Human rights violations and role of media in Abhaya murder case

In 1992, a 19 year old Knanaya Roman Catholic nun was found dead in her convent well in Kottayam, Kerala. The case, first investigated by the local police then the crime branch and later by various teams of the CBI, took 16 years to make the first arrest. Relentless efforts by social activists and the courts refusing to close the case on multiple occasions made this much manipulated case a media event over the years. Wikipedia has the whole case history in detail and this article is about some human rights violation and media ethics pertaining to the case.

Since the arrest of two fathers and a sister, over a year ago, the media has been following every step of the proceeding with great interest. I have to agree that in the past they have done a wonderful job, like in the BMW hit and run and Jessica Lal murder cases where their persistent effort made sure the guilty are being punished. However, in this case, based on evidence, the authenticity of which is still being argued in court, the media seems to be passing the verdict on behalf of the court.

The videos of narcoanalysis tests and a report on virginity test conducted on the sister were leaked out to the media recently. While the videos were watched by thousands on news channels and is still being watched in You Tube, only a few cared to speak about human rights violation and question the role of the media.

Rights of the accused and legality of narcoanalysis evidence:

Narcoanalysis is an investigative technique in which the suspect is drugged and made to answer in a semi conscious state. This technique is not openly permitted in most of the developed and developing countries as it raises a lot of ethical and scientific questions. However, in India, this technique is now being used more frequently than ever.

Rights of the accused

The basic idea of punishment by a court of law is to bring into conscience of the perpetrator that qualified and respectable individuals representing the society, following a set of fair laws, in a trial where he was given enough time and resource to prove his reasons/innocence, found him guilty beyond doubt. The following prison sentence should be long enough for the guilty to fully comprehend the gravity of his crime or to keep him away if he is too dangerous for the society.

For this reason, the law has given some rights for the accused. In India, like most other countries, under Article 20(3), the constitution gives a fundamental right against self incrimination. So the law puts the burden of proving the accused guilty on the state, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty and he cannot be compelled to self incriminate.

The whole process of narcoanalysis test unless under extraordinary circumstances is gross violation of individual rights, liberties and freedom. The unethical use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law. In India, narcoanalysis tapes are not admissible as evidence and are used as corroborative evidence. While the effectiveness of the technique itself is being questioned by a lot of experts in the field of psychiatry, the police throughout the country find it as a magic wand to solve difficult cases.

Media ethics:

Controversy revolves around the genuineness of the narcoanalysis video tapes. An edited copy was presented to the court and CBI maintains that the confessions in it were not tampered with. This video evidence, which should have been watched by the court and those involved with the case, was leaked to the press and was broadcasted in the news.

In one of the video, the psychologist Dr. S. Malini asks the nun, “With what did you hit her?” and she replies “Axe … vessel … hammer”. After the arrest months ago, the investigators would have asked the sister the same question a hundred times, presenting her with numerous scenarios and list of weapons forcing her for a confession. Now how can anyone be sure that the drugged person is telling the truth or involuntarily speaking out something that was forced into her mind earlier?

The law gives the suspect the right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. In this case, the news anchors make suggestions on the role of the accused and the general public passes their verdict watching the same videos in You Tube. My point is, if the accused feels that this turn of events had influenced the final judgment in the case, the rights of the accused for a fair trial has been seriously compromised.

It’s sad that online communities and You Tube video comments are forgetting the blatant violation of human rights in this case. If you think the media should have let the court to decide on the evidence and kept the public out of it, or if you have any counter argument, you can post it here. It’s foolish to hope the media would apologise, but hopefully they won’t repeat it.

Tail Lamp

• Do share the link with your fellow bloggers if you find this article worth spreading to a much wider audience.


• You can check the narcoanalysis videos in You Tube, one of them is in English, however, I am not providing any link here.


• With all due respect to Sister Abhaya, may her soul rest in peace.