Kathua rape-murder: Jammu lawyers reiterate demand for CBI probe
Jammu, April 12: The Jammu Bar Association on Thursday reiterated its demand for a CBI probe into the Kathua rape and murder case, asserting that it did not support the accused but wanted a fair probe.
B.S. Slathia, president of the bar association, told the media that attempts were being made to project the lawyers as supporters of the accused against whom the state crime branch has produced a damning charge sheet in the court.
"Lawyers of Jammu are being maligned in order to divide the state on communal lines. All we have been saying is that the investigation of the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Does anyone say that the CBI is communal," Slathia asked.
He said the Crime Branch that has been investigating the case has brought an officer from the Kashmir Valley to carry out the probe while the organisation had enough staff in the Jammu region.
"The officer in question has faced murder and rape allegations in the past. We have said the association of this officer with the investigation process has put a question mark on the probe.
"Justice should not only be done, but must also be seen as being done. It is unfortunate that communal motives are being attributed to our demand. The media should report events in an honest manner," Slathia said .
He said the bar association had never objected to settlements of Muslims from the Valley or the Chenab region in Jammu.
"We have objected to settlement of Rohingyas in Jammu because their presence here has security implications.
"If opposing those who are involved in posing security threats to the country is being communal, then be it," he added.
In another development state Industries Minister, Chander Prakash Ganga, has accused the media of being unfair in reporting the events.
"We want the culprits to be brought to justice. People were demanding that members of a particular community were being victimised. It was in that context that I spoke to the people there," the minister said.
He, however, admitted that the Crime Branch has fairly investigated the case and he is satisfied with it.
The minister had participated in the Hindu Ekta Manch meeting that demanded the transfer of the case to the CBI.
An eight-year-old girl was gang raped and murdered by several men, who had held her in captivity in a small village temple in Kathua district for a week in January.
The victim, who belonged to the nomadic Bakarwal Muslim community, had disappeared from near her home in the forests next to Rasana village, 90 km from Jammu, on January 10. A week later, her body was found in the same area.
The Jammu and Kashmir police charge sheet has said the main accused Sanji Ram, "the mastermind" of the crime, instigated his minor nephew and six others to execute the ghastly act to drive out the Bakarwal community from Hiranagar tehsil.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Gujarat HC raps law machinery for invoking POCSO Act in molestation case 8 years after FIR
Ahmedabad, Jan 1: The Gujarat High Court has berated the police and prosecution for invoking sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against four men in a molestation case eight years after the FIR was filed and when the trial was near completion.
The court of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed in an order passed last week that despite the victim categorically stating in her deposition in 2018 that she was 15 years of age at the time of the incident, neither the assistant public prosecutor nor the presiding officer conducting the trial took any action.
The court said the investigating agency as well as prosecution prima facie failed to discharge their duty in appropriate manner and did not make "proper application of mind", leading to wastage of time.
The victim had in 2016 lodged a complaint in Mehsana town in the state against four persons for outraging her modesty in January that year.
The accused were charged under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to outraging modesty and intentional insult, among others, but not under the POCSO Act despite the victim being 15 years of age when the crime took place.
The accused persons moved the high court seeking quashing and setting aside of proceedings arising out of the first information report (FIR), and also the order dated July 19, 2024 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court amending charges to include sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
While the court declined to quash the case, it permitted the petitioners to pursue the matter before the POCSO court at the time of further proceedings.
The court noted that when the investigation was carried out, the fact that the girl was 15 years of age at the time of the incident was nowhere referred to.
"Prima facie, it transpires that the investigating agency as well as prosecution and to some extent, the presiding officer have failed in discharging their duties in appropriate manner," the high court observed.
It further said that neither the investigating agency nor the prosecution made proper application of mind, causing the precious time of the investigating agency as well as the concerned court wasted from 2016 to 2024.
The court said it found no error by the concerned trial court in invoking the POCSO Act in the case, while allowing the petitioners to agitate at the time of further proceedings before the concerned POCSO court.
"It is also required to be noted that this is a glaring example that causal approach is adopted by the investigating agency and it has carried out investigation in a mechanical manner without properly applying its mind while carrying out investigation and at the time of filing of chargesheet," it said.
The court also directed the "concerned higher authorities" to look into the matter and do the needful "with a view to avoid repetition of such incidents and if required do the needful to carry out some exercise to find out if any similar incident/s is/are happening anywhere across the state".
It directed that the copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General of Police (DGP), Home Secretary, Law Secretary and the Registrar General of the High Court "for necessary consideration".
"It is expected that the petitioners, as such, are not at fault, and therefore, they can avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law," it added.
