Source: indianexpress.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Setting aside the death sentence handed out by a trial court to a man for murder and life imprisonment for raping a child in January 2012, the Bombay High Court held him guilty only of destruction of evidence and ordered his release from prison as he had already served the seven years imprisonment the charge attracted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a case in which the police\u2019s story of sexual assault and murder of an eight-year-old child came undone, the High Court also directed the state government to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the child\u2019s parents \u201cfor negligent investigation into death of their daughter\u201d. The court also acquitted another man accused of destroying evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case dates back to January 1, 2012 when the girl\u2019s father lodged a\n missing complaint for his daughter. A day later, he was called to the \nmorgue to identify the body of a child he said was his daughter. The \nnext day, he told police he had heard talk of some person \u201cworking in an\n advertising firm\u201d who had killed a child and disposed the body. On \nJanuary 3, the accused was arrested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Police first filed a case of murder and destruction of evidence as the girl\u2019s father had said an \u2018abnormal incident\u2019 had occurred in a gala (a shop unit) near his house where the body of a child was found and he suspected the accused, who worked in the shop, had disposed the body in Vile Parle near the Western Express Highway and lodged an FIR against the accused and another man, who manufactured advertising boards in the gala.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On March 30, 2012, a chargesheet was filed in the case. However, the \ngirl\u2019s father then filed a petition in the High Court alleging faulty \ninvestigation by police after which the High Court ordered further \ninvestigation on August 1, 2012. In their second chargesheet filed on \nFebruary 4, 2013, police added sections of rape under the IPC and \nProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relying on the postmortem report, the defence lawyer pointed out that\n the body was decomposed and injuries to external genital area of the \ndeceased were found to be due to decomposition. The postmortem report \ndoes not find any injury in neck and does not show any culpable homicide\n at all, he argued. The defence pointed out that the child\u2019s body was \nfound under huge planks of wood and the child could have been crushed \nunder them. When the accused found the body he was scared of being \nfalsely accused of her murder and hence decided to dispose of the body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGoing by the story of accused no. 1, Investigating Officer ought to \nhave attempted to find out whether fall of plywood sheet\/s on victim \nwould have resulted in her death. This would have needed investigation \ninto length, width and weight of plywood sheet and whether only one or \nall three plywood sheets fell on deceased. This would have also required\n scrutiny of a place where those sheets were stored and mode and manner \nin which they were placed,\u201d Justice B P Dharmadhikari and Justice \nPrakash Naik observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judges further stated, \u201cNow, it is impossible to find out the \ntruth or the real incident. But omission to conduct proper investigation\n despite directions of this court definitely entitles family of victim \nto reasonable compensation from the state government.\u201dThe government \nmust recover the sum from the investigating agency or the officer, the \ncourt said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court also observed that the second accused was not present at the spot when the incident took place and his role in destroying the evidence was not proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n