In what could possibly be a first, a Delhi court has ordered the lodging of an FIR against a woman police officer on allegations that she sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl, who had initially said she had been molested by her teacher. The incident happened in New Delhi.
Delhi has had a bad rep when it comes to crimes against women, especially after the gang-rape case of December 16, 2012. Although several steps have since been taken by the Central government and the police to curb such crimes, incidents like a woman being gang-raped all night by five still take place.
What is especially horrifying in the present case is that the accused was the investigating officer (IO) in the case where the victim had alleged she had been molested by her teacher! The minor girl has said the IO first sexually assaulted her and then took her to a hospital, where her internal medical examination was conducted without her consent.
The muck that was raked
The girl, a Class V student, had initially said her teacher, identified as one Manoj Rathi, had molested her in August last year after telling her to meet him alone on the pretext of answering a question. A day later when her parents confronted the teacher, he had forced the girl's father to put his thumb-print on a blank piece of paper, the girl said in her complaint.
However, it is now alleged that the school may have misused this thumb-print, because it submitted a "confession" from the father that he had repeatedly assaulted his daughter sexually over a period of time. It was this case that the IO was probing when she allegedly sexually assaulted the teen.
Court order
Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav said in his order in the case: "Today, separate directions have been given for lodging of FIR against the IO in this case for having committed penetrative sexual assault upon the child victim and creating false evidence."
He added: "Needless to say, false evidence was being created by the IO solely to accord benefit thereof to the applicant/accused Manoj Rathi. Be that as it may, I do not find any change in the circumstance warranting taking different view. The bail application of the applicant accordingly stands dismissed."
