Mumbai: Although the state claims that crime against women is treated seriously with prompt probe, the claim is frustrated by law enforcers, observed the Bombay High Court (HC). It expressed displeasure over the “paradoxical situation” during a hearing linked to a case of allegedly outraging modesty of a woman and disrobing her in public. While the trial is underway before the magistrate court, the accused moved the HC seeking quashing of the case.
The court noted that it regularly comes across such lacunae in investigation in crime against women wherein the basic tenets of probe are not adhered to, which ultimately benefits the accused. Hence, it is necessary to bring the situation to the notice of the highest executive in the police department, the HC stated.
Meanwhile, it directed the additional chief secretary (ACS) of the home department to file a reply to the petition within two weeks. As per the FIR filed by the Yavat police in Pune rural, the accused allegedly abused a woman on April 30. When her daughter, 25, tried to intervene, the man allegedly abused and assaulted her and tore off her sleeve in a bid to undress her.
As per information from head constable Ajinkya Daundkar, state Advocate Ashish Satpute informed the court that the chargesheet has been filed. After going through the same, a bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Neela Gokhale noted that they are “not only shocked, but quite appalled” to find that the seizure of the daughter’s dress was absent in the chargesheet. On the court query, the constable said that the daughter is an accused in another crime and was absconding. Hence the said panchanama could not be effected, he added.
Terming Daundkar’s statement as “palpably false and contrary to record”, the court noted that the head constable has recorded the daughter’s statement which is attached to the chargesheet. He then claimed that the victim had not brought another set of clothes and hence they could not effect the seizure of clothes during panchanama.
Daundkar also claimed that the higher authorities directed him to probe the case, a crime against a woman. However, he said he had not brought the case diary because he “didn’t deem it necessary”. After hearing the constable’s “evasive and false replies”, the judges said their “conscience is shaken”.
Bombay High Court Censures Magistrate For Failing To Expedite Trial, Issues Directions For Review
“The answers given by Daundkar and his demeanor clearly indicates that he is more interested in protecting the interest of the accused person/s than to protect the interest of a sexual assault victim,” the court observed. It then directed the ACS to file an affidavit in two weeks, while asking the high-ranking official to “adopt appropriate strict remedial measures as may be permissible under the law”.
The HC has stayed the proceedings before the magistrate court till the next date of hearing on September 3.
