Telangana High Court Sustains Rape Abettor's Detention As 'Sexual Offender'; Says It Caused Panic Among Women Folk, Disturbed Public Order

The Telangana High Court has upheld the detention order of an accomplice to rape of a 60-year-old woman, owing to the disturbing impact it had on public order, especially amongst women.

“..The detenu and his associate committed the offence of rape on the victim in broad day light and thus resulted in creation of fear and panic in the minds of general public, particularly women folk. The daring act of the detenu in a broad day light, in our opinion, affected ‘public order’ and not merely ‘law and order’. The said act, certainly, caused terror and panic among the women folk. The act in question adversely affected the even tempo of life of the women community and caused a general disturbance of public tranquillity.”

While passing the order, the Division Bench of Justices K. Lakshman and K. Sujana was hearing a habeas corpus petition seeking production of the detenu by setting aside the detention order passed against him under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), under the category of ‘sexual offenders’.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the detention order was passed without application of mind, as the detenu did not fall under the category of ‘sexual offender’ as defined by the Act. It was further argued that the apprehension of the detaining authority that detenu could commit similar crimes was not well found.

The detenu, along with other accused, was alleged to have stolen an auto-rickshaw. Under the false promise of dropping a 60-year-old woman to her destination, one of the accused had raped her, while the detenu held her hands. The woman's gold jewellery was also taken along with the money she was carrying.

As such, the petitioner's counsel had further contended that the role of the detenu was not assessed in an apt manner by the detaining authority. It was also urged that the detention order was passed w.r.t. a solitary crime, which was illegal.

The Bench discarded the argument turning on interpretation of 'sexual offender', holding that a plain reading of 'sexual offender' as defined under Section 2(v) of the Act would make it evident that any person who abets the offence falls under the category.

It was added that it was not illegal to pass a detention order based on solitary crime, as the authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu's acts disrupted public order.

“It is not in dispute that the detaining authority can pass detention order relying on solitary crime. At the same time, the detaining authority shall consider the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed. He has to consider the entire material on record and come to a subjective satisfaction while issuing detention order. The detaining authority shall consider distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ and disturbance to the public order due to the acts committed by detenu.”

The court opined that the object of the Act is not merely to punish a culprit, but also to intercept him before the act is committed again. It was observed that the detenu was in a position to commit such heinous acts again if he was not detained.

Dismissing the petition, the court reiterated that rape not only destroys the body of a woman, but also her emotional well-being. It instils fear amongst women, more so women who are employed.

“Rape is not merely a physical assault; it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of the victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, thus, such acts create large-scale fear, panic and a feeling of insecurity among the women folk, particularly, women employees and the general public and have the potential to disturb public order leaving the large section of people under the grip of fear and trauma. It is also mentioned that the detenu after release on bail, there is an imminent possibility of resorting to committing similar heinous offences on women folk, which would be detrimental to public order and would create fear in the minds of women folk. In the present case, the victim woman is 60 years old and Government Teacher. The detenu and his associate did not even consider the age of the victim. It is a heinous crime.”

Counsel for petitioner: R Sowmya Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Special Govt. Pleader Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni on behalf of Addl. Advocate General

Case No.: W.P. 25767/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order