Advertisement
“People often do horrible things (like suicide) when they are spurned by the first authority (usually the police) which they approach, as we saw recently,” the high court said in an apparent reference to the Mofia Parveen case.
Mofia, a 21-year-old third year law student, committed suicide after a police officer allegedly misbehaved with her when she went to the station in connection with a dowry harassment and domestic violence complaint lodged by her against her husband and in-laws.
The observation by Justice Devan Ramachandran came during the hearing of a plea for police protection, where the victim has alleged that she was being harassed by not only the accused, but by certain police officers as well and as a result, she has been forced to go into hiding by residing with a close relative of hers.
Related Articles
Advertisement
During the hearing on Monday, police told the court that a woman victim liaison/protection officer was assigned to the complainant.
However, the court did not buy the contention, saying it was “extremely obfuscatory” as the victim had to go to the police station with an application for medical termination of her pregnancy, which was a result of the alleged rape.
The court asked why the woman had to come to the station if she had been assigned a liaison officer.
The liaison or protection officer is supposed to advise the victim about her rights and the legal procedures, just like a lawyer would do, the court said.
The court also noted that the statement filed by the police does not say what the liaison officer has done till now to help the victim.
It said that if victim and witness protection protocols were being implemented in this manner, then victims would get no benefit, except for paper service.
The court directed that the liaison officer to immediately meet the victim and advise her about her rights and the legal procedures that would come, while ensuring her identity is not exposed and she is not subjected to further disrepute.
It also directed that steps be taken immediately for medical examination of the victim as provided under Section 164A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
With the direction the court listed the matter for further hearing on December 6.
The victim had earlier moved the high court, claiming that the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case was not taking steps to conduct DNA test of the foetus.
The victim has alleged that “under the guise” of complying with the high court’s October 13 order to provide her and her minor child police protection by officers from another police station instead of the one where the crime was registered, the IO was not taking the steps required for carrying out the DNA test.
She had told the court that she does not wish to continue with the pregnancy and steps in furtherance of that have to be taken by the IO of the case.