Editorial: When a woman done it

The murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi in Meghalaya has all the ingredients of a classic media scandal. Such stories normally fade after the sensation has been milked. But in this case, because the prime suspect is a woman, an educated woman from the so-called urban professions, plugs into the misogyny prevalent in our media and society at large and therefore has lent itself to the sort of kangaroo trial we are witnessing today.

Raja Raghuvanshi, a 29-year-old Indore-based businessman, was found dead with marks of murder at the bottom of a gorge near Weisawdong Falls a week after he and his newly wed wife Sonam were reported missing from a trek to the scenic spot on May 23. The young woman surfaced in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, 1,200 km away, on June 9. The Meghalaya police have named her as the main suspect, along with Raj Kushwaha, a man she allegedly was in a relationship with, and three others whom they allegedly hired to carry out the killing.

What has ensued is a media trial that surpasses in voyeurism even the Indrani Mukherjea and Aarushi Talwar cases of the past decade. Paying no heed to the privacy of the couple’s families, TV channels have gone to extraordinary lengths to unearth even irrelevant details of the case. Unrestrained speculation and unverified leaks have been aired with no heed to legality. Family members on either side have been invited to ‘testify’ to anchors and square off against each other on camera. One channel interviewed a soothsayer as to the whereabouts of the suspects.

What is unfortunate is that the law enforcement authorities of Madhya Pradesh and Meghalaya have freely participated in this media trial, supplying leaks and half-baked suppositions. The director-general of police of Meghalaya called a press conference to report that Sonam had left behind her mangalsutra in her homestay room when she went on the fateful trek with her husband. This ludicrous detail, he said, was proof of her guilt. Notice the misogyny implicit in this metaphor and the nod to patriarchy.

Clearly, there is a need for the judiciary to step in and enforce adherence to statutory norms governing cases under investigation, especially norms on how and what details are communicated to the media. It would be ideal if an official spokesman is nominated in each case to brief the media. In extreme cases, judges must not hesitate to call out a failure of due process, or even transfer the case to another agency, if witnesses are used to frame public perception ahead of a trial. Such norms are meant to ensure fairness, protect the rights of the victims as well as the accused and maintain the integrity of the investigation.

A very poor practice the police indulge in is to leak unsigned statements made by witnesses and suspects, which are obtained under coercion and generally cannot be used as evidence in court. They are reported as substantive facts of the case but serve no purpose other than to feed sensationalism or set up a sham trial.

The true purpose of sensationalising a criminal case is not to boost TRP ratings (which are irrelevant in any case), as we are led to believe. It is to make society take sides and pre-judge guilt on the basis of prejudice. That’s why patriarchy is all agog when a woman done it.