Xxx (Mother Of Victim) vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 21572 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 21945 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     XXX (MOTHER OF VICTIM)


    2     XXX (VICTIM)


          BY ADVS.
          P.M.RAFIQ
          AJITH THOMAS



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          VADAKKENCHERY POLICE STATION, MAIN ROAD, MANDHAM,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 683

    2     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, YAKKARA ROAD,
          NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, PALAKKAD 678 014

    3     XXX (ACCUSED)

    4     XXX (WIFE OF ACCUSED)

    5     XXX (SON OF ACCUSED)

          BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
          BY ADV GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
          BY ADV E.C.BINEESH - GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21945 OF 2021            2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that the 2nd among them,

who is the minor daughter of the 1st, was subjected

to sexual assault by the 3rd respondent, which led

to Crime No.526 of 2017 being registered against him

by the Vadakkenchery Police Station, for offences

under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

along with Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). They

say that the trial into the crime ended in acquittal

of the 3rd respondent and that they are in the

process of filing an Appeal against the same.

2. The petitioners allege that, however, they

have been threatened by respondents 3 to 5, so as to

pressurize and persuade them to desist from filing

an Appeal; and consequently that they have been

constrained to approach the 1st respondent - Station

House Officer, through Ext.P1 complaint, seeking

protection. They assert that, however, no action has

been taken by the 1st respondent, thus leaving them

no other option, but to approach this Court through

this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri.P.M.Rafiq, learned counsel

for the petitioner; Shri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit,

learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and

Shri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader,

appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Shri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned

counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5, vehemently

controverted every allegation in this writ petition

saying that it is vitiated by malafides, which is

evident from the fact the petitioners have not, even

in Ext.P1 complaint, mentioned the specific nature

of the alleged threats faced by them, except saying

that a close relative of the 3rd respondent had

approached them and said that the party respondents

herein would "go to any extent if they are further

provoked"(sic). He added that the 5th respondent is

presently out of India, while respondents 3 and 4

are living a life in conformity with law and have

not, and do not, intent to cause any threat to the

petitioners, as alleged.

5. Shri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit then

submitted that his clients have no objection

whatsoever if the petitioners are to file an Appeal

against the acquittal of the 3rd respondent; and

further that they will not even stand in the way of

this Court granting them protection for life.

6. Shri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government

Pleader, affirmed most of the submissions of

Shri.Shri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, submitting that

Ext.P1 does not have any specific incident of

threat, violence or intimidation meted out to the

petitioners by any person, including respondents 3

to 5. He, however, added that since the 2nd

petitioner is stated to be a victim of sexual

assault, the 1st respondent will certainly afford

the petitioners necessary and adequate protection.

7. When I consider the afore submissions, there

can be little doubt that the standard of protection

and care to be given to a victim of a POCSO case is

much higher than what should be normally provided to

another victim. The victim indubitably is a minor

person and obviously, therefore, would be more

vulnerable than any other.

8. That said, even the Police have put in place

a specific 'Victim Protection Protocol' and I am

certain that the same should be followed in this

case also without any reservation, even though the

offences against the 3rd respondent has presently

ended in acquittal.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and confirm the interim order granted by

this Court on 12.10.2021; with a consequential

direction to the 1st respondent - Station House

Officer, to ensure that the petitioners and in

particular, the second among them, are afforded

necessary and adequate protection as are mandatory

and requisite under the 'Victim Protection

Protocols' on a continuous basis, so as to protect

them and keep them away from any harm or prejudice

from any person, including respondents 3 to 5 or

their men or associates.

The petitioners are also at liberty, if it

becomes so warranted, to seek the assistance of the

jurisdictional Protection Officer appointed and

acting under the provisions of the POCSO Act, who

shall thereupon, lend all assistance as is

necessary, depending upon the circumstances

presented.

Since the requirements of the 'Victim

Protection Protocols' are implicit with respect to

the anonymity of the victim and her mother, I direct

the 1st respondent to comply with the afore

directions, without them having to approach the

Police Station or having to produce a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/2.11

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21945/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.9.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION FOR LIFE AND PROPERTY

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 22.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR REPRESENTATION TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.9.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION FOR LIFE AND PROPERTY OF PETITIONERS

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 23.9.2021 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER FOR REPRESENTATION TO DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTIOON DATED 11.9.2021 ISSUED FROM E.K. NAYANAR SMARAKA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, VADAKKENCHERY.