I regret any hurt caused to Neha Hiremath's parents due to my earlier statement: Dr. G. Parameshwar
Bengaluru : Home Minister Dr. G. Parameshwar of Bengaluru expressed regret for any hurt caused to Neha Hiremath's parents due to his earlier statement regarding her murder case in Hubballi.
He clarified that his statement was based on the information available at the time and was not intended to be taken lightly.
Dr. Parameshwar emphasized that neither himself nor the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister have made light statements regarding the case. He assured that the investigation is ongoing and the truth will be revealed upon its completion.
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.
