Introduction
In a case involving sexual assault against two kindergarten girl students at a school in Badlapur, the Bombay HC chastened the police authorities for the delay in registering the FIR and victim statement of one of the girls. It also pulled up the school authorities for not reporting the case to the police and asked whether the police had registered a case against the school under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. When Advocate General Birendra Saraf told the court that action against the school will be taken now, the court retorted that it should have been done at the earliest and ordered the police to take action against the school authorities, Bar and Bench reported. The bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan also questioned the police for not naming the second child victim in the FIR and sought explanation for the same.
The court made these queries and remarks while hearing the suo moto case [High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra] on August 22, 2024 concerning the lapses in police investigation in the case of sexual abuse of two 4-year-old girls at a school in Thane’s Badlapur.
The bench was reported saying that “These girls have complained but several cases go unreported. It needs huge amount of courage to speak about all this. Definitely the Police hasn’t played its role the way it ought to be. Had the police be sensitised, this wouldn’t have happened.” The court further conveyed its displeasure and said “We are appalled by the fact that the Badlapur Police has taken no efforts to record the statement of the second victim girl with either under Section 161 and 164.”
Notably, the Press Trust of India reported that thousands of protesters blocked railway tracks at Badlapur station and stormed the school building on Tuesday (August 20, 2024) after the case came to the limelight. The accused has been identified as a school sweeper and had reportedly assaulted the girls in the school washroom. The police informed the court that they have formed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case and have arrested the accused Akshay Shinde on August 17, following the complaint reported by the parents of the victim on August 16. The state also told the Court that statements of the girls have been recorded and their medical examination has also been conducted. The bench said that counselling of the girls needs to be undertaken, asked the state to inform in that regard.
Notably, it is alleged that the parents of the victim girls were made to wait for 11 hours at Badlapur police station before the officials took note of taking their complaints. On this issue the bench said that “The first thing in such cases of minors is police must have registered FIR. But they made the family wait for hours. This discourages the public from reporting such incidents.”
Criticising the Maharashtra Police, the High Court said “People shouldn’t lose faith in public. You should know what the motto of the Maharashtra Police is सद्रक्षणाय खलनिग्रहणाय (Sadarakshanaya Khalanigrahanay). It means to protect the good and restrain the wicked. Please be reminded of this…People should not come out on the streets like this for getting an FIR lodged.”
In a separate matter in which a minor girl was raped and who’s four and half month-old foetus was clandestinely aborted by a private hospital in Mumbai, another bench of Bombay HC rebuked the Maharashtra Police for deficiencies in the investigation. Importantly, the hospital had destroyed all the evidence regarding the abortion and had discarded the foetus.
Taking cue from the Badlapur case, the bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale took a shot at the police and said “Every day, we come across at least four cases of serious crimes against women which aren’t probed properly… This is pathetic… Don’t you have specialised officers or women officers? Why to let only constables and head constables probe the cases. Why isn’t the Police sensitive in such cases?”
Justice Gadkari said, “Unless people protest your department won’t investigate? Is the State of Maharashtra trying to give us a signal that unless people protest it won’t take crimes against women seriously? Every day we are hearing of some or the other rape or a POCSO case”, LiveLaw reported.
The bench also questioned DCP Chowgule-Shringi and asked how come the police was not aware of the fact that a ‘hasty’ abortion carried out on the victim, who happened to be minor at the time of the incident. When the officer told the court that statement of the victim has been recorded by the police under Section 164, the bench replied that “But how will you prove the fact that the accused impregnated the victim? What if the court says the 164 statements are not inspiring confidence? Where does the case go then? Will this not help the accused? Is the police now helping the accused to save him from the clutches of law? How can the hospital destroy such vital piece of evidence?”
It further said “Had we not taken judicial note, this couldn’t have come to light. Shouldn’t we record that all this is being done only to assist the accused in a POCSO case. How can the hospital carry out termination of a 4 and a half months foetus by consent of the minor girl, who lodged Rape case against accused…And worst is how can the hospital not maintain the evidence and go ahead and discard the entire evidence despite our clear orders that whenever the pregnancy of a rape victim is aborted, the tissue needs to be preserved for the purpose of DNA Sampling”.
The court ordered the DCP to file an affidavit detailing the investigation plan of the police and asked what action it proposes to take against the hospital, which destroyed the evidence. Moreover, it also directed the police authorities to verify whether the applicant Tarun Singh obtained the consent for the abortion either fraudulently or by force from the victim and her family.
The bench further expressed its concern over the manner in which investigations are being carried out by the police in cases related to women and children, despite repeated court orders flagging poor investigations in such cases. The judges said that if the state of Maharashtra is unable to pursue proper investigation in these matters, it should make a public declaration that it will not henceforth probe such serious cases.
Related:
Supreme Court stands firm on POCSO cases, overturns high court decision | CJP
Accused under POSCO granted bail on condition of marriage to victim: Allahabad HC | SabrangIndia