The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has, in the case of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, directed the Commissioner of Aurangabad to ensure that the Assistant Commissioner takes the course on gender sensitization governing crimes against women before engaging in the investigation of such crimes.
The Bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar passed the direction while dealing with a plea seeking directions to be issued to the investigating officer to arrest a rape accused who was allegedly an influential politician. The plea also prayed for the transfer of investigation in the case to another independent agency due to the supposed influence of the accused.
Case of the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Rajendra Deshmukh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the offence of rape was committed in November 2020. However, the FIR was lodged later as there was a threat of murder to the victim.
The IO refused to arrest the accused, a high profile politician of the Nationalist Congress Party who dropped names from his party while giving his statement. The counsel further contended that ever since the registration of the FIR, it was the victim who was summoned regularly for interrogation and harasses, whereas the accused was roaming freely.
It was further submitted that with the filing of a B- summary report, the IO has substantially damaged the case of the petitioner.
Case of the Prosecution
The prosecution refuted all the allegations made by the petitioner and its counsel and justified the IO on the following grounds:
The IO has taken into consideration a statement given by an alibi that the accused was not even present in the city on the day the crime took place, hence the IO tread cautiously. Since the accused was a politician, the possibility of this case affecting his political career cannot be ruled out.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that if seen on a usual basis, the statement of the accused is recorded only
after his arrest in order to facilitate a free and fair investigation in the matter. However, in the present case, the Court conceded with the apprehension of the petitioner that “the IO did not have the courage to touch the accused”.
The Court concluded that by taking the names of Central and State leaders, the accused intentionally intended to show his importance in political circles, which lead to the IO developing cold feet.
It was also observed that instead of relying upon the statement of the victim made in her complaint and statement made out before the magistrate, the IO opted to rely upon the plea of alibi presented by the accused.
“This shows either his insensitivity to the offences committed against women, or he was manipulated by the accused”, the Court remarked.
The order stated,
“We have not been cited any judicial pronouncement laying down the law that the discretion under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by an I.O. while dealing with an FIR in which, an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC has been alleged, by blindly believing the story of alibi put forth by the accused, when the name of the accused, when the name of the accused has been specifically mentioned along with his address and a statement under Section 164 clearly indicates his involvement”.
Quoting a circular issued by the Union Home Ministry in October 2020, the Court stated that offences against women should be investigated urgently on a prior basis and should be completed within two months. Further, there shall be mandatory registration of an FIR in case of cognizable offences under Section 154 (1) of the CrPC, and failure to do so would call for strict action against the errant police officers.
After stating the need for the gender sensitization course, the Court also directed the magistrate to furnish a copy of the B- summary report to the victim so that she can file an appropriate protest petition to the report.
The magistrate was also directed to decide the protest petition within four weeks without any influence from the present order.
Case Details
Before: Bombay High Court
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar
Share this Document :Picture Source :
