Gender Sensitisation Course For Cop Who Failed To Arrest Rape-Accused Politician: Report

Gender Sensitisation Course For Investigating Officer: Bombay High Court bench in Aurangabad ordered the Commissioner of Aurangabad Police to go through a gender sensitisation course to be able to probe crimes against women.

The bench headed by Justice Ravindra Guge and BU Debrawar gave the ruling after hearing a plea against the police probe of a rape case in which the accused person is an influential politician from the Nationalist Congress Party.

In its judgement, the bench quoted former US President Abraham Lincoln, " Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." The bench further refuted the B-summary report filed by Aurangabad Police. A B-summary report is filed when allegations against an accused are proved false, or no evidence is found after the investigation of the case.

The court said that there was no plausible reason as to why the investigating officer did not arrest the accused. The bench said that the rape-survivor had stuck to her story as stated in the FIR and concluded that the investigating officer had failed to do his duty as he was influenced by the stature of the accused.

The case:

According to the lawyer, Rajendra Deshmukh, of the survivor, the offence was committed in November 2020 by a politician of the Nationalist Congress Party but the complaint was filed much later because of the threat to the survivor's life.

Deshmukh further claimed that since the complaint was filed, only the survivor was asked to come for multiple interrogations and claimed that she was harassed. He pointed out that all this time the accused was roaming free. During the trial, it was also noted the accused in his statement had dropped influential persons' names in his statement. He didn't even submit an anticipatory bail petition because he was so sure that he will not be arrested, the lawyer argued.

The investigating officer told the court that he considered an alibi according to which the accused was not in the city when the crime was committed.

What did the Court rule?

To this, the Court said, " the IO did not have the courage to touch the accused". The bench also said that statement of an accused person is only taken after his arrest in order to have a fair and free investigation. The court added that after the accused person dropped names in his statement, the investigating officer got "cold feet". It was also pointed out by the judges that the officer chose to rely on the alibi given by the accused instead of relying on the survivor's statement.

The bench said, "This shows, either his insensitivity to the offences committed against women, or he was manipulated by the accused."

They added, "We have not been cited any judicial pronouncement laying down the law that the discretion under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by an I.O. while dealing with an FIR in which, an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC has been alleged, by blindly believing the story of alibi put forth by the accused, when the name of the accused has been specifically mentioned along with his address and a statement under Section 164 clearly indicates his involvement."

Circular on dealing with offences committed against women

The Court cited a circular issued by the Home Ministry in October 2020, according to which probe of crimes against women should be concluded within two months. There should be compulsory registration of FIR in case of cognizable offences under Section 154 (1) of the CrPC. If an officer fails to do so, there will be strict action taken against him.

The bench further directed the police officer to provide the B-summary report to the survivor so that she can file a protest petition against it. The plea is said to be heard within four weeks from now and it will have no influence from the Court's current judgement.