It is no surprise that all three accused in the rape case got away so easily due to the lapses from the part of investigation officers handling the rape case of a minor girl. The court found it highly astonishing that despite the crime took place and the girl mentioned so many people in her statement the investigation officer failed to record the statements of the witnesses, in this case, how is that possible, the court asked. Here some of the points raised by the court in the Taleigao rape case.
[su_expand more_text=”READ MORE” less_text=” ” height=”0″ hide_less=”yes” link_style=”button” link_align=”center”] The District sessions court released the main accused Babush Monseratte and two ladies involved in the alleged child trafficking and rape of a minor girl at Taleigao but while doing so the court also brought the investigation officer into the scope of irregularities that took place while investigating this case.
It is not the small mistake as the case involves the serious offenses against the woman and weaker section of the society observed the court. “The offence was a very serious, grave, inhuman, barbaric, heinous act against women and weaker sections of the society, one exhibiting extreme depravity,” court stated while bringing on the records that it was expected that the IO, a woman, would carry out proper investigations, digging wide for facts relating to the crime.
According to court the IO, a woman police officer had failed to investigate the case in the proper manner and she also failed to bring the culprits to the records by way of thorough investigation and compilation of statements of the witnesses.
The woman IO PI Sudiksha Naik attached to the Women’s Police station is the Investigation officer in this rape case. Additional Session judge Pramod Kamat who is also holding the charges of children’s court had observed that “It is really strange, astonishing and intriguing as to how the investigating authority could not reach or ascertain any one of the persons stated to have been present in the house of the St Cruz MLA Atanasio Monserrate.”
According to the observations of Additional session judge Pramod Kamat, there were more than seven persons present and the police did not record their statements. Their non-examination is an important missing link in this case, which could not be overlooked at this stage. According to court, no efforts were made by IO to ascertain the identity of either the maid who administered the survivor the drinks or that of the driver who dropped the survivor to her friend’s house.
The judge also observed that the evidence produced on record by the investigating authority was not sufficient and efficient enough to nail the accused as it did not inspire confidence. “It is upon the investigating authority to investigate and to collect material evidence. The IO cannot expect the accused to confess or admit to the crime when they are vehemently disputing of having been involved in the crime in any manner,” Kamat said.
Source: TOI
[/su_expand]
