The Calcutta High Court recently directed the Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary action against six police officials including three lady police officers for their failure to follow procedural norms and for tampering with the complaint of sexual assault on the wife of an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer [X (Victim) v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.].
Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj found that despite the petitioner-victim’s serious allegations of sexual assault on July 14 and 15, the police officers involved in the case diluted the charges by registering less severe sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“Instead of invoking Sections 62 and 64, which pertain to graver offenses, the officers registered the case under Sections 74, 75, 76, 79, 115, and 351 of the BNS, 2023,” the Court said in its September 27 order.
It noted that the dilution of charges was due to tampering with the petitioner’s written complaint by the police officials of the Lake Police Station in Kolkata.
“The failure to initially invoke the correct sections and the subsequent tampering with the complaint reflects severe lapses in the police's handling of the matter, raising concerns about the integrity of the investigation,” the Court observed in its order.
The Court, therefore, transferred the case to be investigated by Deputy Commissioner of Women Police, Lalbazar and also cancelled the bail granted to the accused by the Magistrate court.
The case involved a complaint lodged by the wife of an IAS officer, accusing a man of having sexually assaulted her on July 15-16 at her residence.
The Court noted that after the FIR was filed on July 15, the petitioner-victim was coerced and intimidated at the police station by the family members of the accused who were brought in by the police officers involved.
The Court found several procedural failures on part of the police officials.
It found that a male officer was improperly deputed as the investigation officer, who subsequently tampered with the original complaint with the aid of a lady officer.
Further, it observed that no investigation was conducted with respect to the CCTV footage of the Lake Police Station where the petitioner had been intimidated. The police failed to seize CCTV footage showing officers and the accused’s family coercing the petitioner to withdraw her complaint.
It also noted that despite her explicit request, no medical examination was conducted by the police officials.
The Court also noted that the petitioner was not informed about the accused’s bail application, which is required by law in cases involving serious offences such as the offence under Section 64 (Punishment for rape) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Moreover, the Court also noted that the accused was granted bail on July 16 based on a “nil” checklist submitted by the investigating officer.
“This checklist lacked substantive material or reasoning, indicating procedural negligence in ensuring proper judicial scrutiny of the bail application,” it said in its order.
It found that these lapses caused further distress to the petitioner.
"In light of these lapses, this Court is of the view that the matter is indeed extraordinary in nature and calls for extraordinary measures. The petitioner is clearly a victim of continuous torture and oppression," the High Court observed in its order.
After having considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by parties, the Court directed that the case be transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Women Police, Lalbazar.
It also canceled the bail which was granted to the accused by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the anticipatory bail granted to him by a Sessions Judge.
Advocates Antarikhya Basu, Moyukh Mukherjee and Sayan Mukherjee appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Standing Counsel Amitesh Banerjee and advocate Tarak Karan represented the State and other respondents.
[Read Order]