While fighting the case against rape, 1.7 million tamsuk!

Two years ago, she came to the Supreme Court to appeal on her own after going round and round for five years in Bara District Court and High Court Janakpur Temporary Bench Birganj, but did not get justice.

In the journey of judicial treatment, the police and the court have given him the code name 'Kalaiya 33 c 37'. She is currently 20 years old. She has been going to court continuously for seven years against the rapist, and from the beginning, she has faced unfair temptation and intimidation from the rapist. However, he did not waver from those threats.

After the case was registered in Bara District Court, his father, who was under pressure to settle the matter in the village, even performed a tamasuk. 1.7 lakh 68 thousand rupees has been added for the uncollected/unconsumed principal-interest despite doing Tamsuk. His mother and witnesses, who first filed a complaint with the police, weakened the case by changing their statements. The pain of suffering a heinous crime like rape has been embedded in his brain since childhood.

Another case was added to Baama of 'Kalaiya 33 c 37' due to the intense pressure to settle the case against rape. After not getting justice in this case from the High Court, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The perpetrators have not only caused suffering to the families who make a living by forgery, but the police and the courts have been sensitive and made judgments without investigation, the victims have been trapped in injustice and chains. When 'Kalaiya 33 c 37' was raped, her father and elder brother were working as wage earners in Kathmandu. Due to continuous intimidation, the insecurity of their daughter and wife increased and they left their wage jobs and returned home.

000

The painful judicial journey of 'Kalaiya 33 c 37' has started since 2073. On 073 Chait 13, the victim and his mother went to sleep after having dinner. Mother suddenly had stomach upset. Fearing that it might be dark at night, she sent her daughter to call the first lady of the village some distance away from the house. At that time it was 10 o'clock at night.

A daughter who left home to call her relatives was raped on the way. Seeing that she was alone, the principal of the local elementary school picked her up from the road and took her to the room of the shed where she was teaching and raped her. He was the principal of the school attended by girls. After the rape, he threatened that 'if you tell anyone, you will live alone at home, I will kill you and throw you away'. She escaped from there and came home crying. Mother told everything after questioning.

The day after the incident, the victim's mother went to the Bara District Police Office to lodge a complaint. She filed a complaint demanding punishment and compensation for the crime of forcible rape, saying that the sex-hungry man made his minor daughter the victim of his lust without even considering the dignity of the teacher. Complaint was not registered. Three days after the incident, his health was examined at the Kalaiya Hospital under police supervision. The police prepared a bond at the scene. After including these documents and four other witnesses, the statement was made again on 17th of Chait. The case was registered only on 21st of Chait.

Bara district police made an investigation at the scene of the incident. During the preparation of the bond, the victim said, 'The defendant saw me coming alone through his shed, suddenly came to the road, clamped my mouth shut, did not allow me to run, escape, cry or scream, and forced me into the room where he was teaching inside his shed. She made a statement.

Although it was discovered that the accused was teaching at the scene of the incident, it was mentioned in the bond that 'no evidence of the crime was found'. In this way, the case was weakly taken to the legal process from the beginning by starting a late health examination and investigation.

Based on the details prepared by the police, five months after the incident, a charge sheet was filed in Bara District Court on August 1, 1974. According to the medical examination, the charge sheet was filed that 'the victim's girl's net was torn' and 'the victim was raped under undue influence by forcefully intimidating her'.

"The fact that the crime was committed against the victim has been confirmed beyond doubt from the examination report that Prakriti Muchulka, the victim's daughter's net has been torn at the scene of the incident," the indictment says, "The fact that the defendant has been absconding until now while holding a dignified position like a teacher has been confirmed." The accused remained absconding from the next day.

Only 9 months after the rape, the statement in the court started. On January 6, 2007, the Bara District Court called the victim for the first time for the bankruptcy. She was 14 when she gave her statement. She was raped when she was 13 years old. The victim, while giving her statement for the first time in the court, repeated the same thing as when she gave her statement on bail. The accused was on the absconding list of the police.

After he absconded, the process of putting pressure on the victim was increasing. In the first court statement, after the victim stated the truth, while the accused was absconding, the son of the cousin of the accused organized a village society and put pressure on the father of the victim and made a cover for the transaction of 16 lakh 65 thousand rupees.

Tamsuk was cleverly made to settle the case in the village, and the victim's father was given tamsuk by paying the house expenses, medical treatment and small loan by the middle of January 074 at an interest rate of 100 hard and 10% interest. If the interest and interest of the loan could not be paid in one lump sum within the stipulated time, the property was collected from the farm in a shameful manner.

The perpetrators did this fraud to hide the rape case. If there is a need for expenses, does anyone ask for a loan from the victim? It was a trick to weaken the case," said a lawyer who has studied the case from the beginning to the present.

Two days after Tamsuk and five days after taking the victim girl's statement, on January 11, the court took the mother and grandmother's statement. Not only did they deny that the daughter was raped, but the daughter changed her initial complaint saying that she was seduced by others without knowing how to speak. The day after the statements of the victim's mother and grandmother were taken, the statements of two witnesses were taken. They also said that there was no coercion. The rape defendant is absconding after serving the term.

As the accused absconded, the Bara District Court ordered that the case against extortion be adjourned on 075 Asar 05 by withholding part of his case. By then, almost a year and a half had passed since the incident. The surprising thing is that on the same day that the portion was withheld and remanded, the son of the accused's cousin went to Bara District Court to file a transaction case against the victim's father.

He filed a lawsuit saying that he was wronged because he did not pay even though he had exceeded the agreed amount. In it, the claim was that the interest of 16 lakh 65 thousand 5 months and 27 days should be paid by the opponent to 17 lakh 46 thousand 862 rupees and 17 lakh 46 thousand 862 rupees from the date of filing the case till the filing of the case. The father of the rape victim, who is the defendant in the

transaction, sent his reply on 075 October 25 through Wares. In this, he replied that he was tamsuk because the accused party had filed a complaint against his daughter for raping him and the village lords had pressured him by saying, 'We will settle the indecent treatment of your daughter in the village, both of you must accept our decision, if you don't accept it, then we will pay a fine of 16 lakh 65 thousand'.

After this Tamsuk was put in charge of a villager. Later, when the father of the victim asked for tamsuk, he replied that 'I have torn the paper, you will not get anything from that paper'. A case was filed on the basis of the Tamsuk that was said to have been destroyed.

However, the victim's father admitted that he made tamsuk to settle the rape of his daughter even though there was no transaction in return, and one of the two witnesses of the plaintiff in the transaction case testified that the victim's father had taken a loan to pay tamsuk, on 075 Jan 20, the Bara District Court ruled that the victim's cousin's son can collect the transaction. done

The father of the victim filed an appeal against this decision in High Court Janakpur, Temporary Bench Birganj on 075 Chait. It was demanded that both those who write Tamsuk and those who sit as witnesses should be asked to testify. Although the High Court issued a seven-day notice to all the mentioned three persons, they did not appear. Ignoring their non-appearance and failing to submit evidence that the appellant was subjected to torture and tamsuk, his plea was not reached, on 25 October 2017, the bench of Judges Ramesh Kumar Pokharel and Ganesh Prasad Baral of the High Court upheld the decision of the court.

After this, the rape accused, who had been absconding for four years, suddenly presented himself in Bara District Court. Bara District Court opened the case on December 12, 2017, after the two-year period of remand was over.

He gave a statement in court on 24th of November 077. He said that he is a permanent teacher and that his cousin's son (who filed a transaction case against the victim's father on the basis of Tamsuk) and Zaherwala had different political beliefs so that he was accused of rape with the intention of framing him. He was released on 250,000 bail at that time. In other words, he did not have to spend a single day in jail.

On 6th January 2077, the witness of the accused was brought to the court for a deposition. The witness testified that he should be acquitted, claiming innocence, as Kitani Jahari was filed to trap the accused due to political differences. A single bench of Judge Prakash Prasad Pandit in Bara District Court on 26th January 2077 acquitted the accused, saying that the mere fact that the girl's net was torn during the physical examination does not suffice to claim rape. After the accused was acquitted, the victim filed an appeal in the High Court Janakpur within 70 days on 077 February.

The teacher accused of rape did not come to school even a day after the incident. He immediately went to school to attend in 077 Chait. The school principal at that time took the stand that he could not allow him to attend because a case of a heinous crime was going on. The accused teacher appeared in the guise of the then chief administrator.

'Twice I sent a reply saying no, later they called me to the municipality and gave me so much trouble, pressured me that I had to appear from Chait 9,' he said, 'They gave me my salary till October 078.'' "He was absconding before I came here, I was on maternity leave, what happened then, he got his salary," she added, "After I wrote a letter to the Education Department, the education department sent a letter asking to proceed with the investigation, but the salary and attendance have been stopped. .' Even though there was no

transaction, on the contrary, on the basis of Tamsuk, the district and high court's decision to recover 17 lakh 68 thousand rupees was flawed, so the victim appealed to the Supreme Court on 29th of Chait 29, 2017, saying that the case should be re-examined. He demanded to file a transaction case in the case of coercion. The decision of the High Court of Janakpur, which upheld the original decision, was contrary to the precedents established by him.

District and higher, saying that "the decision-making points taken at the time of the decision were seriously flawed in principle, so let's see it again" after reaching the age of 18, the victim appealed to the Supreme Court on December 8, 2007 The witnesses stated in the district court that "when the papers were produced, the police could not say that they were forcibly arrested and given the papers."

She has said in the appeal, 'If the complainant's mother also establishes facts different from those in the complaint, and makes a statement in the court, the paper of my opportunity and the statement made by me in the court cannot be broken.' His demand is that the verdict contradicts the principles of the previously established views. The Education Branch of Baragadhi Rural Municipality has informed that since the appearance of the accused teacher has been stopped since the appearance of the accused teacher has been acquitted by the District Court and the High Court, he has applied to get his salary. "The District Court and the High Court have handed over the verdict of acquittal, they have submitted a request to receive withholding salary," Education Branch Officer Jalmeet Choudhary said, "The teacher who is supposed to go to school has been absconding for four years, now how will the salary be paid?"

The current president also confirmed that he has been demanding salary for the four years he was on the run. 'Where did he go without appearing from March 2073 to March 2077?', he said, 'If he has been missing for four years without being in jail or for any other reason, then he will be prosecuted!' Based on the evidence given by the victim based on the missiles, he said that he will demand justice on behalf of the victim. 'The commandment of the court must go to the upper court, "he said," He said, "He said," He said. In view of rape issue, lawmaker on consideration issues, the government had promoting the wrongdoing of the victim from being humiliated. The government has not been able to preserve and support the victim, taking a mistake to the wrongdoing of the heavy crime as a deceased, "she said.

was accused of rape was suspended due to a suspension due to political differences. 1.6 million rupees said that they were not aware of whether they were tamsuk or not. 'Knowing the Father's brothers, they have gone out,' he said. He admitted that the value of the Supreme, he did not know about the practitioner. Although the victim's father did not carry tabura pressure, he did not use any wrongdoing in a person to run the household.