The Calcutta High Court directed disciplinary action against six police officers for mishandling a sexual assault complaint by an IAS officer’s wife, citing procedural lapses and tampering with the complaint. The case has been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Women Police for further investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has ordered disciplinary action against six police officers, including three female officers, for their failure to properly handle a complaint of sexual assault filed by the wife of an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj noted severe procedural lapses by the police, which resulted in the dilution of charges and tampering with the original complaint. The case has now been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Women Police, Lalbazar, for further investigation.
The victim, who lodged her complaint on July 14-15, accused a man of sexually assaulting her at her residence. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the police registered the case under less severe sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which significantly weakened the case.
The Court, in its order dated September 27, stated-
“Rather than applying Sections 62 and 64, which address more serious offenses, the officers filed the case under Sections 74, 75, 76, 79, 115, and 351 of the BNS, 2023.”
This improper handling of the legal provisions indicated a serious lapse on the part of the Lake Police Station in Kolkata, where the complaint was originally filed.
The Court also observed that the police officers tampered with the victim’s written complaint, compromising the integrity of the investigation. According to the Court-
“The failure to initially apply the appropriate sections and the subsequent tampering with the complaint indicate significant shortcomings in the police’s management of the case, raising concerns about the investigation’s integrity.”
This misconduct involved not only male officers but also female police personnel, further exacerbating the situation. One male officer, who was improperly assigned as the investigating officer, was found to have tampered with the original complaint, in collaboration with a lady officer. This interference with the investigation has now led to calls for strict disciplinary action.
The case became even more concerning when it was revealed that after the First Information Report (FIR) was filed on July 15, the petitioner was allegedly coerced and intimidated at the police station by family members of the accused. These individuals were reportedly brought in by the same police officers who were supposed to protect the victim.
The Court found that no action was taken to investigate the CCTV footage from the Lake Police Station, which could have corroborated the allegations of coercion.
“The police failed to seize CCTV footage showing officers and the accused’s family coercing the petitioner to withdraw her complaint,”
– the Court noted.
This lack of action further demonstrated the police’s failure to follow proper investigative procedures.
Another significant procedural failure was the police’s refusal to conduct a medical examination of the victim, despite her explicit request. In cases of sexual assault, a medical examination is crucial for gathering evidence. However, the police neglected this critical step, further hampering the investigation.
“Despite her explicit request, no medical examination was conducted by the police officials,”
-the Court emphasized. This omission not only violated standard legal procedures but also added to the distress experienced by the victim.
In a shocking turn of events, the accused was granted bail just one day after the complaint was lodged. The Court noted that the petitioner was not informed about the accused’s bail application, which is a requirement in cases involving serious offenses like the one under Section 64 (Punishment for rape) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The High Court criticized the police for submitting a “nil” checklist when processing the bail application.
“This checklist was deficient in substantive content or reasoning, reflecting procedural negligence in providing adequate judicial review of the bail application.”
-the Court remarked in its order.
The grant of bail on such weak grounds not only violated legal protocols but also inflicted further distress on the petitioner, who was already dealing with the trauma of the assault and the subsequent mishandling of her case by the authorities.
Given the multitude of procedural and investigative failures, the Calcutta High Court deemed the case to be extraordinary in nature. The Court stated-
“Considering these lapses, this Court believes the situation is extraordinary and requires exceptional measures. The petitioner is evidently a victim of ongoing torture and oppression.”
As a result, the Court transferred the investigation to the Deputy Commissioner of Women Police, Lalbazar, ensuring that the case would be handled with the seriousness it deserves. Moreover, the Court canceled the bail that had been granted to the accused by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and also revoked the anticipatory bail granted by a Sessions Judge.
- The petitioner was represented by advocates Antarikhya Basu, Moyukh Mukherjee, and Sayan Mukherjee.
- On the other side, Senior Standing Counsel Amitesh Banerjee and advocate Tarak Karan represented the State and other respondents in the case.
