SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Raj) 648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Lada Devi Jat - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3681 of 2020
Decided On : 11-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :N.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate, Nawab Ali Rathore and Syed Adil Ali Naqvi, Advocates
For the Respondents: F.R. Meena, P.P., Rajendra Yadav, AAG and Party-in-Person

The investigation of a rape case must be conducted strictly within the framework of law and the IO must follow the provisions of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 26 of the POCSO Act.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION - RAPE - SECTION 143, 363, 342, 323, 506, 376(D)(A) IPC AND SECTIONS 5(G) & 6 OF POCSO ACT - INVESTIGATION - TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION TO AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY - MONITORING BY THE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, mother of the prosecutrix, filed a criminal misc. petition alleging that the local police were not investigating the case of gang-rape of her minor daughter properly and despite specific names mentioned of all the accused persons, the Police only filed a charge-sheet against one Rajendra and did not arrest the remaining four persons.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation was not conducted properly and the IO did not arrest the other accused persons despite the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents. The court also found that the IO did not follow the provisions of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 26 of the POCSO Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the investigation was conducted properly? 2. Whether the IO followed the provisions of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 26 of the POCSO Act?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation was not conducted properly and the IO did not arrest the other accused persons despite the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents. The court also held that the IO did not follow the provisions of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and Section 26 of the POCSO Act.

Final Decision: The court directed the present IO to conduct the investigation strictly within the framework of law and to keep in mind the provisions of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act for the purpose of submission of accusation as against the concerned accused. The court also directed the IO to file a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., if any, within a period of three months.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. This instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by mother of the prosecutrix.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station, Lambaharisingh, District Tonk on 28/06/2020 against accused namely; Rajendra Loor, Jeetram, Nand Kishore, Girraj Loor S/o. Polu, Nanda and Vikas alleging therein that they abducted her minor daughter namely Sarita and all the name accused ravished her minor daughter whereupon an FIR No. 0131/2020 at Police Station Lambaharisingh was registered under Section 143, 363, 342, 323, 506, 376(D)(A) IPC and Sections 5(g) & 6 of POCSO Act.

3. It is stated that the date of birth being 21/10/2005, the victim is aged about 14 years and 6 months. The statement of prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she mentioned of having been abducted by one Jeetram and Rajendra from her house and taken to 'Tatia' village in a 'Bara' where Nandkishore, Vikas and Girraj were already present and all five of them threatened her of her life and Rajendra, Jeetram raped here in the 'Bara' and thereafter Nandkishore, Vikas and Girraj took her to another room in other house in the same village and all three of them raped her and left her in the morning at 4.00 AM where here uncle Kushiram and Raju came while searching her and brought her to the house. The date of incident is intervening night of 27th June, 2020 to 28th June, 2020 and the FIR was registered on 28/06/2020 immediately thereafter. On the complaint made under Sections 143, 363, 342, 323, 506, 376(D)(A) IPC and Sections 5(g) & 6 of POCSO Act, the petitioner-mother submits that the local police is not investigating the matter and despite specific names mentioned of all the accused persons, the Police only filed charge-sheet against one Rajendra and did not arrest the remaining four persons and kept the investigating pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the five accused were called by the Investigating Officer and after obtaining sample of their semen and underwear, the Investigating Officer has left all the four persons scot-free and did not conduct proper investigation. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted the entire investigation is being done in a manner to help the accused persons who are guilty of committing gang-rape on the petitioner's minor daughter and at the same time, the petitioner is being threatened to withdraw her case against them. The accused persons are from nearby places and the petitioner and her family is afraid of their life being harmed on account of the police being casual and supporting the accused persons and it is submitted that the petitioner does not have any hope to get justice and it has been prayed that the investigation be transferred to an independent agency and monitored by the Court.

5. The Investigating Officer was present in the Court and the case diary was also called. The learned Government Advocate has submitted status report dated 05/11/2020 wherein it is stated that the case is not found to be proved as against other persons namely; Jeetram, Nandkishore, Vikas and Girraj while Rajendra was found to have committed offence under Section 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and he was arrested on 29/06/2020 and charge-sheet has also been filed against him while against the others, the investigation has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

6. It is also stated by the present IO that the investigation was conducted initially by one Mr. Ashok Kumar Butolia (RPS) from 29/06/2020 to 13/07/2020 and thereafter by Mr. Govardhan Lal Sokariya (RPS), Addl. SP, Malpura from 14/07/2020 to 16/07/2020 whereafter the IO was changed and one Vipin Sharma (RPS), Addl. SP, Tonk remained as IO from 16/07/2020 to 20/08/2020. Thereafter, Mr. Ashok Kumar Butolia (RPS) was again made IO from 21/08/2020 to 08/09/2020 and from 09/09/2020 to 23/09/2020 one Mr. Shi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top