An FIR has been filed against YouTuber Maridhas for exposing the failures of the Tamil Nadu Police in handling the rape case of a minor in Chennai.
On 9 September 2024, Maridhas released an audio file on his YouTube channel where the police investigated a 10-year-old rape victim.
The minor was raped continuously for about a week, and the incident came to light on 29 August 2024 when the girl experienced severe stomach pain, prompting her mother, a cook, to seek medical attention at a local clinic. Doctors at Kilpauk Medical College subsequently diagnosed her with signs of repeated sexual assault, leading to a report being filed at the Anna Nagar all-women’s police station. An FIR was registered on 30 August 2024, naming a 31-year-old water delivery man, Satish, as the primary suspect in the assault.
After the FIR was lodged, the mother reported that she was summoned to the police station while her daughter remained in the hospital. During this visit, she alleged that the investigation officer, Raji, assaulted and threatened her. The police have denied these allegations but have transferred the officer involved. Additionally, the accused was arrested only after media coverage brought attention to the case.
This detail was exposed in Maridhas’s video. It was released to expose the police’s careless attitude and how they were trying to close the case as quickly as possible without word getting out.
On 10 September 2024, two days after the audio was released, the Madras High Court took suo motu cognizance of the case. The mother filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging that she was assaulted at the police station and had her phone confiscated. At the same time, her daughter was questioned at the hospital without parental presence. Reports indicated that police recorded the girl’s statement late at night, which also violated the POCSO Act.
The Madras High Court criticized the police for their shoddy investigation. It transferred the investigation of the Anna Nagar child rape case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), expressing serious concerns about the handling of the case by the Tamil Nadu police. The court noted that despite a 10-year-old girl being repeatedly raped, the authorities harassed her family and delayed the arrest of the main suspect for 12 days. This probe also addressed her mother’s claims of being physically assaulted by a police inspector at the station.
A bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam highlighted the disturbing treatment of the survivor and cited violations of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court stated, “The parents of the victim have lost confidence in the Tamil Nadu police,” underscoring the urgent need for a thorough investigation by a central agency.
During the proceedings, the court raised questions about procedural irregularities, particularly regarding how the child’s statement was recorded late at night without parental presence.
How Was The Interrogation Done?
In the audio, the minor initially expressed her fear of the police, worried that they might hit her. After being reassured by a female police officer, the child gave her statement. During the recording, she retracted her earlier accusation against a man named Satish, whom she had previously blamed for sexual assault. Instead, she called a minor boy as the perpetrator, stating that the abuse had occurred two years prior. The police officer can be heard telling the child that it is late and they are in a hospital well past her bedtime. It is later known from Maridhas’ video that the interrogation lasted until about 1 AM.
Procedural Violations
The police’s handling of the situation indicates several procedural violations. Firstly, the police should have recorded the child’s statement on video, as law requires. If an audio recording was deemed necessary, such sensitive material should not be leaked to the public. The police are also prohibited from naming any child under 18, even if the child is an accused, in an FIR. Additionally, such FIRs should not be publicly disclosed, yet these guidelines were ignored.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, under Section 24(5), specifies that the police must protect the child’s identity from being exposed to the public or media unless otherwise directed by a Special Court. Section 24(1) also mandates that a child’s statement should be recorded either at their home or a place of their choosing. It remains unclear if the police obtained the child’s consent before recording her statement at the hospital on 30 August 2024.
Additionally, it is criticized that the police failed to conduct a forensic interview of the child. The audio clip demonstrates poor interviewing practices and trauma-informed interviewing is essential especially when working with child survivors, highlighting that forensic interviews are meant to gather factual information without using suggestive or leading questions that could undermine the child’s testimony.
The girl’s mother also alleged mistreatment by the police. She alleged that while waiting at the police station until midnight for an inspector named Rajeev, he allegedly assaulted her by twisting her hands and beating her while demanding answers. According to the mother, when she explained that she only knew what doctors at the hospital had told her about her daughter’s condition, the inspector insulted her, calling her arrogant and threatening to charge her with negligence in raising her child.
In response, the police denied any allegations of brutality. Vijaykumar, a police officer, claimed that while there were no CCTV cameras in the inspector’s room, footage from other areas had been reviewed, and no evidence was found of the police assaulting the girl’s parents.
Case Against Maridhas & ToI
During their arguments in court, in response to the submission by State Public Prosecutor (State PP) Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, informed the court that separate FIRs had been filed against YouTuber Maridhas and journalist A Selvaraj of ToI for sharing the victim’s audio on social media. The court emphasized the need to identify and apprehend the individual responsible for the unauthorized disclosure and distribution of the audio.
The bench also criticized the decision to register FIRs only against a journalist and a YouTuber for leaking information. At the same time, no action had been taken against the woman police inspector who recorded the audio.
The court has since ordered police protection for the survivor and her family while directing further hearings to ensure a comprehensive review of the allegations against both the suspect and the police handling of the investigation.
Maridhas Statement
Maridhas, in his YouTube video, stated that he only intended to highlight the TN Police inadequacies and ensure justice is delivered to the minor child. He even states that he is not worried about taking anticipatory bail and would gladly accept being arrested if it would help her case. The YouTuber also noted that all English newspapers published the news about how the Madras High Court criticised the TN Police, but this was not the case with Tamil media.
Maridhas also alleges that such news is being suppressed in Tamil media to portray that TN is a safe place for women.
Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.