Read Time: 05 minutes
The case was that a 14-year-old girl went missing on April 21, 2023. When she could not be found anywhere, her brother lodged a missing report. However, the victim appeared at the police station and claimed that she left home due to an argument with her mother and went to her aunt's house
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Lucknow, to file an affidavit enclosing circulars on the accountability of officials involved in the rape case of a fourteen-year-old girl.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh noted that the case at hand was "a peculiar case of poor quality of investigation as well as supervision".
Court pointed out that in the case, it was found that the victim was a teenager and in the ultrasound report, it appeared that she was carrying a pregnancy of nine weeks. Still, no specific question was asked about her pregnancy by the Investigating Officer, and the same was also not observed by the Supervising Officer.
Therefore, court sought the DGP's reply on the accountability of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials.
The direction came in a bail plea filed by one Ramchandra Yadav booked under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the I.P.C. & Section 5(j)(2)/6 of the POCSO Act.
The case was that a 14-year-old girl went missing on April 21, 2023. When she could not be found anywhere, her brother lodged a missing report against unknown persons under Section 363, IPC at Gangaghat police station in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.
Thereafter, the victim was recovered and she appeared at the police station. She initially claimed to be 20 years old and stated she left home due to an argument with her mother and went to her aunt's house in Kanpur. She reiterated this in a statement to Lady Constable. However, a subsequent medical test determined her age to be 15 years.
Further, during the victim's medico-legal examination, she was found to have a torn and healed hymen with no internal injuries. Her vaginal swab was collected for DNA testing and an ultrasound report revealed that she was nine weeks pregnant.
The counsel for the accused argued that his client had been falsely implicated, and the charge sheet had already been filed. Therefore, highlighting that the trial had not commenced yet, the counsel pressed for the accused's bail.
The high court pointed out that it was evident that the victim had not supported the prosecution version in her deposition.
Therefore, it ruled in the accused's favour and allowed him bail on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Furthermore, highlighting the lapse in the investigation in the matter, court listed the matter for further hearing on July 29, 2024.
Case Title: Ramchandra Yadav v. State of UP and 3 others
Please Login or Register
