The Bombay High Court has expressed grave concern over deficiencies in police investigations related to crimes against women, directing the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, to file an affidavit explaining the lack of adherence to basic investigative principles in such serious cases.

The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale sharply criticized the investigation into an alleged sexual assault case in Pune, where the investigating officer, Ajinkya Daundkar, failed to seize the victim's clothes after she was allegedly undressed on the street during a quarrel.

The Bench found this omission to be a serious lapse, undermining the credibility of the investigation. "After perusing the chargesheet, we are not only shocked but quite appalled," the Court noted in its August 12 order. The Bench pointed out that the critical piece of evidence—the clothes of the victim—was missing from the chargesheet, despite being essential for corroborating the victim's allegations.

"When we confronted P.H.C. Mr. Ajinkya Daundkar about the said serious lacuna and/or lapse in the investigation, he informed us that, as Ms. Shubhangi was an accused in other crime, she was absconding and therefore the said panchanama could not be effected," the Court noted.

The case in question involves an FIR filed on April 30, 2024, against one Ravindra Lagad, who is accused of outraging the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation, and other charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

When questioned by the Court, IO Daundkar offered what the Bench described as "palpably false and contrary to the record" explanations, claiming the victim was absconding and that her torn clothes were not seized because she did not have another set of clothes to wear. "Perusal of Chargesheet clearly indicates that, the statement made by P.H.C. Mr. Ajinkya Daundkar is palpably false and contrary to record. To the compilation of Chargesheet, statement of Ms. Shubhangi dated 1st May 2024 recorded by the P.H.C. Mr. Ajinkya Daundkar, himself is annexed. In her said statement also, the victim has stated that, the Applicant torn her clothes and tried to undress her on the date and time of alleged incident," the Bench said.

The Court was further dismayed by Daundkar’s failure to bring the case diary to the courtroom, stating that his conduct suggested a greater interest in protecting the accused rather than the victim.

The Division Bench condemned this approach, calling it a "paradox" to the state's claims of taking crimes against women seriously. "This is the best example as to how the claim of the State is being frustrated by the law enforcers," the Bench emphasized.

Highlighting that such investigative deficiencies are becoming a regular occurrence, the Court underscored the importance of addressing these issues at the highest levels of the police hierarchy.

The Bench ordered the Additional Chief Secretary to file an affidavit within two weeks, explaining the lapses in this and similar investigations. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on September 3. "We request the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department to consider our observations made hereinabove and to adopt appropriate strict remedial measures in that behalf, as may be permissible under the law....Till the returnable date, further proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 0447 of 2024 dated 30th April 2024, registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural, and pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daund, District Pune, are stayed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Lagad v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr [Criminal Application (APL) No. 872 of 2024]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Ghansham Jadhav

Respondent: APP Ashish I. Satpute

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice AS GadkariJustice Neela GokhaleBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra