Mokokchung | October 17 : The dust over the October 10, 2011 rape incident in Mokokchung where a minor girl is involved is yet to settle down, with the Mopungchuket Senso Telongjem Mokokchung taking a private investigation into the matter citing that the justice delivered by the Mokokchung Town Chang Union (MTCU) violates the Ao customary law system.
Not only that, over the past few days, public opinion regarding the justice delivered is also diverse some people opining that Non-Governmental Organisations should not take law into their hands but let the competent law enforcing agencies take due course of action.
What happened that night?
Now it is established that on that fateful night the victim and another lady living in another colony came to the residence of the accused in Arkong ward, where they were joined by another man. The four of them played cards, and after that they went out to a shop, from where only the accused and the victim returned to the accused’s residence. Later, while the two were in the act, the relatives of the victim came and caught the two red-handed. The victim was slapped by her sister, and she cried. The case was now termed as rape.
The next two days
The Mokokchung Town Chang Union (MTCU) took up the issue and summoned the accused personally on October 11, 2011, however the case could not be heard since the victim’s father had not arrived from his village. The accused was summoned the next day at 7:00 AM.
The accused, Bendangwapang Longkumer, presented himself in front of the MTCU on October 12, 2011. He confessed that he had ‘sex’ with the victim. Therefore, asserting that the MTCU ‘Resolution No 16” was violated, the Union exacted a sum of Rs 50,000 and a pig as fine. Thereafter, instead of sending the accused back home, he was kept in the custody of the MTCU and the Eastern Naga Women Organisation (Mokokchung) in some location. Till that time, most of the citizens in the town were not aware of the rape incident or the trial conducted by the MTCU.
The Police however was aware of the incident and they duly filed a “Suo-Moto” case in the Police Station I at 7:40 PM on October 12 night. However, they failed to either locate the accused or detain him under their custody.
October 13, 2011
The citizens of Mokokchung had a rude awakening when the local vernacular daily Ao Milen carried the news of the rape in the front page and the Watsü Mungdang and ENWO (M) went about the town calling for a mass protest rally in the town. The Ao Senden (Ao Hoho) asked the two women organisations not to parade the accused in the town, which went unheeded. The accused was paraded in front of thousands of rally participants and made to read out a statement five times over.
Interestingly, some youths from the audience (after the accused finished reading his statement) shouted, “Maiki phe loi aniphe” (Bring the girl also); “Maiki laka awazz phe honibo” (the girl’s (victim) voice should also be heard). A three point memorandum was submitted by the Watsü Mungdang and the ENWO (M), and the accused duly handed over to the police.
The stand of the police and the judiciary
Police official disclosed that the case is an open and shut rape case because the victim is supposedly a minor. They said that the medical report taken on October 12 night indicated ‘penetration’. But there was no sign of forceful penetration or any scar marks on the bodies of either the accused or the victim. But since a suo-moto case has been registered, the police are taking on an investigation, and the case forwarded to the competent court of law.
Police investigation led to one interesting finding; the victim’s school cumulative record shows her age as 14 years and six months, whereas it was reported that she was 13 years old.
Now people wonder if she could be older. However, as far as the police and the competent court are concerned, it is a rape case and the accused should be punished as per the relevant Indian Penal Code. The case is under trial, with the first hearing conducted on last Saturday.
The missing links
The most interesting aspect of this incident is the power wielded by the NGOs like the MTCU, the ENWO (M) and the Watsü Mungdang. The general opinion here among the people is that ‘no person can be punished twice for the same crime’. The popular opinion is that the accused has been punished thrice already: first the fine imposed by the MTCU, the rally and the parading of the accused in the main town, and now the imminent punishment that he will face from the competent court. Many opine that had the NGOs first filed an FIR on the night of the incident, and let the police or the law enforcing agencies take their own course of action, then there would have been no complications. The accused would have been convicted for having sex with a minor, and everyone back to their normal lives, that’s what many feel.
Visible complications
A deeply hurt Mopungchuket Senso Telongjem Mokokchung strongly declared that the case is not yet over since its citizen (the accused) was tried and passed a judgement by the MTCU without the knowledge of the Telongjem and termed the judgement passed by the MTCU as a deviation from the Ao customary norms. The Arkong Ward Executive Committee also strongly echoed a similar declaration. In Ao customary law, whenever a case between two parties or individuals are held, the family members, or relatives or village representatives are also called to be a witness of the case and their views and opinions also taken into account. In this case, the due process of Ao customary law was not followed, and the sentiments of many citizens are hurt because the accused involves an Ao citizen whether he is a criminal or not.
What legal experts say
A veteran legal expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, opined that the MTCU or for that matter the ENWO (M) or the Watsü Mungdang since they are NGOs have no right to take the law into their own hands and pass judgements. He particularly termed the judgement by the MTCU as void, since the MTCU being an NGO is not authorised to pass any judgement. Had the case been tried by an established customary court like the Chang Court then the issue would have been different. A legal practitioner went a bit further and said that the police should have taken the accused into custody right after the suo-moto case was registered. They failed to do that.
What next?
So far the case seems far from over. The issue of rape has taken a back seat and now the bigger question is about the role of the NGOs especially in dispensing arbitrary justice based on confessional statement. The question of complicated judgement by NGOs becomes more serious when it involves serious cases between two tribal communities. The question is also about the role of the police and the competent judiciary in dealing with such serious cases in the society; whether they should stay in the corner and let the NGOs take the major role in passing the judgement. But the biggest question is whether such serious cases like rape should be allowed to be taken up by customary laws given the fact that there is no clear cut definition of the crime rape in the Naga society, unlike the Indian Penal Code. The question now is, how do we best dispense this word called justice? A very relevant question today, because the future would depend on it.
Not only that, over the past few days, public opinion regarding the justice delivered is also diverse some people opining that Non-Governmental Organisations should not take law into their hands but let the competent law enforcing agencies take due course of action.
What happened that night?
Now it is established that on that fateful night the victim and another lady living in another colony came to the residence of the accused in Arkong ward, where they were joined by another man. The four of them played cards, and after that they went out to a shop, from where only the accused and the victim returned to the accused’s residence. Later, while the two were in the act, the relatives of the victim came and caught the two red-handed. The victim was slapped by her sister, and she cried. The case was now termed as rape.
The next two days
The Mokokchung Town Chang Union (MTCU) took up the issue and summoned the accused personally on October 11, 2011, however the case could not be heard since the victim’s father had not arrived from his village. The accused was summoned the next day at 7:00 AM.
The accused, Bendangwapang Longkumer, presented himself in front of the MTCU on October 12, 2011. He confessed that he had ‘sex’ with the victim. Therefore, asserting that the MTCU ‘Resolution No 16” was violated, the Union exacted a sum of Rs 50,000 and a pig as fine. Thereafter, instead of sending the accused back home, he was kept in the custody of the MTCU and the Eastern Naga Women Organisation (Mokokchung) in some location. Till that time, most of the citizens in the town were not aware of the rape incident or the trial conducted by the MTCU.
The Police however was aware of the incident and they duly filed a “Suo-Moto” case in the Police Station I at 7:40 PM on October 12 night. However, they failed to either locate the accused or detain him under their custody.
October 13, 2011
The citizens of Mokokchung had a rude awakening when the local vernacular daily Ao Milen carried the news of the rape in the front page and the Watsü Mungdang and ENWO (M) went about the town calling for a mass protest rally in the town. The Ao Senden (Ao Hoho) asked the two women organisations not to parade the accused in the town, which went unheeded. The accused was paraded in front of thousands of rally participants and made to read out a statement five times over.
Interestingly, some youths from the audience (after the accused finished reading his statement) shouted, “Maiki phe loi aniphe” (Bring the girl also); “Maiki laka awazz phe honibo” (the girl’s (victim) voice should also be heard). A three point memorandum was submitted by the Watsü Mungdang and the ENWO (M), and the accused duly handed over to the police.
The stand of the police and the judiciary
Police official disclosed that the case is an open and shut rape case because the victim is supposedly a minor. They said that the medical report taken on October 12 night indicated ‘penetration’. But there was no sign of forceful penetration or any scar marks on the bodies of either the accused or the victim. But since a suo-moto case has been registered, the police are taking on an investigation, and the case forwarded to the competent court of law.
Police investigation led to one interesting finding; the victim’s school cumulative record shows her age as 14 years and six months, whereas it was reported that she was 13 years old.
Now people wonder if she could be older. However, as far as the police and the competent court are concerned, it is a rape case and the accused should be punished as per the relevant Indian Penal Code. The case is under trial, with the first hearing conducted on last Saturday.
The missing links
The most interesting aspect of this incident is the power wielded by the NGOs like the MTCU, the ENWO (M) and the Watsü Mungdang. The general opinion here among the people is that ‘no person can be punished twice for the same crime’. The popular opinion is that the accused has been punished thrice already: first the fine imposed by the MTCU, the rally and the parading of the accused in the main town, and now the imminent punishment that he will face from the competent court. Many opine that had the NGOs first filed an FIR on the night of the incident, and let the police or the law enforcing agencies take their own course of action, then there would have been no complications. The accused would have been convicted for having sex with a minor, and everyone back to their normal lives, that’s what many feel.
Visible complications
A deeply hurt Mopungchuket Senso Telongjem Mokokchung strongly declared that the case is not yet over since its citizen (the accused) was tried and passed a judgement by the MTCU without the knowledge of the Telongjem and termed the judgement passed by the MTCU as a deviation from the Ao customary norms. The Arkong Ward Executive Committee also strongly echoed a similar declaration. In Ao customary law, whenever a case between two parties or individuals are held, the family members, or relatives or village representatives are also called to be a witness of the case and their views and opinions also taken into account. In this case, the due process of Ao customary law was not followed, and the sentiments of many citizens are hurt because the accused involves an Ao citizen whether he is a criminal or not.
What legal experts say
A veteran legal expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, opined that the MTCU or for that matter the ENWO (M) or the Watsü Mungdang since they are NGOs have no right to take the law into their own hands and pass judgements. He particularly termed the judgement by the MTCU as void, since the MTCU being an NGO is not authorised to pass any judgement. Had the case been tried by an established customary court like the Chang Court then the issue would have been different. A legal practitioner went a bit further and said that the police should have taken the accused into custody right after the suo-moto case was registered. They failed to do that.
What next?
So far the case seems far from over. The issue of rape has taken a back seat and now the bigger question is about the role of the NGOs especially in dispensing arbitrary justice based on confessional statement. The question of complicated judgement by NGOs becomes more serious when it involves serious cases between two tribal communities. The question is also about the role of the police and the competent judiciary in dealing with such serious cases in the society; whether they should stay in the corner and let the NGOs take the major role in passing the judgement. But the biggest question is whether such serious cases like rape should be allowed to be taken up by customary laws given the fact that there is no clear cut definition of the crime rape in the Naga society, unlike the Indian Penal Code. The question now is, how do we best dispense this word called justice? A very relevant question today, because the future would depend on it.
