Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by 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

Similar News