Police Allowing POCSO Victim To Go With Accused ‘Shocking’: Madras High Court Orders Inquiry
The Court also directed the All Women Police Station to act upon the alleged violation of the accused’s bail conditions and ordered the Superintendent of Police to ensure the victim’s safety.
The Madras High Court has termed “shocking” the conduct of a Special Sub-Inspector of Police who permitted a POCSO victim to leave with an accused in the pending case, despite both of them disclosing their respective status during a police inquiry.
Although the Court found that the victim, who had since attained majority, was not under illegal detention, it directed the Superintendent of Police to inquire into the insensitive handling of the matter, take appropriate action and ensure her safety.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the victim’s mother seeking production of her daughter and her release from the alleged custody of the accused and his wife.
A Division Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice B. Murugesan observed: “The manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police of the second respondent Police Station is shocking. Despite the missing person informing that she is a victim and the fourth respondent admitting that he is an accused in the POCSO case, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police has permitted the victim to go along with the fourth respondent, who is an accused.”
The Bench further remarked: “We now find that the custody of the missing person is not illegal. However, since the matter has been dealt with by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police of the second respondent Police Station in an insensitive manner, we direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry concerning the manner in which the matter has been dealt and take appropriate action in accordance with law and ensure the safety of the victim girl.”
K.K. Kannan, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner. G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), represented the police authorities, while K.R. Manimaran, Advocate, appeared for the accused.
Background
The petitioner’s daughter was the victim in a pending POCSO prosecution. The fourth respondent, an accused in that case, had been granted bail subject to conditions prohibiting him from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening or making any promise to the victim.
The mother alleged that the accused and his wife approached the victim, threatened her against giving evidence and took her into their custody. She further alleged that despite being informed about the pending POCSO case, the police permitted her daughter to leave with the accused.
When the matter came before the High Court, the police produced the inquiry file containing statements from the victim, her mother and the accused. The Court directed the victim to be produced and also required the Special Sub-Inspector who conducted the inquiry to appear.
The victim informed the Court that she had attained majority, had voluntarily accompanied the accused and did not wish to return to either parent. She stated that she wanted to lead an independent life.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Special Sub-Inspector had permitted her to accompany the accused because she expressed that choice during the inquiry. He maintained that the officer’s conduct was attributable to ignorance rather than any wilful or wanton act and stated that steps would be taken to sensitise police personnel.
The accused submitted that the victim had contacted him and requested that he take her along. His counsel maintained that he had also acted without appreciating the consequences.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that the Special Sub-Inspector was informed that the missing woman was the victim in a POCSO case. The accused had also admitted during the inquiry that he was facing prosecution in that case. Despite these disclosures, the officer allowed the victim to accompany him.
The Court further held that permitting the victim to leave with the accused was “in total violation of the conditions imposed by this Court” while granting him bail.
The Bench consequently directed the Superintendent of Police to examine how the Special Sub-Inspector had handled the matter, take appropriate action in accordance with law and ensure the victim’s safety. It also directed the All Women Police Station to take appropriate steps concerning the alleged breach of the accused’s bail conditions.
The Court also interacted with the victim twice and noted that she had attained majority. It considered her assertion that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused, did not wish to return to her parents and wanted to live independently.
On the limited question arising in the habeas corpus proceedings, the Bench held: “We find that she is not in illegal detention.”
The Court nevertheless clarified through its directions that the absence of illegal detention did not justify the insensitive police response or dispense with the need to protect the victim and examine the violation of the accused’s bail conditions.
Conclusion
The Court closed the habeas corpus petition after finding that the victim was a major and was not under illegal detention.
It however directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the Special Sub-Inspector’s handling of the matter, take appropriate action under law and ensure the victim’s safety. The All Women Police Station was separately directed to take appropriate steps concerning the accused’s alleged violation of bail conditions.
Cause Title: S v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors.