Who used Who? Chinmayananda Rape Case

BOTH USED EACH OTHER: SWAMI CHINMAYANAND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

The Allahabad High Court has made certain unusual observations in the sexual exploitation case against Swami Chinmayanand in the order granting bail to former Union Minister and BJP leader.Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, who passed the bail order, said that"both used each other". 

The judge observed that the family members of the law student, who had raised the complaint, were being benefited out of the“solipsistic behavior ”of the accused Chinmayanand during the period of alleged exploitation. Further, it was noticed that even during the period of the “alleged atrocities”, the student had not made any complaint or "whisper" to her family members against the accused. From this, the Court concluded that there was mutual benefit a.k.a. “quid pro quo” and that the same was a result of conspiracy hatched with the "greed" to extract more. The judge went on to say that the student along with her “accomplices” seemed to haveadvanced for “hatching a conspiracy” against the applicant and tried to blackmail him for ransom, through the“obscenic video clips” recorded by her.

The complainant law student,who is pursuing her post-graduation in one of the colleges run by the Mumukshu ashram, is facing a case of extortion on the allegation that she had attempted to blackmail Chinmayanand using the recorded visuals of the sexual encounters she had with him by using a spy camera. She was under custody in that case, and was granted bail by the High Court in December.

Justice Chaturvedi observes that it was “mind boggling” “disturbing” that the student had sought the "patronage" and "benevolence" of Chinmayanand and was "sharing private moments with him"and had got"material benefits" from the accused and after that stayed mum for 9-10 months. On the other hand, during those dark periods, on her own, purchased aspy-camera fitted goggles, from which she shot nude pictures and recorded videos of the accused, which were used by her in demanding the ransom money from the accused applicant, after blackmailing her.

Reasons for granting bail as well, the Court observed:

"As pointed out earlier, that both the parties crossed their limits and at this stage it is very difficult to adjudicate as to who exploited whom? In fact, both of them used each other". 

The Court said that since the charge-sheet has already been filed by the police, there were lesser probabilities of tampering with evidence. Also, Chinmayanand is72 years old, suffering from old age ailments, observed the Court.

In this case, the Police has invoked Section 376C of Indian Penal Code, which is not the offence of rape but the offence of 'sexual intercourse by a person in authority'. The order stated that this offence is distinct from 'rape' under Section 376, and is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of five years, which can extend up to ten years.

Chinmayanand was arrested by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT)on September 30, 2019, and has been under custody ever since. The Courts are not supposed to make observations on the merits of the criminal case while deciding a bail application, as settled by the Supreme Court in several precedents.The judge adds at the end of the order that the trial court should not be swayed by the observations and said that the trial court "would apply its own judicial discretion and accused while adjudicating the trial of the instant case". 

The Court transferred the trial of both cases - sexual abuse case and extortion case - from Shajahanpur to Lucknow, considering that he is an "affluent giant robust personality of Shajahanpur".The girl was given bail last December by the HC.The court directed the UP Police to ensure the security and safety of the victim girl and said the trial of both cases must be taken up on priority through daily hearings and concluded within a year.

STORYLINE

Earlier, the FIR was lodged against him in November 2011, on the complaint of the girl, who had spent several years at his ashram. The girl had alleged that she was kept at an ashram in Haridwar and raped by the former minister. Her father had lodged an FIR against him at Kotwali police station in Shahjahanpur.

Later, in April 2018, Yogi Adityanath government in UP, withdrew the rape and kidnapping case against him. A letter in this regard had been sent to the district administration on behalf of the government, on March 6th. Thereafter, the Shahjahanpur administration, on March 9th, wrote to the prosecution officer of the case for its withdrawal. 

In Lucknow, the state government spokesman and cabinet minister Siddhartnath Singh told newspersons that though the government has taken a decision to withdraw the case, the matter will be finally be decided by the court.

Shahjahanpur Additional district magistrate, Sarvesh Dixit, said the state government had decided to withdraw the case filed against Chinmayananda in the Kotwali police station and the process for the same has been initiated by the prosecution officials.
On the other hand, the alleged rape victim has sent letters to the President, the Chief Justice of India, the UP governor, the chief minister and the district judge raising objections over the move, urging them for immediate issuance of a warrant against the accused. Further, she also said that Yogi Adityanath on a visit to Shahjahanpur, had a lunch at the house of the accused on February 25, 2018.

However, Chinmayananda moved the high court, which had stayed his arrest. The case had been pending since then.

On August 23rd, 2019, the girl had posted a video on social media, accusing Swami Chinamayanand of sexually harassing her. The girl went missing on August 24th. 

In a shocking twist, it was revealed that the girl was staying with the boy who purportedly demanded a ransom of 5 Crore rupees from the former Union Minister. A CCTV footage of the hotel in Delhi’s Dwarkaconfirmed the presence of the girl and the boy. Police also recovered an aadhaar card from the hotel. 

The student, allegedly the victim, was arrested in September, 2019, in a counter case of extortion and was sent to jail for 14 days, because she did not hand over her mobile phone to the SIT and she admitted being in a video that showed her discussing an extortion plot against the former minister with 3 friends. Video was made to ensure that none of the backed out on their word. 

The student and the three men were booked on charges of extortion, criminal intimidation, disappearance of evidence, a criminal act done with a criminal knowledge or intention and Section 67 of IT Act.