Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
The Anchorage case has a very long history dating back to 2001 when the offence had taken place and embarks a valuable contribution in understanding and development of law relating to child abuse.
Briefly, the facts of the case are:
The two main accused in the case are Allan John Waters and Duncan Grant. Duncan Grant had set up the Anchorage Shelter Home at Colaba, Mumbai in 1995 which was frequently visited by Waters. These two britons had since then been sexually abusing children. This was revealed when a volunteer had called the CHILDLINE Association, Mumbai which explains their involvement in the case and informed them about the ill happenings in the stipulated shelter home.
One of the victims was forced to perform oral sex on the two of them who was aged about 14 years then. His testimony played a key role. He explained his trauma by stating that he was asked to do it 30-40 times and when the first time he did so, he felt really bad.
CHILDLINE had filed the police complaint in 2001, along with the street children about the kinds of atrocities going on in the shelter. As CHILDLINE probed deeper, we unpacked stories of sordid violations from volunteers and the children. This set us off on a tough and long journey of investigation and legal recourse, culminating in a landmark judgement against child sex abuse.
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.
When the abuse news became public, Walters and Grant absconded leading to the delay in trial. Later, they were arrested and made to stand for the trial.
THE CASE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, 2006
The result of the case at the sessions court led to the imprisonment of Walters and Grant for 6 years and a fine of 20,000 pounds under Section 377, 120-B, 373 and 107 of the IPC. They were charged for sodomy and committing sexual abuse on 5 minor boys living in the shelter home. 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 gruelling cross examination by a top defence lawyer.
The defence had argued that these minor boys were tutored to give such a testimony by their competitive NGOS and enemies claiming the whole case to be farce and false implication. This plea was though rejected by the Sessions court and judgment was given in the favour of the plaintiff.
THE CASE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 2008
The Bombay High Court acquitted the accused saying that the act accused for cannot be put in the ambit of Section 377 and the guilt of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution.
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.
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 CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT, 2011
The Supreme Court rejected arguments of Duncan and Walter’s Counsel, Naphde and sentenced them to finish their time in jail. In a thumping, landmark order, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan said, “Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes.”
The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a pedophilia case. The Bench directed Allan and Duncan to serve the remaining period of sentence. John Waters was in jail for about five years and Grant had served three years and two months. It also confirmed the conviction and sentence of three-year jail awarded by the trial court to another accused, William D’ Souza, who had already served the term. For CHILDLINE, the landmark judgement marked the closure of a ten year period of struggle as we collaborated and wrestled in unpredictable turns with the law enforcement agencies of Mumbai to deliver justice to the children of Anchorage.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS