"Is The Police Taking Side Of The Accused?": Jharkhand High Court Reprimands Officials For Not Making Victim As A Witness In A POCSO Case

Jharkhand High Court on Friday severely chastised the concerned investigating officers for defiance of judicial orders and abdication of duty. Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a bail application in a case concerning the sexual assault of 13 year old minor girl. In the concerned case, the minor victim had neither been made a charge sheet witness nor produced before the Court despite several judicial orders. Expressing his anguish as to why the minor victim had not been made a charge sheet witness by the Investigating Officer considering the gravity of the offence, Justice Sen observed, "From the charge sheet I find that the Investigating Officer has not made the victim a charge sheet witnesses. This is really surprising that in a case, which has been registered under POCSO Act and the victim is minor aged about 13 years, why the Investigating Officer has not made the victim as a charge sheet witness. Even the supervising authority has overlooked this fact. This Court fails to understand as to why in an important case the victim has not been made a charge sheet witness". Furthermore pursuant to the perusal of the record, the Court observed that several letters had been written by the trial court to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, DIG, Dumka and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to produce the minor victim as a court witness yet no action was taken in this regard till date. "Is the police authority taking side of the accused persons by not bringing the victim in the witness box, prima-facie this Court feels so. Prima-facie the act of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj and the DIG, Dumka cannot be said to be bonafide. The questions are bound to arise if this type of investigation is made, leaving out the main person as witness in the charge sheet", the Bench observed. Justice Sen further noted that by defying the directions of the trial court, the investigating officers had committed contempt of court and should therefore be penalised. "The letter of a court is not merely a letter. It is a direction upon the authority to do what has been mentioned in the said letter. The letter is preceded by a judicial order. By not doing so and by not responding to those directions, prima-facie, this Court feels that the officers have committed contempt of court", the order stated. Reprimanding the officers, Justice Sen noted that such dereliction of duty must be rectified at the earliest either internally or by external sources by punishing these officers after initiating a proceeding for contempt. Accordingly, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to file a personal affidavit within three weeks responding to the following queries after making proper inquiry and verification, 1. As to why the victim was not made a charge sheet witness. 2. Who is responsible for not making the victim as charge sheet witness. 3. If the DGP finds that till date no responsibility has been fixed, the DGP will fix the responsibility and will furnish information to this Court and he shall also inform this Court as to what steps have been taken against those persons because of whose laches the victim has not been shown as charge sheet witness. 4. Why the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj and DIG, Dumka have not responded to the directions/letters of the Court which directs the officers to produce the victim as a court witness. 5. What steps the DGP himself has taken to ensure the production of the victim before the Court below pursuant to the order dated 16.01.2020 and letter dated 27.01.2020, which the court below has addressed to him for production of the victim. 6. What steps DGP intends to take against the erring officials who have not produced the victim before the court so that her evidence could be recorded. 7. Why not a contempt proceeding be initiated against the Investigating Officer, Officer-in-charge Mirzachouki P.S., Sahibganj, the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj and DIG, Dumka for willfully and deliberately violating the orders of the court wherein the trial court had directed them to produce the victim as a witness. A copy of the order has also been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Advocate Rajeev Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Click Here To Download/Read Order

"Is The Police Taking Side Of The Accused?": Jharkhand High Court Reprimands Officials For Not Making Victim As A Witness In A POCSO Case

Aaratrika Bhaumik

The minor victim had neither been made a charge sheet witness nor produced before the Court despite several judicial orders.

Tags