No Collision? Then Why Did You Flee? — Supreme Court Rejects Truck Driver’s Defence, Upholds Full Liability on Insurer Vicarious Liability Must Be Pleaded With Precision — You Can’t Drag Someone Just Because He Was Once Associated with a Company: Gujarat High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Non-Executive Individual Daughters Can’t Be Sidelined in Ancestral Property: Telangana High Court Dismisses Purchaser’s Appeal, Upholds Partition in Favour of Married Women and Legal Heirs Marriage in Arya Samaj Is Valid If Performed as per Vedic Rites — Certificate Alone Is Not Conclusive Proof: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Cruelty Case Even a Mother-in-Law Can Be an Aggrieved Woman: Allahabad High Court Upholds Right to File Domestic Violence Case Against Daughter-in-Law Exemption Under Minority Cannot Be Invoked to Justify Delay in Appeal: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala High Court in Fatal Accident Claim Innocent Flat Buyers Cannot Be Made to Suffer Due to Institutional Failures: Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu Housing Board Land Dispute Decree Can’t Sleep for 18 Years and Wake Up to Claim Land: Telangana High Court Cancels Mutation Based on 1995 Partition Decree Six Years in Custody, Only Two Witnesses Examined—Incarceration Cannot Continue Indefinitely: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Gratuity Is Not a Bounty—It Is Property Under Article 300A: Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Delay in Payment to Retired Teacher A Small Degree of Scoliosis Cannot Be Stretched To Deny Appointment:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Appointment Of Constable Despite Medical Board’s Earlier Unfitness Declaration Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Has No Substantive Value Without Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence — You Can’t Use FIRs to Fight Over Ancestral Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for Police Action in Family Property Sale Statement of Co-Accused Can Only Be a Clue, Not the Sole Basis for FIR Quashing: Gujarat High Court Declines to Interfere at Investigation Stage Right to Fair Trial Includes Right to Access Digital Evidence: Delhi High Court Directs Supply of Hard Disk Copy to Accused for Effective Defence Allegations of Affixing Counterfeit Mark Amounts to Cheating Under Illustration (b) of Section 415 IPC: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings Delivery of Cheque to a Third Party Without Authorization Doesn’t Discharge Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Decree Against L&T Officials

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 News