Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3482 (MAD)

Prema v. Superintendent of Police

2015-10-26

S.NAGAMUTHU, V.S.RAVI

body2015
ORDER S.NAGAMUTHU, J. This is a case of a child victim. It is sad to note that the child in question bears a child now. The child -Mahalakshmi [hereinafter referred to as "the detenue"], was born on 16.05.1997. The petitioner herein is her mother. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had kidnapped the detenue from her lawful custody, on 28.09.2014. On a complaint made by the petitioner, the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2014, under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. But, the child was not secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Apprehending danger to the life and modesty of the detenue, the petitioner filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition as early as on 29.12.2014 itself. 2. When this Habeas Corpus Petition was admitted, on 30.12.2014, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice for the official respondents. Thereafter, though this Habeas Corpus Petition was listed for hearing on nine occasions, every time, the Inspector of Police, who was investigating the case, took time by assuring that he would trace out the detenue and produce her before this Court. But, it never happened. 3. Taking notice that the detenue was not traced out and having regard to the safety and security of the detenue, this Court by order dated 11.09.2015, transferred the investigation to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi. Accordingly, Mr.Aravindan, IPS, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, has taken up the case for investigation. 4. Today, when this Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, produced the detenue before this Court. To the shock of this Court, the detenue, who herself is a child as defined in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as on the date of the kidnapping, had come to this Court along with her child, by name, Sabeetha, [female child aged four months]. According to the detenue, she married the third respondent on 29.09.2014. Obviously, on the date of the said alleged marriage, she was a child in terms of the provisions contained in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 5. When further enquired, she told the Court that the third respondent has been now jailed in connection with the above case and therefore, she has no option, but to think of ending of her life along with the child out of desperation. 5. When further enquired, she told the Court that the third respondent has been now jailed in connection with the above case and therefore, she has no option, but to think of ending of her life along with the child out of desperation. This open statement of the detenue had shaken the judicial conscience of this Court. This Court has onerous constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of the citizens of this Country. Therefore, this Court with a view to bring her to normal from desparation, requested Mrs. P.Thangam, a woman Advocate, practising in this Court, to counsel the detenue and the matter was accordingly passed over. After counselling, the detenue returned to the Court and agreed to go with her mother, viz., Mrs.Prema, who was also present before this Court and to reside with her along with the child. Her mother assured the Court that she would take care of the detenue as well as her child. After counselling, the detenue appeared to be cool and composed. Therefore, we permitted the detenue to go with her mother and to live with her. We also give liberty to her to decide about her future, since, as of now, she has attained majority. 6. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, informed this Court that the case has been altered into one under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has further stated that during the course of investigation, the third respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the investigation is in progress. 7. In view of the fact that the detenue has expressed her willingness to go with her mother and to reside with her, no further direction is required in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition shall stand closed. 8. Before parting with this case, we have to state that it is not infrequent in this Court that the children kidnapped or abused sexually or otherwise are produced in Habeas Corpus Petitions either with a child in her womb or in the lap. In many of the cases, since the investigation had not been promptly done and steps had not been taken to trace out the children, it became very advantageous for the perpatrators of the crimes to exploit the children sexually and to make them pregnant. In many of the cases, since the investigation had not been promptly done and steps had not been taken to trace out the children, it became very advantageous for the perpatrators of the crimes to exploit the children sexually and to make them pregnant. In these kinds of cases, we apprehend that adequate attention is not bestowed in the matter of investigation relating to the cases of child victims. During the past three months, sitting in this Bench, we have experience that in many cases, the Investigating Officers, either in the rank of either Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police, had not done investigations properly to trace out the victim child concerned. In many of the cases, having noticed the same, when we transferred the investigation to the higher ranking officers, like the Deputy Superintendents of Police, the Assistant Superintendents of Police and the Additional Superintendents of Police, visibly, the action was very fast and the victims were traced out quickly and produced before this Court. In the instant case also, though the investigation was pending in the hands of the Inspector of Police for several months and though this Habeas Corpus Petition had been pending for several months, the detenue could not be traced out, whereas within one month, the Assistant Superintendent of Police was able to trace out the detenue. 9. As repeatedly said, the children are the national asset. Violence in any form against the children is a serious human rights violation making indelible emotional impact in the children. It is the duty of the State and the society to protect the children. As and when it is reported to the police that a child has been kidnapped, it is the duty of the police representing the State to realize their onerous responsibility and to take all possible effots to trace out the child before the child is abused in any manner. But, as we have already pointed out, it is our bitter experience that in many cases, such kind of interest is not shown by the Investigating Officers either at the level of Inspector of Police or the Sub-Inspector of Police. This is the main reason why when the children are traced, at a later stage, they come to Court with a child either in the womb or in the lap, as has happened in the instant case. This is the main reason why when the children are traced, at a later stage, they come to Court with a child either in the womb or in the lap, as has happened in the instant case. In yet another case, which came up before this Court last week, a child aged 14 years was traced and produced. When we enquired, shockingly, we found her three months pregnant. When the Higher Ranking Officers, like the Deputy Superintendents of Police, the Assistant Superintendents of Police and the Additional Superintendents of Police are able to trace out the child victims within a shotest span of time, it is not understandable as to why the officers in the rank of the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police are not able to do so. This shows that the officers of these cadres require to be sensitized. 10. In a number of cases, when the child appears in Court with a child either in the womb or in the lap, it becomes emotionally impossible for this Court to decide about the future of the child, though legally this Court could enforce the law. Just think of the case of the 14 years old child, who was three months pregnant. She was not willing to terminate the pregnancy. We cannot force her to go for abortion. Similarly, in the instant case, the victim has a child born to the abductor. What will happen to the future of the child and her child. In order to avoid such kind of unpleasant situations, we need to impress upon the police that they should not treat a case of child abuse like any other case. The child abuse cases require special attention. 11. Pointing out these facts, when this Court expressed the view that after a reasonable time of the investigation by the subordinate officers, like the Sub-Inspector of Police or the Inspector of Police, if the child victim could not be traced out, then, the investigation may be transferred to the Higher Ranking Police Officials, by the Superintendent of Police concerned Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, took time to get instructions from the Director General of Police. 12. 12. Later, after obtaining necessary instructions from the Director General of Police, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that soon the Director General of Police would issue a circular to all the Superintendents of Police in the Districts directing them to monitor the investigation relating to the child abuse periodically and in the event the abused children are not traced within three months, to transfer the investigation to Higher Ranking Police Officers, like the Deputy Superintendents of Police, the Assistant Superintendents of Police or the Additional Superintendents of Police. 13. This assurance given to this Court by the Director General of Police needs appreciation. We are also of the view that such kind of transfer of the investigation of the cases after three months of the investigation by the subordinate police officers in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police in case the victim is not traced, to the Higher Ranking Police Officers, like the Deputy Superintendents of Police, the Assistant Superintendents of Police and the Additional Superintendents of Police would be in the interest of the victims and to rescue them from abuse. 14. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions by way of a circular to all the Superintendents of Police in the Districts to closely monitor the investigation of the cases relating to the child abuse, child missing and child kidnapping periodically and if the child victims are not traced within three months, then, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned shall consider to transfer the investigation to a competent officer in the level of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police for speedy investigation. It is further directed that the compliance of this order shall be reported by the Director General of Police to the Registrar Judicial of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.