A minor victim of sexual assault gives a video statement to the police naming the perpetrator — her biological father. The child’s mother alleges that her husband had stored incestuous porn on his mobile and laptop. Ideally, this is crucial incriminating evidence. But according to the Karnataka High Court, the Koramangala police in Bengaluru that investigated a complaint registered by the mother of a four-year-old in August 2022 left out all these and more in the chargesheet. The serious lapses in the chargesheet has made the court direct the Bengaluru City Police Commissioner to appoint a new officer to probe the case and submit a report within 10 weeks.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order based on a petition filed by the girl's mother, highlighting the lightning speed at which the chargesheet was filed and the flaws in the probe. The police complaint was filed on August 24, 2022. The husband was arrested only a month later on September 23, 2022, and presented before a special court dealing with cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act.
According to the girl's mother, her husband had a porn addiction involving children. Other than sexually harassing their child, he would also coerce the wife into sexual acts in the presence of their child. When she resisted, he would verbally abuse and physically assault her. But despite such serious allegations against him, the police never sought his custody.
The chargesheet in the case was filed on October 22, 2022, which is 30 days after the arrest. Normally, police are required to file a chargesheet within 60 days, a deadline that is not met in most cases. Courts normally grant bail to the accused once the chargesheet is filed. The judge agreed with the wife’s advocate Sandesh J Chouta and observed, “The aforesaid dates would indicate that investigation is conducted in a mortal hurry only to file a chargesheet before the concerned court.” Based on the chargesheet, the accused was given an extended bail, the court noted.
In the process of ensuring the chargesheet is filed quickly, the police officer who investigated the case left out nine vital pieces of evidence.
> A statement of the four-year-old, in which she clearly names her father as the accused, was recorded in video on August 24, 2022. This statement, though it forms the “fulcrum of the allegation”, was not included in the chargesheet.
> Another statement of the child was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (examination of witnesses by police) on August 25, 2022. Only a truncated version of this incriminated material was mentioned in the chargesheet.
> The girl’s medical examination report, which was in the nature of questions put forth by the doctor and answers given by the child, is not part of the chargesheet. The petitioner has stated that the report contained statements by the child that were crucial to the case.
> The investigating officer did not conduct an inquiry with the mother, who filed the complaint, to substantiate her allegations. No further statement was also recorded.
> The investigating officer neither seized nor inquired about the laptop and two mobile phones of the accused, despite the mother telling the police that these devices contained child pornography and nude photos of their child.
> The mother had handed over to the police an iPad containing sensitive information incriminating the accused, but it was neither produced before the trial court nor included in the chargesheet. The investigating officer sent the iPad to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the chargesheet was filed before the FSL report arrived.
> The investigating officer was supposed to seek locations of the laptop and mobile phones used by the accused to access sensitive materials. This is also not part of the chargesheet.
> The investigating officer neither conducted an inquiry nor recorded the statements of important witnesses such as the maternal grandparents and other relatives, who were aware of the accused's allegedly perverse behavior.
> A psychologist had submitted a report detailing the child’s torment. Though it would have answered vital questions on the psychological impact of such incidents on the child, this report was also not included in the chargesheet.
The High Court in the judgment concluded that the investigating officer, right from the beginning, “appears to have been partisan towards the accused.”
The Commissioner has to now appoint a new officer to probe the case, but will the investigating officer be held accountable? Will he receive due punishment? Why was he partial to the accused? Was the accused close to senior police officers? A few questions remain.