CHILDLINE INDIA FOUNDATIONS AND Anrs vs ALAN JOHN  WATERS AND Ors.

CITATION               2011 SCC ONLINE SC 504

DATE OF JUDGEMENT      18TH March 2011

COURT                 Supreme Court Of India

APPELLANT              Childline India Foundation

RESPONDENT             Allan John Waters and others

BENCH                  P.Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

INTRODUCTION

Childline India Foundation v. Allan John Water is a watershed moment in India’s legal history, posing a dramatic shift in the protection of children’s rights. The case arose from serious allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation of children at Mumbai’s Anchorage Shelters. 

The courage of child rights organizations such as Childline, Saathi, Online CR, who brought these heinous actions to light resulted in the Bombay High Court forming a special committee to probe the problem. This case underscores the critical role of vigilant civil society and justice in protecting the vulnerable. The subsequent legal battle, which reached the Supreme Court, not only resulted in convictions for the culprits, but also established a significant precedent for child protection India. It highlighted the systemic failure in the care of vulnerable children and emphasized the need for stringent measures to prevent such heinous crimes.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by children in our society and the critical role of law and justice in ensuring their safety and well-being.                                                       

1. FACTS OF THE CASE
   The legal proceedings of the Childline India Foundation and Anrs vs Alan John Waters and Ors case were complex and involved multiple court rulings. A petition was filled by the Bombay High Court over the suffering of children in various children’s homes around Maharashtra State Monitoring Committee on Juvenile Justice. The High Court appointed the Maharashtra State Monitoring. 
2. This unconfirmed claim stated that minors were sexually exploited on October 17, 2001. Some of the youngsters who lived in these shelter homes were sexually exploited by the people who ran them. Such information was provided to Advocate Ms Maharukh Adenwala. He met the guys and discovered the truth. He then told the Committee about it. 
   He spoke with the committee and filed a suo moto criminal writ petition in the High Court. After a cursory review of the facts, the High Court issued an order to protect the children at Anchorage Shelter Homes. Later, Ms. Maharuk Adenwala discovered that the High Court’s decision was being misconstrued by the police. As a result, the High Court’s Order requires certain clarification.
3. The Childline India Foundation filed a complaint with the Cuffe Parade police station on October 24, 2001. Ms. Maharukh Adenwala was also present when the complaint was lodged. The police did not take any action because the matter was pending before the High Court. Dr. (Mrs.) Kalindi Muzumdar and Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Bajpai visited with the victims at the India Centre for Human Rights and Law office and confirmed that Ms. Maharukh Adenwala’s previously recorded comments were correct. These statements were brought before the High Court. The High Court, in its joint judgement on July 23, 2008, struck aside the order of conviction imposed by the Sessions Judge, granted the criminal appeals brought by A1, A2, and A3, and acquitted all of them .
4. The police submitted a charge sheet, and the defendants were charged under sections 377, 373, 372, and 323 IPC, as well as sections 120-B and 109 IPC and Section 23 of the JJ Act. The prosecution examined all six witnesses, including two victim boys (Sunil Suresh Kadam as PW-1 and Kranti Abraham Londhe as PW-4), Ms. Maharukh Adenwala as PW-2, Ms. Kalindi Muzumdar as PW-3, and two Investigation Officers (PWs 5 and 6). The defence examined two witnesses: Kiran Waman Salve as DW-1 and Rasul Mohd Sheikh as DW2.
5. These guys lived in the Anchorage Shelters in Mumbai. These victims described in detail what was going on at the shelters. This showed a criminal conspiracy on the part of the accused, who obtained hold of the juvenile street boys and subjected them to sexual abuse. There were three accused: A1 – William D’souza, A2 – Allan John Waters, and A3 – Duncan Alexander Grant. The trial court condemned them to six years in prison and 20,000 UK pounds in compensation

.

ISSUES RAISED

1. whether the impugned order passed by the High Court can be upheld ?
2. whether the acquittal of the three respondents is valid and can be valid ?
     

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. On October 19, 2001, the High Court issued an order for the
   protection of children at Anchorage Shelter Homes. However, the police officers misinterpreted the directive. So, Ms Maharukh Adenwala informed the court that the order of the High Court was being misread by the police, so the High Court provided clarifications. 
2. The appellants challenged the impugned ruling rendered by the High Court whether the acquittal of the 3 is for consideration.
3. The session’s courts clearly scrutinized the evidence and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a heavy fine of £20,000. However, the same ruling of the Sessions Court was not considered by the High Court due to a lack of evidence, resulting in the acquittal of the three accused. Should the High Court’s order be considered?
4. A significant argument was presented by experienced senior counsel for the accused, arguing that even if the allegations/statements of prosecution witnesses are credible, they would not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. An appeal to the Sessions Judge resulted in no relief for the accused, thus a revision was filed with the High Court, which overturned the conviction and punishment.
2. The High Court’s principal reason for ordering acquittal was a lack of corroboration.
3. The accused’s learned senior counsel contended that, other from the testimony of two witnesses, no other boys who resided with them at the shelter homes have made any corroborative statements. First and foremost, there is no need to explore further victims of a similar sort. As a result, the witnesses’ statements are not to be considered.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court followed the constitutional precepts for children. The Constitution guarantees a happy and healthy upbringing, free of all horrendous crimes and carnal abuse. Article 15(3) has special protections for women and children.

This Court has issued detailed guidelines or can say rules on this matter. The Directive Principles of State Policy assimilated in the Indian Constitution provide a policy of child protection with a self-imposed direction towards securing the health and strength of workers, particularly to ensure that children of tender age are not exploited or obligated by economic necessity to enter into vocations unsuited to their strength.

Correspondingly,, the High Court’s challenged judgement acquitting all of the accused of the accusations made against them is reversed, and the Supreme Court in contrast, while confirming their conviction, Allan John Waters was sentenced to 6 years in jail under Section 377 IPC, and the Supreme Court ordered them to complete the remainder of their sentence instates the trial Judge’s conviction and sentence.

The trial Judge is directed to take proper actions to serve the remaining term and pay the reparation sum. The trial Court’s directives for disbursement and other modalities must be followed.

The Juvenile Justice Act was created to ensure the care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, acquitting all of the accused. This decision has been overturned. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s decision to convicted. Respondents had been in detention for approximately 5 years prior to this point. The Supreme Court further clarified that there is no need for additional imprisonment.

ANALYSIS

In this instance the Supreme Court’s ruling to sustain the convictions of  those charged with sexually assaulting juveniles under their custody represented a major advancement in understanding the vulnerability of the adolescents and seriousness of such acts. The idea that corroboration is not always necessary in situations of child sexual abuse was at the heart of court’s decision. By deviating from the conventional evidence standard, the court demonstrated its appreciation of the particular difficulties experienced by young victims who frequently find it difficult to report abuse because of intimidation, fear, or a sense of allegiance to the offenders. The court validated the credibility of young victims and underscored the significance of establishing a conducive atmosphere for disclosure by prioritizing their evidence.     

Furthermore, the ruling highlighted the structural shortcomings that permitted such horrible crimes to occur within ostensibly safe spaces like shelter homes. It served as a wakeup call for the authorities to implement stringent measures to prevent child exploitation and to guarantee the security and welfare of kids in foster care. The example demonstrated the importance of complete child protection procedures, which should include thorough training and screening of cares, ongoing institutional monitoring, and an easily accessible reporting system. 

In nutshell, this case marks a significant win for India’s child rights movement by emphasizing the importance of child-friendly legal procedures, the presumptions of truthfulness in child testimonies, and the accountability of perpetrators. The case continues to shape the legal and policy landscape surrounding child protection in India         

CONCLUSION

Children are highly sensitive section of the society be it in any nation making sure their well being is a paramount importance for the nation as well as world at large as they are our future and would further form the society .Children who are exposed to abuse  inculcate huge trust issues for further life including children who have directly or indirectly experienced domestic violence ( directly to them or their parents ).There are laws regarding protection of children in Indian law but still a lot of new provisions are still needed as the new era comes with new problems and threat to society . Parents have a huge role to play in safeguarding their children as they are more vulnerable to abuse by their near and dear ones.

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1052165 
3. https://canosphere.com/archive/childline-india-foundation-anr-v-allan-john-water-and-others/:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20passed%20the,custody%20around%205%20years .

This Article is written by Komal Mishra student of Uttaranchal University, Law College, Dehradun; Intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.