Calcutta High Court Orders Enquiry Against Police Officers Accused Of Tampering Evidence In Sexual Assault Case
The Calcutta High Court has ordered an enquiry against several police officers who have been accused of tampering with evidence related to a case of sexual assault. The Court also cancelled the bail granted to the accused by the trial court due to the lapses in the police investigation.
A single bench of Justice Rajasrhi Bharadwaj while dealing with the lapses on the part of the police investigation into the complaint of a lady who had alleged sexual assault at her home, stated:
In light of these lapses, this Court is of the view that the matter is indeed extraordinary in nature and calls for extraordinary measures. The petitioner is clearly a victim of continuous torture and oppression. The investigation officer never bothered to inform the victim of the application being moved by the accused, further exacerbating the victim's distress. Moreover, the officers failed to seize the CCTV footage of Lake Police Station, where both the officers and family members of the accused coerced the petitioner to withdraw the complaint.
Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, respondent No. 3, is to take disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and other lady officers namely (i) Lady A.S.I. Sujata Barman of Lake Police Station, (ii) Lady S.I. Kalpana Roy of Tiljala Police Station and (iii) Lady S.I. Arpita Bhattacharyya of Karaya Police Station for their failure to follow procedural norms and for tampering with the complaint by necessary authorities emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to the legal provisions designed to protect victims of sexual crimes, particularly concerning the recording of statements and the handling of complaints, the Bench added.
The Court also transferred the complaint to the DCP (Women's police) for further investigation.
Background
The complainant, who is the wife of an IAS officer had stated that she was sexually assaulted multiple times in her house by the accused, and had approached the police to file a complaint. It was alleged by the complainant, that when she had gone to file the complaint against the accused, the police had pressurised her to withdraw the case.
It was further stated that while she had duly deposed before the magistrate, she was later informed by the police that her complaint had been transferred to another police station and that she had to undergo another medical examination, which she complied with as well.
It was stated that the police's actions of deputing a male officer to record the victim's statement had also violated provisions of the BNSS and that the male officer had also tampered with her complaint.
It was alleged that even so, the officer who had tampered with the case evidence continued to carry the case files to the court, even after being censured by the Commissioner of Police after a direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Counsel for the state denied the allegations raised by the complainant and stated that the police were not under any duty to inform the complainant of the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused.
Upon hearing the parties, the court stated that although the charges levelled by the petitioner were severe in nature, the police had diluted the same as a result of tampering with her complaint.
It was further stated that the CCTV footage of the police station where the petitioner alleged she was asked to withdraw the complaint had not been preserved by the police.
In light of these lapses, the court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused and ordered an inquiry against the accused police personnel.
Case: WPA 17852 of 2024
Case No: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Cal) 220