Where Paedophiles Fear No Punishment
by Nishtha Desai
On 31 January this year suspected paedophile Brinkmann Helmut, must have
rejoiced the High Court's decision to reject a special leave application to
prosecute him. He is a free man -- able to walk in front of the precincts of the
High Court, if he so desires, without anyone being able to question him
about his activities with one young Indian boy, who had testified that this man
had sexual relations with him. Paedophiles the world over will no doubt
think Goa to be a 'cool place', a place where one can occupy hotel rooms with
dark skinned children, with no questions asked. Last year on 6 February
Brinkmann Helmut was found guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge of
Sections 373 and 377; that is of hiring a minor with the intent of using him for
illicit or immoral purposes and for committing unnatural sexual offences, and
was awarded six years rigorous imprisonment. However, on 29 September he was
acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge in spite of evidence such as
the presence of spermatozoa in the anus of the accused and of the young boy, and
the child's testimony stating that the accused had sexual relations with him
(See Weekender: 5 December 1999).
Ever since the judgement of the Additional
Sessions Judge was delivered, concerned individuals and non-government
organisations have been urging the state to ensure that the charges against
Helmut be examined thoroughly. Representatives of the state responded, saying
that an appeal would certainly be filed in the High Court. In October the
Children's Rights in Goa urged the state to take prompt and appropriate action
in this matter. On the occasion of Human Rights' Day on 10 December concerned
citizens, lawyers and representatives of NGOs gathered to discus the issue of
child sexual abuse particularly focussing on the case of Helmut. However,
one is unable to comprehend the inability of the state to provide any
information about this case when concerned individuals and the Children's Rights
in Goa sought information on this case. Every attempt to get information from
the state regarding the status of the Helmut case has been an exercise in
futility. While the Director of Prosecution was able to inform this writer that
the process of making a special leave application in the High Court had been
started, repeated inquiries about the status of the case, made with the police,
who are complainants in this case, yielded no information. It is a telling
comment that when this writer asked for information in writing regarding the
case of Mr Helmut on 6 January, she received a letter from the police
dated 1 February 2000, a day after the High Court had rejected the case, stating
that the case had been admitted to the High Court but had not yet come up for
hearing! One is perplexed at the way in which this case has been conducted. The
prosecution collected the certified copy of the judgement on 7 October. The
period for filing an appeal expired on 5 January 2000. However, it was only on
10 January that the state made an application in the High Court of Bombay at Goa
seeking leave to challenge the acquittal judgement and order of the additional
sessions judge. Who is responsible for this delay?
Further, the Public Prosecutor 'kindly informed' the judges that Mr Helmut was not in Goa and has 'probably' left the country. In view of this the High Court denied special leave to the prosecution 'as it would be virtually impossible to serve the notice on him outside the country' nor would it be possible to make the accused come back to serve the notice. How did the Public Prosecutor deduce that Mr Helmut was not in Goa? Was any attempt made to trace his whereabouts. It appears as though no attempt was made by the state to monitor the movements of Mr Helmut so that they failed to produce him before the court. When this writer met the Public Prosecutor she was told that his passport was with the police. If that is the case is it so easy to obtain false documents and leave the country. Moreover, how can one be sure that the accused is not sunbathing in Arambol or Varca and guffawing at the ease with which he has gained his liberty? The statement made in the High Court ruling that it would not be possible to serve the notice if he has left the country is a cause for concern. In a case like this, where the charges against the accused are of such a serious nature can't the notice be served through an agency like the Interpol? If tomorrow a top industrialist of the country is murdered would there be no attempt to trace the suspects and produce them before the court? One gets the feeling that because the victims in cases like these are voiceless, attempts to bring the guilty to book are marked by tardiness and an apparent lack of concern.
Non-government organisations have submitted a letter to the Chief Minister, the
Director General of Police , the Chief Secretary and otrher government officials
asking for answers to the following questions:
1) Who is responsible for the delay in filing the application for special leave
before the High Court?
2) Why the movements of Mr Helmut were not monitored?
3) On what basis has the Public Prosecutor stated that the accused 'is not
in Goa' and 'has probably' left the country.
4) What were the efforts made to trace the whereabouts of the accused ?
5) Why the prosecution did not make any plea for time to trace the accused?
Meanwhile, two alleged associates of the
notorious Freddy Peats await trial -- Dominic Sabire and Eoghan McBride. Dominic
Sabire is out on bail. One hopes that the state will ensure that he is produced
before the court and does not flee the country. It is upto the state to ensure
that there is no negligence in expediting these cases. If not, the result can
only be a cynical citizenry.
Address: Children's Rights in Goa, F -5 Meera Bldg, Near Gomantak Bhavan, St Inez, Goa,
403001, India
Tel: 91-832-2426518/2420141
EMail: mailto:crg@goatelecom.com