Uttarakhand High Court directs SSP Nainital to monitor the rape case of a 12-year-old that sparked communal unrest. The Court criticizes the administration and rejects the State’s call for praise.
On Tuesday, the Uttarakhand High Court took serious note of the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nainital district, which reportedly led to communal tension and violence.
The accused is said to be a Muslim man while the minor victim belongs to the Hindu community. The Court has now directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Nainital to supervise the investigation closely.
ALSO READ: RG Kar Rape-Murder || “Probe Indicates It Wasn’t a Case of Gang Rape”: CBI To Calcutta HC
The case, Husan Begum v State of Uttarakhand, was being heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra.
The judges ordered that the SSP must personally monitor the investigation every week and submit an action taken report to the Court regularly.
While hearing the matter, Justice Narendar strongly remarked,
“A crime, more so against a minor, we are not going to condone… Justice has to be done, more so when it is a helpless child. There is no two opinions about it.”
The next hearing of this matter is scheduled for August 5. The case before the Court was originally a petition filed by the accused man’s wife. She challenged a notice given by the local municipal body to demolish their house.
Last week, the High Court had already warned authorities that such demolition actions go against the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The Court had also sharply criticised the local administration for its failure to control the law and order situation during the violence that followed the incident.
After the Court’s warning, the municipal body withdrew the demolition notice. Following this, the petitioner requested to withdraw her case.
The Court accepted the withdrawal but took the opportunity to once again remind authorities of the Supreme Court’s orders.
ALSO READ: RG Kar Rape-Murder Fresh Twists | “Was It A Gang-Rape?”: Calcutta High Court Grills CBI
the Court said,
“There is an order of the Supreme Court. It can’t be that every time the Court has to remind the administration that there is a judgment, that there are guidelines, that there is a law holding the field,”
During the hearing, the Advocate General (AG) of Uttarakhand, SN Babulkar, mentioned that the case of rape of a minor was a very sensitive issue that caused law and order problems in Nainital.
He also claimed that the demolition notice was wrongly presented before the Court.
At the same time, another lawyer informed the Court that police were not acting against people who were involved in the violence.
He also said that some social media users were posting harmful content against lawyers and judges.
Justice Narendar then asked the counsel to bring this issue to the AG’s attention.
In response, the AG said,
“Social media … nobody has control. Who can control the social media”.
However, the Court did not agree with this and responded that rules already exist to manage social media platforms.
“The accused was in custody. The accused family was thrown out of the house… the house was locked … they abandoned the house. Who did you issue the notice,”
the Court asked when the lawyer representing the authorities tried to say that the demolition notice had no religious intention.
During the same hearing, another lawyer tried to file an intervention application highlighting flaws in the police investigation into the rape case. But the Court questioned the relevance of that application in the current petition, which was only about the protection of the house.
the Court asked,
“You want to sensationalize the hearing? Does your submission have any bearing on the prayer here,”
However, the Court did not shut the door completely. It said the lawyer could file a separate petition regarding police lapses.
Bench added,
“If there is any lapse in investigation, come with petition. We will see it is not derailed,” the
Responding to all these concerns, the SSP of Nainital told the Court that he is personally monitoring the investigation.
He also informed the Court that the case now includes charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) has been assigned to handle the investigation.
Taking all developments into account, the High Court directed the SSP to continue weekly reviews of the investigation and to submit a report every quarter.
At the end of the hearing, the State AG requested the Court to say something positive about the police force for managing the law and order situation.
But the Court clarified its position by saying,
“We have expressed our sympathy with the police. We were upset with the administration. How many policemen are you going to appoint, that is why we said the administration should not aggravate the situation. We were upset with the administration, not with the police.”
Advocate Kartikeya Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner in this matter.
Case Title:
Husan Begum v State of Uttarakhand
Click Here to Read More Reports On Protest
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
