Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Investigation Must Be Thorough in Sexual Offense Cases, Especially Involving Minors: Uttarakhand High Court Orders Further Probe in POCSO Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Maithani emphasizes the need for thorough evidence collection, sets aside earlier rejection of final report.

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed a fresh investigation into a high-profile case involving allegations of rape and threat against a minor girl. The Court, led by Justice Ravindra Maithani, criticized the initial investigation as inadequate and superficial, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive probe to ensure justice.

The case revolves around an incident dated June 23, 2022, where the victim, a minor girl, was allegedly raped and threatened by Vijay Pal. According to the FIR lodged on January 23, 2023, the accused offered the victim and her brother a lift, took them near his house, and committed the crime. The delay in filing the FIR was attributed to alleged inaction by the authorities. The Investigating Officer submitted a final report citing an alibi for the accused, which included statements from witnesses and Call Detail Records (CDR) suggesting he was on a Char Dham Yatra during the incident. However, this report was met with a protest petition from the informant, leading to further scrutiny by the trial court.

Investigation Inadequacies:

Justice Maithani noted several discrepancies and lapses in the initial investigation. The court found that the Investigating Officer had not thoroughly verified alternative mobile numbers or conducted a comprehensive cross-examination of alibi witnesses. “Effective investigation on crucial aspects, such as verifying alternate mobile numbers and thoroughly cross-examining alibi witnesses, was not done,” stated the court.

Prosecution Case and Delayed FIR:The prosecution detailed that on June 23, 2022, the victim and her brother were offered a lift by the accused, Vijay Pal, who subsequently raped and threatened the girl. The FIR was filed seven months after the incident due to alleged inaction by authorities. Addressing this delay, the Court remarked, “Delay in lodging the FIR does not invalidate it, but it necessitates careful examination of all evidence due to potential bias and enmity between parties.”

The judgment elaborated on the need for thoroughness in investigations involving sexual offenses against minors. The court criticized the IO for not exploring alternative evidentiary leads. Justice Maithani emphasized, “The investigation must be comprehensive and include all possible leads to ensure that justice is served. This includes verifying the presence of the accused through all available means, such as alternative mobile numbers and physical evidence from the location of the alleged crime.”

Justice Maithani stated, “The mere statement of some witnesses, without corroborative evidence, cannot be the basis for concluding the investigation. The IO must investigate further, considering all aspects and leads, to ensure a thorough and impartial inquiry.”

The High Court’s directive for a fresh investigation in this case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring thorough and unbiased inquiries in cases of sexual offenses involving minors. By setting aside the order rejecting the final report and ordering a comprehensive probe, the judgment seeks to prevent justice from being compromised due to incomplete or superficial investigative procedures. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, reinforcing the necessity of meticulous evidence collection and verification in the judicial process.

Date of Decision: 15th May 2024

Vijay Pal (Vijay Pal Singh) vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Latest Legal News