued
in the courts of Hon'ble Judges Bilal Nazki and Sharad Bobde
JJ.
Mr. Taraq Sayed with Mr. S.V. Kotwal and Mr. S.S. Bhandari for
the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2006
Mr. Vijay Nahar, Special Public Prosecutor, for the State with
Ms. Maharukh Adenwalla and Mr. Y. Chaudhary for the Respondents
3 in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2006
Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the
State in Criminal Appeals No. 476 and 603 of 2006.
In their judgement delivered on 23 rd July, the hon'ble judges
have stated:
• The testimony of the two boys, Sunil and Kranti
, which was the basis for the Trial Court's judgement cannot
be considered reliable as their testimonies recorded by the Police
subsequent to the FIR was not consistent with what they recorded
with Meher Pestonjee, freelance journalist and Maharukh Adenwala
prior to the FIR being lodged- the judges agreed with the Defence
that this construed as improving the testimony and not corroborative
as contended by the Prosecution.
• The testimony of Mahrukh Adenwala was construed
as "hearsay" and hence not relevant.
• The acts that the boys testimony reported were
ruled to not indicate a definitive crime under Section 377.
• The States appeal for enhancement was dismissed
as the testimony of the victims was not reliable.
• The accused were acquitted of all charges.
The reasons given by the Hon'ble Court for acquitting the Accused
are extremely flimsy; they are not sustainable and do not withstand
scrutiny. The Ld. judges have ignored the settled position of
law as to how evidence of child victims of sexual violence is
to be appreciated. Instead, they applied a completely unrealistic
yardstick in evaluating that evidence. The Judges have not considered
that the victims were illiterate street children and cannot be
put to the same test as an educated adult. Moreover, the Judges
have also failed to recognize that to enable street children
to freely and fearlessly speak about the abuse perpetrated upon
them to the police and before the court, great courage and support
is necessary.
The Ld. judges have also held that since no
complaint was made for a long time, that the FIR was delayed
and that the child witnesses did not run away from the shelter
though they were free to do so, suggests that that no sexual
abuse took place. The Ld. judges have completely ignored the
fact that the victims of sexual abuse were vulnerable and defenceless
street children who were so desperate to get a roof over their
heads that they were prepared to put up with the sexual abuse.
The Ld. judges have also rejected the evidence of the child witnesses
on the basis of some minor omissions which are not material and
which do not touch the core issue of sexual abuse. Here again,
the Ld. Judges have ignored the settled position in law regarding
how omissions have to be evaluated and appreciated. If this
judgement becomes a precedent for appreciating evidence of victims
of child sexual abuse, a large number of perverts and paedophiles
will walk free, and it will be almost impossible to obtain convictions
against them. Further, if this judgement is not overruled and
publicly condemned, the public confidence in the administration
of justice will be undermined.
The High Court even refused to stay its judgement for a few
days to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court which would prevent
the release of the Accused from jail. It should be noted that
two out of the three accused persons are British nationals, and
that all three accused persons have at different stages done
their utmost to abscond and evade the process of law in India
. If the Accused are released before the appeal can be filed
and heard in the Supreme Court, it will be impossible to bring
them back to India for the hearing. In the famous Martis case,
even though the passports of the convicted Swiss couple was in
the custody of the police, they were able to flee the country
after being released from jail.
Child sexual abuse in institutions is widespread, and yet prosecutions
are notoriously rare and convictions are rarer still. The victims
are under the control of the paedophiles; they are vulnerable
and embarrassed by what has happened to them; they are scared
that if they complain they will lose their shelter and food which
they need to survive in the cities; they lack support, and ultimately
do not depose in court, either because they are too scared to
do so, or because they have been bribed / pressurized by the
Accused. Most victims are illiterate, which only compounds the
problems of gathering evidence and putting up a strong case.
Most of these problems are systemic and endemic to this situation.
However, in the few cases where these problems have been overcome,
the Courts have let the people down by disbelieving the victims
on minor technical grounds. Unless this changes, the most vulnerable
category of our people will continue to be exploited and paedophiles
will never be brought to justice.
It is expected that upon paperwork being completed by Monday
28 th July, 2006, the accused would be set free.
Current Concerns
The present case is an exceptional case deserving
special attention for three reasons : (1) the trial court has
delivered a very strong, reasoned and emphatic judgment of conviction;
(2) the offences involved are very serious and heinous in the
context of an internationally proliferating and organised business
of child sex tourism and paedophilia; (3) since a British national
has been extradited from New York pursuant to a red corner alert
issued by our government, the success of our future extradition
requests would not be taken seriously by any government if the
prosecution case were to be dismissed so easily.
The appeal has raised several important questions of law of
general public importance, which need authoritative pronouncement
by the Supreme Court
The public prosecutor will recommend that the State of Maharashtra
files an appeal, but it will take a long time for the necessary
resolutions to be passed, the appeal to be drafted and filed.
In the meanwhile, Grant and Waters will have been released from
jail, and they will certainly leave the country immediately,
especially because they know that the High Court verdict will
be challenged in the Supreme Court. The State has already expended
large sums of money to have the accused brought to India for
trial. If these persons are able to leave the country after their
release from jail, it will be very difficult and expensive to
bring them back to finish their sentence, should the State Appeal
be allowed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is imperative
that the Supreme Court be moved in urgency as soon as the judgement
of acquittal is delivered in order to stay the judgement of the
High Court.
The Petitioners before the Supreme Court will be Advocate Maharukh
Adenwalla (who was a named Respondent in the appeals before the
Bombay High Court) and CHILDLINE India Foundation (who was the
original complainant in this case). The public prosecutor is
Vijay Nahar, who offered his services in the case almost probono.
 CHILDLINE's
Executive Director's Message
|
