The Park Street Rape Case, which took place in Kolkata in 5 February 2012, is one of the most notorious and impactful criminal cases in India’s recent history. It not only exposed the deep-seated issues of sexual violence in the country but also highlighted the pervasive culture of victim-blaming. This case played a significant role in sparking nationwide debates on women’s safety and the legal system’s response to sexual crimes.
A woman was gang-raped by five men in a moving car after leaving a nightclub in Park Street and was later dumped near Exide Crossing opposite the Calcutta Club. She then boarded a taxi to her residence in Behala around 3:30 am.
On February 9, 2012, Suzette Jordan filed an FIR at the Park Street Police Station, reporting that she had been gang-raped. The officers on duty allegedly laughed at her and even asked her inappropriate questions about the positions in which she was raped.
Five days later, on February 14, 2012, Jordan underwent a medical examination at a state-run hospital, eight days after the assault. The medical report confirmed the presence of injury marks on her private parts, providing evidence that she had been raped by multiple males.
The case stirred up a lot of debate in the media. Some political and social commentators questioned Suzette Jordan’s character. It soon became a political issue. When Jordan first reported the crime, West Bengal’s Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, called her a liar. Banerjee also accused her of trying to embarrass the government. This response led to national outrage.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the Park Street rape case, detailing decisions from both the session and High Courts. The article also explores lessons learned from the case, highlighting procedural errors, the impact on the legal process, and the importance of upholding victims’ rights and her struggle.
Background of the Park Street Rape Case
On the night of February 5, 2012, a horrifying crime took place in Kolkata’s Park Street, where a woman was brutally raped by five men in a moving car. The incident was reported to the police, leading to widespread media coverage and public outrage. The case not only revealed the brutal reality of sexual violence in urban India but also tested the resilience of the legal and societal structures in dealing with such heinous crimes.
Suzette Jordan, the victim, was returning home after a night out with friends when she was offered a lift by a group of men in a car. Trusting them, she accepted the offer, only to be subjected to a brutal gang rape. The men drove around the city while assaulting her, leaving her traumatized and abandoned on the street. Despite the trauma, Suzette bravely went to the police to report the crime. Her courage to report the incident became a pivotal moment in the case, as it set off a chain of events that would lead to a protracted legal battle and widespread media attention.
Suzette Jordan [Victim’s Profile]: Who Was She?
Suzette Jordan, the brave woman at the centre of this case, was not just a victim but a mother, a daughter, and a strong individual. Born into an Anglo-Indian family in Kolkata, Suzette was a single mother of two daughters. She worked hard to provide for her family, holding various jobs to make ends meet.
Despite her struggles, Suzette was known for her resilience and her strong will. She lived a modest life, but it was filled with challenges that she faced head-on. Her decision to speak out against her attackers, despite the societal stigma associated with being a rape survivor, was a testament to her courage and strength.
After the incident, Suzette faced immense social and psychological pressure. The media frenzy surrounding the case made her life difficult, as she was not just fighting for justice but also battling the intense scrutiny and victim-blaming from society.
While the media and police initially ensured an information blackout of the victim’s name, as is customary in India. In June 2013, one year after the incident occurred, she chose to publicly disclose her identity as a 37-year-old mother of two by participating in street protests against a series of rapes that had occurred in Bengal. She took this brave step to encourage other survivors to speak out. In her own words, Jordan stated to BBC in an interview, “Why should I hide my identity when it was not even my fault? The rapists should hide their face instead. Why should I be ashamed of something that I did not give rise to? I was subjected to brutality, I was subjected to torture, and I was subjected to rape, and I am fighting and I will fight. “
At the time of her death, three of the five men accused of raping Jordan inside a moving car had been arrested and were on trial, although they denied the charges. The remaining two, including the main suspect, had not been arrested. The names of the accused were Mohommad Ali and Kader Khan (who was then the boyfriend of Nusrat Jahan) who were absconding, and Nasir Khan, Ruman Khan (also known as Ruman Khan alias Tussi), and Sumit Bajaj who were in custody.
Legal Proceedings of the Park Street Rape Case
Filing of the FIR: Suzette’s first step towards justice was filing a First Information Report (FIR) with the Kolkata Police. Despite the initial reluctance from the authorities, her insistence led to the registration of the case, and an investigation was launched. The FIR detailed the events of that fateful night, providing crucial evidence that would later play a significant role in the trial.
Victim’s Testimony: Suzette Jordan testified against the three arrested accused during her lifetime. After Kader Khan’s arrest in 2016, the prosecution sought to use her earlier testimonies as evidence against him and another absconding accused, Md Ali Khan. The trial court initially allowed the use of Jordan’s in-camera statement and other testimonies as evidence in the new trial.
History of High-Profile Accused: One of the prime accused in the Park Street Rape Case was Kadir Khan, who was then the boyfriend of Bengali television star Nusrat Jahan. Nusrat Jahan later became a prominent public figure, serving as a Member of Parliament from Basirhat. Kadir Khan managed to evade capture for several years, but he was eventually apprehended by the West Bengal Police from a hideout in Noida in 2016, five years after the crime. As of 2020, Kadir Khan remains in prison.
Arrest of the Other Accused: The three accused Naser Khan, Ruman Khan, and Sumit Bajaj were arrested shortly after the incident in February 2012. These arrests were a crucial step in bringing some of the perpetrators to justice, although the delayed apprehension of Kadir Khan and Muhammad Ali, who were also involved, pointed to the challenges faced by law enforcement in tracking down all the suspects.
Arrest of the Prime Accused: Four years after the incident, on September 30, 2016, the prime accused, Kadir Khan, and another suspect, Muhammad Ali, were finally arrested in Noida, Ghaziabad. Their capture marked a significant moment in the case, as they had managed to evade the law for an extended period. Both were brought back to Kolkata and produced before the court, ensuring that all those involved in the crime faced the legal consequences of their actions.
Conviction and Sentencing: The police investigation led to the arrest of five men who were identified as the perpetrators. The trial that followed was lengthy and fraught with challenges. The defence attempted to discredit Suzette, while the prosecution fought to bring the perpetrators to justice. The case saw numerous twists and turns, with delays and legal hurdles making the path to justice a difficult one.
Session Court Decision: Convictions in the Park Street Case
During the trial, the prosecution presented 45 witnesses, including the victim who had originally filed the complaint. However, the prosecution did not file an application under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to request that the evidence collected during the trial be used against the accused who were still on the run.
The judge in the sessions court (Trial Court) who presided over the trial and delivered the verdict was Chandrima Bhattacharya. She convicted the three accused in 2015 and later allowed the victim’s testimony to be used in the trial against the remaining absconding accused. On December 10, 2015, the City Sessions Court in Kolkata found all five accused guilty. The charges under which they were convicted included:
120(B) – Criminal Conspiracy: This charge was applied because the group of men had planned and executed the crime together, showcasing their intent and collective agreement to commit the heinous act.
506 – Criminal Intimidation: The accused were found guilty of using threats and intimidation to force Suzette Jordan into submission during the crime.
323 – Voluntarily Causing Hurt: This section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to the physical violence inflicted upon Jordan, which added to the severity of the charges against the accused.
34 – Common Intention: This charge was applied because the accused acted with a shared intention to commit the crime, making each of them equally responsible for the actions of the others.
376(2)(g) – Gang Rape: This section was the most critical in the conviction, as it directly addressed the sexual violence that Suzette Jordan was subjected to by the group.
Sentencing of the Accused: The three accused who were in custody—Naser Khan, Ruman Khan, and Sumit Bajaj—were sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment under the charges mentioned above. The judgment was seen as a partial victory, but the lengthy process and the relatively lenient sentences left many feeling that justice had not been fully served. The case continued to evoke strong emotions and discussions about the adequacy of the legal system in handling such crimes.
This sentencing came just months after Suzette Jordan tragically passed away from encephalitis, a severe brain infection, in 2015. Her death added a poignant note to the case, as she did not live to see the final justice being served. Jordan passed away before Ruman Khan, Naser Khan, and Sumit Bajaj were found guilty of their crimes.
Release of Sumit Bajaj: In mid-June 2020, one of the accused, Sumit Bajaj, was released from prison 20 months before the end of his sentence. His early release was granted on the grounds of ‘good behavior,’ a decision that sparked some controversy and debate regarding the justice system’s handling of such serious crimes.
He said in one interview, “I want to keep only the sleeping schedule and leave everything else behind. I plan to go to bed at 10:30 pm and wake up at 6 am for the rest of my life”.
Calcutta High Court Decision on Park Street Rape Case
On August 25, 2023, the Calcutta High Court ruled that Suzette Jordan’s testimonies could not be used against Kader Khan. The High Court referenced Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which does not allow the use of evidence against an accused who was not present during the original trial. The Calcutta High Court ruling on the admissibility of the victim’s testimony against Kader Khan was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak. This bench ruled that the victim’s statement could not be used against Kader Khan because his lawyer was not given the opportunity to cross-examine her.
The bench, led by Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak, stated: “The case reminds me of an age-old adage: To close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Caught between absconding accused and the unfortunate death of a rape victim, the prosecution belatedly sought to have the victim’s statement used in the trial of the absconding accused after his arrest.”
The High Court decided that the victim’s statement, recorded during the trial of the other accused while Kadir was still absconding, could have been used against him if the public prosecutor had filed a separate application to treat it as evidence for the absconding accused when they were eventually caught. However, since no such application was filed, the court accepted Kadir’s petition.
Mukherjee stated, “Victims’ right to justice under Article 21 stands on a higher pedestal than the right of absconding accused, and such right cannot be erased because of mistakes on the part of the prosecutor in the trial court.”
Legal Provisions and Criticism by High Court:
- The High Court emphasized that the prosecution should have recorded evidence against all accused, including absconders, during the initial trial.
- The court pointed out that Indian laws, considered archaic, do not permit “trial in absentia,” unlike laws in countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, and Bangladesh.
Call for Legal Reforms by High Court:
- The High Court urged the Indian government to consider amending the CrPC to allow for trials in absentia under certain conditions, particularly to prevent the loss of crucial evidence in sexual violence cases.
- The court directed its registrar general to send a copy of the judgment to the principal secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider these amendments.
Significance: The decision highlights the need for legal reforms in India to better balance the rights of the accused and the protection of victims’ rights, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual violence.
Controversies and Challenges in Park Street Rape Case
Political and Media Reactions: The Park Street Rape Case became highly politicized, with various politicians making controversial statements that further complicated the case. The media’s coverage was intense, often sensationalizing the incident and focusing on the victim’s character rather than the crime itself. These factors created additional challenges for Suzette and her family as they went through the legal process.
Legal and Societal Challenges: The case also highlighted the significant legal and societal challenges that victims of sexual violence face in India. From the initial reluctance of the police to register the FIR to the societal stigma attached to the victim, Suzette had to battle on multiple fronts. The trial was marked by delays, and the defence’s attempts to malign Suzette’s character were indicative of the broader issues within the legal system.
Impact of the Park Street Rape Case on Indian Society
Changes in Legal Procedures: The Park Street Rape Case played a crucial role in highlighting the need for reforms in the legal and judicial processes related to sexual crimes. It exposed the gaps in the system, leading to discussions about the need for more victim-friendly procedures and faster trials in such cases. The case contributed to the broader movement for legal reforms aimed at better protecting women and ensuring swifter justice.
Awareness and Activism: Suzette Jordan’s courage inspired a wave of activism and awareness about sexual violence in India. Her decision to speak out, despite the societal pressures, resonated with many and helped break the silence surrounding such issues. The case also played a role in the larger movement against sexual violence that gained momentum in the wake of the 2012 Delhi gang rape.
Women’s Rights and Social Activism by Suzette Jordan
Suzette Jordan became a dedicated women’s rights activist after the Park Street Rape Case. She briefly worked as a counsellor for a helpline that supported victims of sexual and domestic violence. Jordan was outspoken against the humiliation and discrimination that victims often face. For instance, she publicly condemned the incident when she was denied entry into a Kolkata restaurant because of her identity as a rape survivor.
She used various platforms to raise awareness about these issues. Jordan appeared on the talk show Satyamev Jayate, hosted by actor Aamir Khan, where she shared her experiences and advocated for victim rights. Additionally, she utilized social media, particularly Facebook, to highlight and challenge societal injustices.
Family Life and Death: Suzette Jordan was a mother to two daughters. Sadly, on March 13, 2015, she passed away at the age of 40 due to meningoencephalitis, a serious infection that affects the brain. Her death was a significant loss to her family and the activist community.
What Park Street Rape Case Taught India About Handling Sexual Assault Cases
The Park Street Rape Case highlighted several critical lessons for India in handling sexual assault cases. It underscored the importance of believing survivors and ensuring they receive timely justice. The case also exposed the need for systemic changes within law enforcement and the legal system to better support victims of sexual violence.
Important Developments in the Park Street Rape Case:
Trial Commencement: Delays and Controversies: The trial for the Park Street rape case faced delays and began later than usual, starting on March 2, 2012. The high-profile nature of the case, involving prominent male figures, contributed to these delays. During this period, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee publicly dismissed the victim’s claims as false and was criticized for allegedly attempting to shield the accused.
Damayanti Sen’s Transfer: On April 4, 2012, Damayanti Sen, an IPS officer who was instrumental in cracking the case as Kolkata Police’s Joint Commissioner (Crime), was abruptly transferred to Barrackpore as DIG (Training). Her transfer was widely seen as a punitive action, raising concerns about the treatment of officers who diligently pursue justice in sensitive cases.
Importance of Fast Track Court in Framing of Charges: On February 19, 2013, a fast-track court in Kolkata formally framed charges of gang rape, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy against the three accused. This move marked a significant step in the legal process, ensuring that the case would proceed swiftly through the courts.
Lessons Learned from the Park Street Rape Case
The Park Street Rape Case taught India the importance of a victim-centred approach in handling sexual assault cases. It emphasized the need for:
Empathy and Support: Law enforcement agencies must handle such cases with empathy, ensuring that victims are supported rather than doubted or blamed by police men’s, politicians and media.
Prompt and Fair Investigations: The case highlighted the importance of conducting prompt and unbiased investigations to bring perpetrators to justice.
Protection for Whistleblowers and police officers: The transfer of Damayanti Sen underscored the need for protecting officers who act in the public interest, ensuring they are not punished for doing their duty.
Judicial Efficiency: The swift framing of charges by the fast-track court demonstrated the necessity of expedited legal processes in sexual assault cases to deliver timely justice.
Regulating Media Influence on Legal Cases: Media trials can profoundly impact legal cases by shaping public perception and influencing the judicial process. Extensive media coverage can lead to heightened public pressure on the court, sometimes resulting in biased views and unfair treatment of the involved parties. This can affect the impartiality of the trial, create a media-driven narrative that overshadows factual evidence, and result in undue stress for victims, defendants, and their families. Maintaining media discretion is essential to ensure fair trials and uphold justice.
These lessons continue to influence how sexual assault cases are handled in India, pushing for reforms that prioritize the rights and dignity of survivors.
The Park Street Rape Case remains a significant chapter in India’s legal history. It exposed the deep-rooted issues of sexual violence, societal stigma, and the challenges within the legal system. Suzette Jordan’s bravery and resilience turned her from a victim into a symbol of strength for many women in India. While the case highlighted the need for continued reforms and better support for victims, it also served as a reminder of the importance of standing up for justice, no matter the obstacles.
