The acquittal of Britons Duncan Grant and Allan Waters rests largely on the fact that the Bombay High Court held the testimony of the two alleged victims to be “unreliable”.
The testimony of the two boys (name withheld) that Grant and Waters had indulged in oral sex with them in the Anchorage shelter on several occasions was considered the strongest evidence against the accused. But the HC disbelieved the boys saying they were not confined to the home and it was “unnatural” that they had not complained to anybody despite being abused for a long time.
The shelter had a large room, where Grant and Waters slept on cots and 40-50 children slept on the floor. “It becomes highly improbable that in the presence of so many children, the accused would have used some of the children sexually without the knowledge of the others,” the judges said. “At least one of the inmates could be expected to complain or to inform anybody because all the inmates were leaving the Anchorage in the morning for work and returning in the evening.
“Most allegations of sexual abuse made in court (by the boys) had not been made at the first instance before the police,” read the judgment. The defence lawyers had pointed out to the court omissions in the two witnesses’ statements to the police and subsequent improvements when they deposed in court. For instance, Grant and Waters asked the boys to perform fellatio on them and vice versa on 10 to 15 occasions. But it was not mentioned before the police. “There are omissions, which if taken out of his statement then perhaps there may not be any evidence to convict the accused on his testimony.”
Why the prosecution failedPolice examined nine witnesses but only two were produced in court. Six other boys, who according to the prosecution were victims, were not.
During investigation, the police did have direct access to the witnesses. Witnesses were brought before the police by Kalindi Mazumdar (member of State Monitoring Committee).
Statements of the witnesses recorded in a guest house where rooms were booked by Allen Denning, who the defence claimed was interested in taking control of Anchorage along with Shridhar Nayak. It appears that the real investigation was being conducted by advocate Mahruk Adenwala and not by the investigating agency.
It becomes highly improbable that in the presence of 40-50 children, the accused would have used some of the children sexually without the knowledge of others. The two witnesses have said that other inmates would be sleeping when the accused had sex with them. This is highly improbable as the witnesses said sexual encounters were continuous.
The two witnesses, projected as victims, lived for a couple of years in Anchorage. They did not complain to anybody except advocate Mahruk Adenwala, long after they were allegedly abused sexually. In these circumstances when witnesses, who had always the liberty of leaving the home at their will, their conduct of not reporting for years becomes suspicious.
First, a case was registered under Section 372 (Selling minors for the purpose of prostitution). Later it was changed to Section 377 (unnatural offences) on the instructions of the public prosecutor.
