Minor Rape Case | Allahabad HC Orders Disciplinary Actions Against Cop For Absolving Accused Of Charges During Probe

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for deliberately and wilfully trying to ensure that the accused in a minor's rape case, are absolved of charges during the investigation.

The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian further noted that the cop adorned upon himself the role of an investigating officer, as well, as of a Court, and threw the Indian Evidence Act to the wind by arriving at a conclusion that the statement of the minor victim was perse, false.

Further, the Court also ordered that until the pendency of the inquiry against him, the cop shall not be appointed as an Investigating Officer in any other case crime, and if is currently investigating any case, he shall immediately be replaced by another Investigating Officer.

The Court ordered thus while hearing a criminal writ plea moved by a minor rape victim alleging serious allegations of misconduct and involvement of the investigation officer in an overt act of sheltering the accused, thereby, exceeding his power under the garb of his official duty.

The case in brief

Essentially, a criminal case was registered against three accused of raping a 17-year-old minor girl pursuant to an order made by the magistrate on an application filed by the victim under Section 156(3) CrPC wherein she alleged that her relative (5th respondent) and two of his friends (respondent nos. 6 & 7) enticed her away to a room, outraged her modesty after she fell unconscious and made a mobile clipping of the incident.

Thereafter, the accused continuously threatened and compelled her to forcefully enter into a physical relationship on the threat of the video clipping and finally coerced and ruined her married life by sending the video clipping on the mobile phone of her husband

The accused persons were booked under Sections 363, 376-D, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections ¾ P. O. C. S. O. Act and Sections 67-A I. T. Act, however, after concluding the probe in the matter, the investigating officer (4th respondent) filed a police report only against the fifth respondent and gave a clean chit to the sixth and seventh respondents, on the ground that since they were not seen in the video clipping, therefore, their presence at the time of the incident was doubtful.

Pursuant to this, the petitioner/victim filed a protest petition against the police report, which came to be rejected by the Magistrate, and hence, she approached the High Court with the instant petition making serious allegations against respondent no. 4 that he was hand in glove with the accused.

Before the Court, she submitted that the statements of the victim, her parents, and others under Section 161 CrPC were not recorded as per the statement given by them, rather, the statements were manipulated by the fourth respondent to aid and abet in the discharge of the accused respondent nos. 6 and 7 during the investigation. 

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the probe officer had discarded and dislodged the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC on the strength of the statements of her parents, landlord, and other persons recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

In view of this, the Court remarked that the fourth respondent was either not aware of the procedure of conducting the investigation in terms of the provision mandated in the Code of the Criminal Procedure or the fourth respondent deliberately and wilfully tried to ensure that the accused are discharged during the investigation for extraneous consideration.

Further, the Court observed thus:

"The statement of the victim before the Magistrate was sufficient, prima facie, to show the complicity of the accused, including, sixth and seventh respondents. The statement of all other witnesses are merely corroborative but is not sufficient to dislodge the statement of the victim. The fourth respondent has thrown the Indian Evidence Act to the wind by himself arrived at a concusion that the statement of the victim is perse, false. The fourth respondent has adorned upon himself the role of an investigating officer, as well, of a Court...The victim has been running from post to pillar but of no avail. In either case, the fourth respondent has exposed himself for civil and criminal consequence and is liable to be dealt with accordingly."

Further, stressing that fair trial must commence only after an investigation is itself fair and just, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the DGP to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent for a major penalty, for dereliction of duty and exceeding his powers as Investigation Officer.

The Court also ordered that the FIR be further investigated by appointing another Investigating Officer.

Case title - X (victim) vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13325 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 523

Click Here To Read/Download Order