Bombay High Court calls for gender sensitisation course for investigating officer who got "cold feet" while probing rape case against politician

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently directed the Commissioner of Aurangabad Police to ensure that the Assistant Commissioner undergoes a sensitisation course on crimes against women before he is entrusted with the responsibility of investigating such crimes (XYZ v. State of Maharashtra)..The Bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar passed the direction while hearing a plea seeking directions to the investigating officer to arrest a rape accused who was allegedly an influential politician. The plea also sought transfer of the investigation in the case to another independent agency due to the supposed influence of the accused. .The judgment begins with a quote of former United States President Abraham Lincoln:“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”.The Court was intimated during the course of the hearing that a B-summary report - which is filed when allegations are found to be false, or despite the completion of investigation no incriminating evidence is found - had been filed before the magistrate court..After perusing the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court found that the victim had stuck to her story as set out in the FIR. It came to the conclusion that the investigating officer (the Assistant Commissioner) had failed in his duties due to the influence of the accused and the victim would have to oppose the B-summary report by filing a protest petition..The Court observed that they did not find "a single convincing and plausible reason as to why the IO while conducting the investigation into a heinous offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, refrained from arresting the accused." It also mused as to why the first IO was suddenly removed without any reason. "The removal of the first I.O. is conspicuous," the Bench noted..Senior Advocate Rajendra Deshmukh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the offence of rape was committed in November 2020. However, the FIR was lodged later as there was a threat of murder to the victim. .The IO had refused to arrest the accused, a high-profile politician of the Nationalist Congress Party who had dropped names from his party while giving his statement.In fact, the accused was so sure that he would not be arrested that he had not even bothered to file an anticipatory bail application before any court..Deshmukh further argued that ever since the registration of the FIR, it was the victim who was consistently summoned for interrogation and harassed, whereas the accused is roaming free.He further submitted that with filing of a B-summary report, the IO has substantially damaged the case of the petitioner..The prosecution opposed the plea and justified the action of the IO on the following grounds:The IO had taken into consideration a statement given by an alibi that the accused was not even in the city on the day the crime occurred, hence the IO tread cautiously.Since the accused was a politician, the possibility of this case affecting his political career cannot be ruled out..The Court noted that normally, the statement of the accused is recorded only after his arrest in order to facilitate a free and fair investigation in the matter. However, in the instant case, the Court agreed with the apprehension of the petitioner that "the IO did not have the courage to touch the accused"..The Court deduced that by taking the names of Central and State leaders, the accused intended to show his importance in political circles, which led to the IO developing cold feet. .It was also noted that instead of relying upon the statement of the victim set out in her complaint and the statement before the magistrate, the IO chose to rely upon the plea of the alibi put forth by the accused. "This shows, either his insensitivity to the offences committed against women, or he was manipulated by the accused," the Court remarked.The order states,"We have not been cited any judicial pronouncement laying down the law that the discretion under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by an I.O. while dealing with an FIR in which, an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC has been alleged, by blindly believing the story of alibi put forth by the accused, when the name of the accused has been specifically mentioned along with his address and a statement under Section 164 clearly indicates his involvement.".Citing a circular issued by the Union Home Ministry in October 2020, the Court stated that offences against women should be investigated urgently and the investigation should be completed within two months. Further, there shall be compulsory registration of an FIR in case of cognizable offences under Section 154(1) of the CrPC, and failure to do so would invite stringent action against the errant police officers..After directing for a gender sensitization course, the Court also directed the magistrate to furnish a copy of the B-summary report to the victim so that she can file an appropriate protest petition to the report. The magistrate was also directed to decide the protest petition within four weeks without any influence from the present order..[Read judgment here]