The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed frustration with the State’s handling of investigation in cases involving women. .Despite the State submitting affidavits affirming its commitment to such cases, the Court highlighted serious shortcomings in the investigative process.A bench comprising of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale pointed out numerous lapses in the investigation of cases involving women. “We just wanted to bring to your notice that this is the state of affairs. We are not expressing our pleasure or displeasure. This is our anguish. Repeatedly, we came across such cases and wanted to bring this to the attention of higher authority,” the bench stated.Hence, it called upon Advocate General Birendra Saraf to address the issue.“Mr. AG, Maharashtra, we are supposed to be the most progressive and safest State as far as the safety of girls is concerned compared to others," Justice Gokhale said.She underscored that there is a need for a shakeup of the system to prevent a systematic collapse..The Court, having encountered several serious investigative lapses in recent cases, had scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to address these issues. During the hearing, the Bench was dissatisfied with the affidavits submitted by the Mumbai police and the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, State of Maharashtra, and therefore insisted on the presence of Advocate General Birendra Saraf..The Court identified repeated failures in the investigation of several cases. In one case, involving the outraging of a woman’s modesty and torn clothes after a family quarrel, the Court observed that the police had failed to preserve crucial evidence. The police had claimed that they could not preserve the torn clothes because the victim did not bring spare ones to wear.“When a woman goes to the police station with a grievance, apart from the lodgment of the crime, it is important to see that the corroborative piece of the evidence is preserved,” the Court replied. The Bench deemed this failure as serious since such evidence cannot be ‘generated’ again..Although the State reported actions against the concerned police officer, the Court found this insufficient as the damage to the victim had already been done. The Court also rejected the Advocate General’s submissions that the State would take corrective steps, questioning the value of such actions given the likelihood of prosecution failure.“First interface of citizens is with police. If there is incompetence, where do they go,” the Bench demanded..In another case from Mumbai involving similar allegations of outraging modesty, the Court noted that the Mumbai police failed to preserve material evidence on time. The Court also observed that a police constable rather than a senior officer had conducted the investigation..While the Advocate General assured that further investigation would be ordered and corrective steps would be taken, the Court questioned the purpose of seizing the clothes at this stage, given that the charge sheet had already been filed. “What’s the evidentiary value now?” the court asked..In yet another case involving stalking and harassment involving a college going woman, the Court observed that the photos of the victim were being uploaded on internet even days after the filing of the petition..The Court also criticized the Advocate General’s defense of the police commissioner and questioned where victims could turn for help in the face of such incompetence..Two of the four cases reviewed on Wednesday were later disposed of after it was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, the Court passed orders granting police protection to a victim in the alleged stalking and harassment case. In another case of cruelty where the husband was still absconding and currently in Ireland, the Court sought an affidavit from the Joint Commissioner of Police to explain why no action has been taken against the absconding husband.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed frustration with the State’s handling of investigation in cases involving women. .Despite the State submitting affidavits affirming its commitment to such cases, the Court highlighted serious shortcomings in the investigative process.A bench comprising of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale pointed out numerous lapses in the investigation of cases involving women. “We just wanted to bring to your notice that this is the state of affairs. We are not expressing our pleasure or displeasure. This is our anguish. Repeatedly, we came across such cases and wanted to bring this to the attention of higher authority,” the bench stated.Hence, it called upon Advocate General Birendra Saraf to address the issue.“Mr. AG, Maharashtra, we are supposed to be the most progressive and safest State as far as the safety of girls is concerned compared to others," Justice Gokhale said.She underscored that there is a need for a shakeup of the system to prevent a systematic collapse..The Court, having encountered several serious investigative lapses in recent cases, had scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to address these issues. During the hearing, the Bench was dissatisfied with the affidavits submitted by the Mumbai police and the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, State of Maharashtra, and therefore insisted on the presence of Advocate General Birendra Saraf..The Court identified repeated failures in the investigation of several cases. In one case, involving the outraging of a woman’s modesty and torn clothes after a family quarrel, the Court observed that the police had failed to preserve crucial evidence. The police had claimed that they could not preserve the torn clothes because the victim did not bring spare ones to wear.“When a woman goes to the police station with a grievance, apart from the lodgment of the crime, it is important to see that the corroborative piece of the evidence is preserved,” the Court replied. The Bench deemed this failure as serious since such evidence cannot be ‘generated’ again..Although the State reported actions against the concerned police officer, the Court found this insufficient as the damage to the victim had already been done. The Court also rejected the Advocate General’s submissions that the State would take corrective steps, questioning the value of such actions given the likelihood of prosecution failure.“First interface of citizens is with police. If there is incompetence, where do they go,” the Bench demanded..In another case from Mumbai involving similar allegations of outraging modesty, the Court noted that the Mumbai police failed to preserve material evidence on time. The Court also observed that a police constable rather than a senior officer had conducted the investigation..While the Advocate General assured that further investigation would be ordered and corrective steps would be taken, the Court questioned the purpose of seizing the clothes at this stage, given that the charge sheet had already been filed. “What’s the evidentiary value now?” the court asked..In yet another case involving stalking and harassment involving a college going woman, the Court observed that the photos of the victim were being uploaded on internet even days after the filing of the petition..The Court also criticized the Advocate General’s defense of the police commissioner and questioned where victims could turn for help in the face of such incompetence..Two of the four cases reviewed on Wednesday were later disposed of after it was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, the Court passed orders granting police protection to a victim in the alleged stalking and harassment case. In another case of cruelty where the husband was still absconding and currently in Ireland, the Court sought an affidavit from the Joint Commissioner of Police to explain why no action has been taken against the absconding husband.
