Hathras Gang Rape & Murder Case: Allahabad HC Flags Suspended SHO's Insensitivity, Denies Relief Over 'Dereliction' Of Duty

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh criticised the officer's conduct as it took into account both procedural violations and a glaring lack of sensitivity in handling the case involving a 19-year-old Dalit woman, a gang rape survivor, who later succumbed to her injuries.

The Accused (the then SHO, Hathras) is currently facing CBI's charge-sheet for offence under Sections 166A(b)(c) [failure to record information given to him under S. 154 CrPC concerning sexual offences] and 167 [Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury] of the IPC.

In brief, as per the chargesheet, the accused-applicant failed to stop the media or local reporters from approaching the victim and capturing her photographs and video inside the police station, despite it being his duty to safeguard the dignity of a sexual offence survivor.

Allegedly, when the victim was brought to the police station, her video was recorded by the applicant on his mobile phone, but he failed to refer her for a sexual assault examination, despite her claiming that she had been sexually assaulted

Additionally, he also refused to take the severely injured victim to the hospital either via a police vehicle or ambulance, and instead, he compelled her family to arrange a shared auto-rickshaw for transport, despite the availability of police vehicles.

CBI's investigation alleged that, at his instance, false entries were made in the General Diary, including claims that a lady constable was sent to examine the victim's injuries, even though the constable arrived after the victim had already been taken to the hospital.

The chargesheet also claimed that, without examining the victim's injuries, false entries were made stating that there were no injuries on her body. Also, the accused-applicant failed to register a case on the basis of the statement of the victim.

Concluding that the applicant failed to act as mandated by law, rules and guidelines, the CBI filed a chargesheet against him, challenging which he moved the HC.

It was contended by his counsel that there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by the applicant, who managed the situation without causing panic, despite the victim being suddenly brought to the police station amid a crowd and media presence.

It was also submitted before the bench that the applicant did not doubt the victim's family and immediately sent her to the hospital without examining the sexual assault issue and that it was a human erorr that he did not pay heed to the word "jabardasti" uttered by the victim while claiming that she had been sexually assaulted.

His counsel further argued that the General diary of the police station is being maintained as per provisions of Section 44 of the Police Act and that any wrong entry or non-entry would not create any material effect on the case of prosecution, and it can only be termed an irregularity and not an illegality.

On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General appearing for CBI, while reiterating the allegations against the applicant, raised an objection that since charges have already been framed by the trial court in the case, therefore, he appropriate remedy against the order of charge is to file a revision and not a Section 482 CrPC plea.

At the outset, the court discarded the argument against the maintainability of the instant plea, as it observed that the availability of an alternate remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar in entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court, however, stressed that at the stage of charge/discharge, it has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and it can is only required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.

Upon examining the chargesheet and taking into account the chronology of the events, the bench identified two specific lapses in duty by the SHO in handling the case:

• While the video of the victim which was prepared by the applicant in his mobile phone, it was clear that it was a case of molestation, he failed to protect the identity of the victim and did not stop any media person from contacting the victim and taking her photographs and making her video, thereby violating the SOP of the Ministry of Home Affairs
• False entries were made in the General Diary by stating that a lady constable was sent for the victim's medical examination, which was not the case and that there were no injury marks on her, which was found to be untrue.

Importantly, the Court specifically referred to Section 44 of the Police Act, as applicable to State of Uttar Pradesh, which provides that it is the duty of every officer in charge of a police station to keep a general diary and to make true entries in it, which he failed to do.

“…being Station House Officer of the police station, the applicant was custodian of the General Diary and therefore a false entries can not be made without direction or consent of the applicant. Thus, it is apparent that false entries in General Diary were made at the instance of applicant,” the Court remarked as it said that this act would come under the ambit of Section 167 IPC.

Considering the complainant's statement, witness testimonies, and material collected during the investigation, including G.D. entries and CCTV footage from the police station, the bench concluded that a prima facie case had indeed been established against him.

“All the above referred facts emerged in investigation not only indicate lack of sensitiveness but dereliction of duty on part of applicant and act and omissions of applicant violate the provisions of law and rules” the Court added as it called out his insensitive conduct in dealing with the instant case.

Thus, noting that at this stage, it is not required to conduct a mini-trial, the Court dismissed the plea.

It may be noted that in 2020, a Suo-Moto case was instituted by the High Court over the Hathras gangRape and Cremation case to examine the right to decent and dignified last rites/cremation.

The Court had taken cognizance of the rape of a 19-year-old girl belonging to the SC community, followed by her cremation in the wee hours of the night, intervening 29/30 September 2020, which appeared to be against the wishes of her family members.

Case title - Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder