Police fails to arrest accused in Rape FIR

Bail application likely to be listed today

25/06/2018



JAMMU, Jun 24: Reasi Police registered the FIR No.101 of 2018 under section 376 RPC for committing rape of 'X' (name withheld) by Prem Singh and others. The writ petition is filed through A K Sawhney Advocate, Aseem Sawhney Advocate, Shiv Dev Thakur and Anil Sharma Advocates. 'X' the Woman has leveled very serious allegations against Prem Singh and other accused.
The bail application is likely to be listed before the vacation judge on 25th June 2018.
Reasi Police did not arrest the accused as they are hand in glove with the accused, alleged complainant Accused are roaming freely in Reasi and spotted even in court premises but Reasi police adopted an approach unwarranted and biased inclination as it is reported that the Prem Singh accused is known to the higher police officer and working in his house.
Petitioner 'K' name (withheld) filed a writ petition against IGP Jammu, SSP Reasi, Ors for not performing statutory duty in rape case.
Extract of petition is represented….
…."Several times the accused persons used to call the petitioner for compromise and get her husband released, but the petitioner did not go. On 18.5.2018 the accused Shrestha Devi called the petitioner to their house for compromise and at 8.30 PM-9 PM the petitioner went to their house to see what they wanted. When she reached their house, Shresetha Devi was waiting outside the house and she took the petitioner inside her house where accused Prem Singh and another unknown person were present.
They asked the petitioner to sit down and talk. Accused Shrestha Devi started talking and accused demanded Rs 5 lakhs for settlement of the case falsely involving the husband of the petitioner. Petitioner responded that she does not have the money since her husband is in prison, on this Shresetha Devi got out of the room and bolted the door of the room from outside. The accused Prem Singh and unknown person who shall be identified during investigation, they held the petitioner and ravished her honour and modestly. Firstly rape was committed by the accused Prem Singh and the other person had gaged the petitioner and later the unknown person raped petitioner when Prem Singh held her and gagged her mouth. The petitioner wailed and cried and the accused did not hear any of her cries after she was ungagged. Thereafter Shreseth Devi opened the room on getting to know that hey had finised the rape. Petitioner rushed her to her home. The accused threatened that they have settled scores with her and her husband and in case she reveals this or discloses this to anyone she and her kids will be eliminated and her husband is already in the jail.
After that petitioner kept crying and only after being reassured by women folk of her house / sister in law that she mustered courage and went to the Police to failed to lodge but the Police did not do the needful till 21.5.2018 as the accused was an SPO in the Police so the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Ld Magistrate and only then an FIR was registered.
The copy of the FIR no. 101/2018 dated 21.5.2018 is attached as ANNEXURE A.
5) That the respondent- Police/ respondent no. 3 and 4 till date have not taken any action in the matter and rather every effort is being made to scuttle the said FIR and defeat the legitimate case of the petitioner. So much so that the petitioner after coming back to Jammu has learnt that the Investigating Officer is not conducting the investigation fairly rather efforts are being made to favor the accused.
The unfateful occurrence is on 18.5.2018 and on 19.5.2018 the victim/ petitioner and her relatives went to the Police Station Reasi on 19.5.2018, where nothing was done thereafter on 19.5.2018 the petitioner went to the ld Court for registertaion of the case under section 156 (3) CrPC. Same was directed to be investigated but till 21.5.2018 the Police did not lodge the FIR and delayed the matter.
Under law the medical examination is to be conducted at the earliest but here in this case the medical examination was conducted after no. of days, just to ensure that the benefit is given to the accused that was the reason the FIR was not registered on time. It was on 21.5.2018 the petitioner was sent for medical examination where she was admitted in the Distt Hospital Reasi for the night and on next date i.e. 22.5.2018 the medical examination was conducted.
6) The accused have not been arrested till date and are being given leverage to move the High Court and file petition for which infact was filed and listed on 29.5.2018 titled Prem Singh V/s State & Others, wherein notice was issued to State and others but no interim relief was granted.
7) That till 28.5.2018 the Police/ respondents did not get the statement under section 164 A CrPC recorded which too was required to be recorded without waste of time. The petitioner/ prosecutix had made a statement before the Ld Magistrate Reasi, but till now no arrest for identified Parade has been conducted.
8) That the respondents have violated the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 with impunity just to give favour to the accused and are misconducting themselves in favour of the accused.
9) That despite the coming into force the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment Act which has carved out various amendments to the procedural law i.e. CrPC still the respondents have violated and disobeyed law as laid down under the amended 154 CrPC just in order to give benefit to the accused and cause harassment and injustice to the petitioner, thus making the said officers who have shown delinquency in their duties to be liable for action as envisaged under amended section 166 A of the CrPC which interalia envisages as follows:
...." 166 A. Public Servant disobeying direction under law-
Whoever, being a public servant,-
(a) .....
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct the investigation; or
(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 (1933 AD) in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, Section 376 A......."
That for the regulation of conduct of investigation the Amendment Act of 2013 has envisaged by adding proviso to section 154 CrPC that when an information is given by the woman alleging offence under section 376 etc committed or attempted then the information shall be recorded by a woman Police officer or any other woman officer and such woman shall be provided legal assistance and also assistance of a heathcare worker or women's organization or both.
10) That what to talk of compliance of these mandatory directions of law, neither the law contained in the section 154 was followed by the respondent no. 4 nor the investigation till date is going on in a fair and transparent manner.
11) That the respondent Police is causing unnecessary delay in arresting the accused and also causing failure of Justice by unfair and shoddy investigation.
12) That in the meantime, the Petitioner/ prosecutrix is receiving threats from various persons. The complainant/ Petitioner is being threatened in case the Petitioner does not toe their line she will be eliminated or even she would be implicated in false cases as they are related / connected to high Police Officers and even will ensure hell for her husband in jail.
13) That as submitted above that J&K Criminal Laws Amendment Act 2013 prescribes in the proviso to section 154, that the information given by the woman against whom the offence of 376 RPC etc is alleged is to be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer and woman shall be provided with legal assistance and also assistance of health care worker or women's organization or both. The recording of the information as far as practicable be videographed.
In the case of the complainant herein, neither the information has been recorded in the manner as stated by the Petitioner/complainant nor the same has been done by a woman officer and even not videographed.
14) That the mandate of law has been disobeyed by the concerned officers of the Police just to prejudice the case of the Petitioner/complainant and the complainant/Petitioner in her application has alleged that the offence under section 166 A is applicable to such Police Officer (s) who are being public servants knowingly disobeying the law as mentioned above viz recording of information, non recording of statements, non following of investigation procedures, non addition of the offences of criminal intimidation, assault, threats to life for compromising the case. So much so that the Police has also not made any effort to get the bail of the accused cancelled in the earlier rape case, therefore this petition"….

Share This Story


Comment On This Story

 

Photo Gallery

  
BSE Sensex
NSE Nifty