CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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