| HC flags botched investigation, orders SIT to unearth real offender in minor's exploitation case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 22: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has expressed serious concern over what it termed a "slipshod" investigation in a Katra POCSO case and directed the Inspector General of Police, Jammu, to constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to identify the real offender responsible for sexually exploiting a minor girl. Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the directions while disposing of a petition filed by Pawan Kumar alias Raja, who had approached the Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 116/2022 registered at Police Station Katra for offences under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Shubam Sharma, while Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia appeared for the UT of J&K.
The case related to allegations of sexual assault on a minor girl, who later gave birth to a female child. During investigation, DNA samples of the deceased infant were preserved and the petitioner's blood sample was sent for comparison after his arrest. The Court noted that the charge-sheet itself recorded that the DNA profile excluded the petitioner as the biological father of the child.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi argued that once the DNA report excluded the petitioner as father of the child, the foundation of the prosecution case stood demolished. It was also contended that another person, Balak Ram, was allegedly responsible for the offence and that despite a complaint before Police Station Panchari, no proper action was taken against him.
On the other hand, Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia submitted that though the DNA report excluded the petitioner as biological father, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC could not be brushed aside and the FIR could not be quashed merely on the basis of scientific evidence. After examining the record, the Court observed that the minor victim had been sexually assaulted, resulting in pregnancy and birth of a child. However, since the petitioner was excluded by DNA evidence, the identity of the actual person who sexually exploited the minor remained "shrouded in mystery." The Court expressed astonishment that despite scientific evidence showing that the petitioner could not have fathered the child, the Investigating Officer failed to take steps to trace the real perpetrator. It further observed that the charge-sheet appeared to have been filed in undue haste, seemingly to prevent the petitioner from obtaining default bail. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the High Court held that in exceptional cases, it can exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC to order further investigation or reinvestigation when the probe is not proceeding in the proper direction and such intervention is necessary to secure justice. The Court directed the IGP Jammu to constitute an SIT headed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police within seven days for further investigation. The Sessions Judge, Reasi, was also directed to return the charge-sheet to SHO Police Station Katra for further investigation. However, the High Court declined to quash the FIR at this stage. The IGP Jammu has been directed to file a compliance status report by June 29, 2026.
(JNF) |
|
