On wrong statement of facts habeas corpus petition cannot be considered.

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

The petitioner is a convict for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and undergoing imprisonment in the Central Jail, Vellore. It is alleged that when his wife Nadhiya, aged 25 years, the detenue herein, used to visit the prison to see him, respondents 7 to 10 befriended her. His further allegation was that the eighth respondent after the detenues visit to the jail on 111. 2007, took her on a bike to his residence, respondents 7, 9 and 10 went to the residence of eighth respondent, gave a cool drink to her and thereafter, she was forcibly subjected to gang rape by respondents 7 to 10 and the same was informed to the petitioner, when she visited him on 1. 2008.

2. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint on 11. 2008 to the second respondent. Since the detenue did not visit him thereafter, suspecting danger to her life and person, he made a further complaint on 21. 2008 and following the same, the petitioner filed the above petition seeking production of the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.

3. Considering the seriousness of the allegation, when the matter came up before this Court for admission on 12. 2008, this Court observed as follows:

"As the allegations, prima facie, appear to be very serious and painful; and if the same are substantiated, it would not only cause a dot but also throw a dirt on the Uniform Forces. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a duty is cast upon the executives to remove the stigma caused by the impugned complaint.

That apart, in order to remove the cloud as to the bonafide of the complaint, we direct the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, to visit the jail personally, record a statement from the petitioner relating to the impugned complaint and forward the same to the Registry for our consideration."

4. When the matter came up for further orders on 12. 2008, it was reported that the first respondent, in order to show their bona fide, transferred respondents 7 to 10 to different Central Jails and this Court passed the following interim order:

"From the above materials, it is obvious that the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) had not given serious concern over the entire issue. Therefore, we are constrained to pass the following directions:-

.(i) the Home Secretary, the first respondent herein, is directed to give appropriate directions to the Director General of Police, to entrust the entire investigation of the case to a competent police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police for more effective investigation, who shall file a report to that effect within a period of one week; and

.(ii) since the Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, has not taken note of the seriousness of the allegation, as even now he has registered the case only under Women Missing, necessary directions shall be issued by the Home Secretary to the Director General of Police in this regard."

5. Pursuant to the orders of this Court referred to above, respondents 1 to 4 took untiring efforts to search the detenue, basically to erase the apprehension as to the danger to the life and person of the detenue and of course, to remove the stigma cast on the uniformed force by the impugned allegation, and have successfully secured the detenue and produced her before this Court on 22. 2008. However, they sought further time to file a detailed report today.

6. Today, they filed a detailed report dated 22. 2008 after examining 34 witnesses, which includes a medical witness, the relevant portion of the said report dated 22. 2008 is extracted hereunder:

"7. I respectfully submit that the following are the facts that emerge from the deposition of the witnesses, perusal of the documents and from my enquiry.

(i)Nathiya left the petitioners house on her own accord, since there was no conducive atmosphere for her stay in that house.

(ii)She totally rejected the averments made by the petitioner in his petition a