Kerala High Court
Xxx vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.13320 OF 2020(L)
PETITIONER/S:
1 XXX
VICTIM
*2 YYY
*(THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IS
MASKED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/12/2020 IN WPC
13320/2020)
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND STATE POLICE CHIEF
KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT PF POLICE IDUKKI,
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA ROAD,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI- 685 603.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR IDUKKI-685 912.
5 SUMATHI C
ASI(G), VANITHA HELPLINE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION,
MUNNAR, IDUKKI-685 912.
WP(C).No.13320 OF 2020(L) 2
6 SOFIA,
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O.NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN, 82, GOVT.QUARTERS, ANNA
NAGAR, PETTAI, THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU-627 011.
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH
SRI P.P THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.13320 OF 2020(L) 3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is a minor boy. The 2nd petitioner is his mother.
They have approached this court seeking a direction to the 3rd
respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P3 complaint lodged by the
2nd petitioner against the 6th respondent herein and also for a further
direction to the 3rd respondent to entrust the investigation in Crime
No.466 of 2019 of the Munnar police station by any of the officer other
than the 5th respondent. They have also sought for a direction to the
5th respondent not to harass the petitioners in connection with the
investigation in Crime No.466 of 2019 of Munnar police station registered
at the instance of the 1st petitioner against the 6th respondent.
2. The records reveal that on 28.12.2019, a complaint was lodged
by the 1st petitioner, a minor boy alleging that he was subjected to sexual
abuse and assault, after intimidating him, by the 6th respondent herein, a
girl aged 19 years, while she was residing with the petitioners at their
residence at Lakshmi Estate, Nagarmudi Division, KDH village, Munnar. It
is alleged that the 6th respondent is a relative of the petitioners and due
to some dispute with her family members, she left them and sought
refuge in the house of the petitioners. She was accordingly permitted to
live there. Though the alleged incident took place in the month of July
and August, 2018, the police were alerted only in the month of December
and crime was registered inter alia under Sections 9 and 10 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section
506 of the IPC.
3. After registration of the crime as aforesaid, the 5th respondent
was entrusted with the investigation.
4. The grievance of the petitioners centres around the investigation
that is being carried out by the 5th respondent. The petitioners state that
the 5th respondent demanded that vehicles should be arranged to go to
Thirunelveli and arrest the 6th respondent. As requested, vehicles were
arranged by the petitioners and the 6th respondent was arrested and
she was brought to Munnar police station. However, her arrest was not
recorded and she was left scotfree. It is further stated that the 5th
respondent in her official uniform started frequenting the residential
home of the petitioners to their chagrin. The 5th respondent also used to
go to the school of the 1st petitioner purportedly to record his statement.
This created a loss of embarrassment and psychological pressure on the
minor boy. Fresh statements were recorded and the petitioners were
forced to dilute the allegations. Fed up with the harassment meted out by
the 5th respondent, the petitioners had to leave Munnar and started
residing at Chengannur. However, the 5th respondent started following
them. It is stated that attempts are being made to implicate the
petitioners in false crimes for which purpose, statements are being
recorded from persons who are having acquaintance with the petitioners.
They contend that they will not get justice if the 5th respondent
continues with the investigation. It is in the above backdrop that the
petitioners are before this Court with this writ petition.
5. As the allegations are centred around the 5th respondent, she
was ordered to file a counter affidavit. From the counter it appears that
the crime was registered on 28.12.2019 with offences under the POCSO
Act. The statements of the victim as well as the material witnesses were
recorded. The 6th respondent was arrested and she was brought to
Munnar on 7.2.2020. The 5th respondent has denied that the petitioners
were forced to spend money for arranging vehicles. It is further stated
that the investigation conducted till date revealed that the 6th respondent
used to reside at Chengannur in the house of Smt. Saraswathy, the sister
of the 2nd petitioner. She was in love with one Mukesh, with whom her
marriage was solemnized on 6.9.2019. It is stated that the 6th
respondent has no phone of her own and she used to contact Sri. Mukesh
using the Cell Nos. 8078462885 and 9188597239, which are in the name
of Smt. Saraswathy and Sri. Muthukumar. The Call Data Records and
Tower Dump details were obtained and it was revealed that the 6th
respondent had never set foot in Munnar in the month of July or August
as alleged in the complaint and she was all along residing at
Chengannur. It is further stated that the minor sister of the 6th
respondent had eloped with the son of Smt. Saraswathy, who is the
maternal aunt of the 1st petitioner and a crime was registered as Crime
No.10 of 2019 under Section 366A, 506(1), 109 of the IPC and Section 6
r/w. Section 5 of the POCSO Act on 26.9.2019. The accused were
arrested based on information given by the petitioner and her fiancee.
This resulted the 2nd petitioner and her family members having a grudge
towards the 6th respondent. According to the 5th respondent, the
investigation conducted till date has revealed that there is no truth in the
allegations lodged in the complaint and the registration of Ext.P2 crime is
clearly a counterblast to Crime No.10 of 2019. It is further stated that
the investigation conducted at Munnar also revealed that the 6th
respondent had not resided in the house of the petitioners at any point of
time. It is further stated that due to discrepancies in the statement of
the victim, a request was forwarded to the District Medical Officer, Idukki
to provide the assistance of a Psychiatrist to provide counselling to the
minor child and to record his statement. When this fact was intimated,
the petitioners were reluctant to meet the Psychiatrist or to record their
statement in his presence. In the said circumstances, the 5th respondent
sought expert medical opinion from the Medical Board constituted at
Government Medical College, Kottayam and the Medical Board has
suggested that the child can be subjected to further medical
examination. However, the 1st petitioner was reluctant to undergo any
further examination. It is stated that the investigation is proceeding on
proper lines and as soon as it is completed, an appropriate report can be
lodged before the jurisdictional court.
6. I have considered the submissions of Sri. C. Anilkumar, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.P.Thajudheen, the
learned Government Pleader.
7. It appears that this Court by order dated 14.12.2020 had
directed for the constitution of a Medical Board by the
Principal/Superintendent of Government Medical College Hospital,
Kottayam for the purpose of examining the 1st petitioner. It is submitted
that the 1st petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and a report
has been obtained.
8. From the submissions advanced by both sides, it appears that
the petitioners are not very happy with the investigation conducted by
the 5th respondent. They say that instead of conducting the investigation
in a discreet manner and to strive to bring the truth to light, the 5th
respondent is siding with the accused and is looking at the petitioners
with suspicious eyes. They also questioned the manner in which the
investigation is carried out by the 5th respondent.
9. Having gone through the entire case records, I am unable to
find any laches in the investigation that is being carried out by the 5th
respondent. The crime was registered and it was when she noticed
serious discrepancies in the version of the victim and his mother that
request was made for the child to be seen by a counsellor and also for
recording the statement in their presence. The Call Data Records as well
as the Tower Dump Details apparently shows that the 6th respondent,
who is a girl aged 19 years, had not been to Munnar and she was at
Chengannur. There are also convincing records which reveal that Crime
No.10 of 2019 was registered at the Pettah police station, Thirunelveli
against the son and friend of Smt. Saraswathy, the aunt of the 1st
petitioner. The victim in the said crime is the 13 year old sister of the 6th
respondent. These materials have thrown some seeds of doubt in the
mind of the 5th respondent about the genuineness of the version in the
FIR lodged by the 1st petitioner about 4 months after the alleged
incident. The manner and mode of the investigation is the prerogative of
the investigating officer and it would not be proper for the petitioners to
chart out the manner in which investigation has to be conducted. During
the pendency of this petition, the Medical Board constituted by this Court
has examined the 1st petitioner. All the materials are before the 5th
respondent. I do not think that there is any reason to change the
investigating officer at this stage. However, the 3rd respondent can be
directed to monitor the investigation continuously so that the
apprehensions in the mind of the petitioners can be dispelled. The 5th
respondent shall ensure that the petitioners are not harassed in any
manner in connection with the investigation. Probing the matter further
or seeking further explanation will not amount to harassment. I direct
the 5th respondent to expeditiously conclude the investigation under the
supervision of the 3rd respondent and submit appropriate report before
the jurisdictional court.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET DATED 14/12/19
ISSUED BY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE,
CHITHIRAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.0644 OF MUNNAR POLICE
STATION, IDUKKI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10/2/20
SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
