IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 101 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.796/2010 OF RANNI POLICE STATION ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------- ANJALABAI USMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. USMAN KHAN, MELEVEETIL, THRIKKOMALA MURIYIL, RANNI - ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 584. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI, PIN-689 672. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI, PIN-689 672. R1 TO R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.101 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of March, 2011 ORDER The prayer in this petition is to hand over investigation of the case to a superior officer to be supervised by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta. 2. It is started with a complaint preferred by the father of the alleged victim with the Ranni police on December 18, 2010 alleging that his daughter is missing from the midnight of the previous day. Police registered Crime No.796 of 2010 for woman missing and while so on 21.12.2010 the girl along with one Alex (first accused) is said to have surrendered at the Ranni Police Station but, she did not make any allegation of rape by or sexual intercourse with the said Alex. She was produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni who recorded her statement. Then also, she did not disclose any sexual violence. She was released along with her father on 28.12.2010. Petitioner gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta (respondent No.2) stating that the girl was enticed, intimidated and taken away by the first accused and certain other persons and she was subjected to rape. It was also stated in the complaint Crl.M.C.No.101 of 2011 -: 2 :- that it was on account of intimidation that the girl had not disclosed sexual violence against her to the police and before learned Magistrate. As per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the Ranni police recorded statement of the girl on 30.12.2010 when she stated that she was enticed and intimidated by the first accused and others to go along with first accused, herself and the first accused stayed with a relative of the first accused and there, first accused subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She was intimidated about disclosing of the incident to anybody. The three other men outraged her modesty. Based on the statement of the girl police submitted a report to the Court arraying the said Alex and three others as accused and incorporating Secs.366, 376 and 354 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The girl was subjected to medical examination. Other formalities were also complied, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. On 17.01.2011 first accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, Ranni and he was remanded to judicial custody. It is submitted that his potency test was conducted. On 25.02.2011 he was released on bail. Accused 2 to 4 were arrested on 16.02.2011. Accused 2 and 3 were remanded to judicial custody and they were granted bail on Crl.M.C.No.101 of 2011 -: 3 :- 28.02.2011 and on executing bail they got released on 04.03.2011. The fourth accused was a juvenile, was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and sent to the Juvenile Home. On 17.02.2011 he was released on bail. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that investigation is now being continued by the Circle Inspector and now, it is almost complete. 3. Grievance of petitioner is that there was no proper investigation of the case. It is stated that two women who had induced the girl to go with the first accused are not impleaded as accused. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that even the First Information Statement is missing. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the relevant records in the CD file. It would appear that when the daughter of petitioner gave statement to the police and learned Magistrate on 21.12.2010 she had not disclosed any act of rape or other violence to her. However in her statement recorded by the police on 30.12.2010 she referred to her being enticed, intimidated and taken away by the first accused. There is also reference to accused 2 to 4 outraging her modesty and first accused subjecting her to sexual intercourse at the house of his relative Crl.M.C.No.101 of 2011 -: 4 :- where herself and first accused stayed. 5. It is seen that investigation is proceeding. On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor I do not find reason to change the investigating agency at this stage. The Circle Inspector who is conducting investigation shall continue investigation in the proper line and submit final report. If petitioner is aggrieved by the final report that may be submitted, it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate reliefs. This criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of with the above direction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge