Allahabad HC orders disciplinary action against Cop who in investigation gave clean chit to two accused in minor's rape case

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceeding against a police officer for a major penalty, for dereliction of duty and exceeding his powers as Investigation Officer in rape case of a minor girl.

The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Syed Waiz Mian observed that despite the victim's statement recorded under 164 CrPC where she had clearly implicated the two persons, the police officer deliberately and wilfully tried to ensure that those accused persons were discharged during the investigation.

Court held that the victim's statement recorded before the Magistrate was sufficient, prima facie, to show the complicity of the accused, however, the police officer set it at naught on the strength of the statements of her parents, landlord and other persons recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

"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 arriving at a conclusion that the statement of the victim is perse, false", court said.

Court said that the police officer's actions were such as if he not only adorned upon himself the role of an investigating officer, but also of a Court.

Therefore, taking note of the difficulties that the victim had to face due to police officer's such act, the court held that he exposed himself for civil and criminal consequence and was liable to be dealt with accordingly.

The ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked, and those who have not are not arraigned to stand trial. That this is the minimal procedural requirement that is the fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be doubted, court said.

In the present matter, a criminal case was registered against three persons for raping a 17-year-old minor. The victim had alleged that her one relative and two of his friends took her to Hathras where in a hotel room they gave her adulterated food. After she fell unconscious, the accused persons outraged her modesty and recorded the incident on mobile. Thereafter, they blackmailed her and forced her to establish physical relations with them.

The police officer then conducted an investigation where he discharged the friends of the victim's relative stating that since they were not seen in the video clipping, therefore, their presence at the time of the incident was found doubtful.

The victim then filed a protest petition against the police report, which came to be rejected by the Magistrate relying upon the material, oral and documentary, which was made part of the prosecution case.

Aggrieved by the same, the victim approached the high court alleging that the police officer was hand in glove with the accused persons and deliberately he had discharged them during the investigation.

Case Title: X v. State of UP and 6 Others.