Bombay HC pulls up cop for callously not tracing minor in Pocso case – Times of India

MUMBAI: In a strongly worded order, reprimanding an investigating officer in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act case for “casually” saying she was unaware about the whereabouts of a 14-year-old sexual assault survivor, Bombay high court has said the law prescribes cops take care of the victim and witnesses in a trial.
“This callous and cavalier conduct and behaviour of the investigating officer is deprecated. The conduct of the investigating officer is reprehensible and cannot be countenanced. There is no reason for the investigating officer to be too casual in not keeping a record of the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and particularly under the special statute, ie the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso Act),” the court said. It added the officer was also oblivious to the enactment promulgated by the state legislature— Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act. It said conviction cannot be sought by adopting shortcuts in law.
In an application made through advocate Rahul Arote, the child’s 62-year-old grandfather, the accused in the case, moved high court against the trial court’s order rejecting his plea to call her back, affording an opportunity to his lawyer to cross-examine her. The accused said his lawyer was unable to attend the court and cross-examine her on December 22, 2020. The court had advanced the hearing then as she had been traced after two years. In the lawyer’s absence, the trial court had directed the accused to cross-examine her.
On January 27, HC told the prosecution to produce the girl before the trial court for her cross-examination. The court reasoned the rights of an accused stand forfeited by not affording him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The following day, though, on the court’s directions when the public prosecutor inquired with the investigating officer in open court, she said whenever the teenager is traced, she will be produced before the trial court. “Accused persons after being released on bail are absconding or not traceable is a common phenomenon. However, a victim in the crime after being searched, produced before the court on an earlier occasion, is not traceable or her whereabouts are not known to the investigating officer speaks volumes,” the high court said.
It has directed the DGP to look into the matter and give directions to the officer to find the child and bring her to court. “If the present investigating officer is not interested in tracing out the prosecutrix, then the director general of police may depute any other responsible senior police officer for the said task and submit the compliance report to this court on or before the next date,” the court said. HC directed the principal secretary, state law and judiciary department, to look into the conduct of the public prosecutor after it found she had informed the defence lawyer about the advanced date of deposition in the “most casual manner” via phone messages.
(The victim’s identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme Court directives on cases related to sexual assault)