<p>Two women investigating officers (IO) who had framed charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/pocso-case" target="_blank">Pocso</a>) against a 46-year-old man nowhere involved in the criminal case, were asked to pay a hefty compensation of Rs 5 lakh by the Pocso court.</p>.<p>Additional District and Sessions and Fast Track Special Court (FTSC-II) Judge K M Radhakrishna also ordered the judgement copy to be delivered to Principal Secretary of Home Affairs in order to initiate action against then Pandeshwara Women’s Police Station inspector Revathi and sub-inspector Rosamma P P.</p>.<p>In November 2021, Rosamma, based on the victim’s complaint, registered an FIR against one Naveen under section 8 of the Pocso act and sections 374 and 354 of the IPC. She then handed over the case to Revathi. “The Mangaluru rural police, instead of arresting Naveen, a 26-year-old youth who was known to both the victim and her brother, arrested my client Naveen Sequeira and handed him over to the Women’s Police Station,” advocates Rajesh Kumar Amatady and Girish Shetty told <em>DH</em>.</p>.<p>During trial, the judge became furious when the victim revealed that the perpetrator was a 26-year-old man and not 46-year-old Sequiera.</p>.<p>Both Rosamma and Revathi admitted in the court that the identification parade, mandatory in criminal cases, was not conducted and that even in CrPC section 164 (the victim’s statement recorded by a judicial magistrate) the accused’s name was spelt merely as Naveen.</p>.<p>“The judge also observed that it was still a gross injustice to have arrested Sequiera (once a petty thief and was leading a reformed life for past 10 years), in a case where he was nowhere connected,” advocate Amatady recollected.</p>.<p>This has exposed serious procedural lapses in Pocso cases which are scrutinised by police officials above the rank of assistant commissioner of police (ACP), argued child rights activists.</p>.<p>Sources in Women’s Police Station told <em>DH </em>that commissioner of police N Sashikumar had the Naveen case delivered to his office in the evening in order to pursue the next course of action, including arresting the real perpetrator. Sequeira, who walked free after a year in jail, on Thursday had switched off his cellphone and remained incommunicado even to his advocates.</p>.<p><strong>Bungling Cops</strong></p>.<p>Years ago, an inspector was slapped with a fine amount of Rs 50,000 for producing an innocent youth in connection with a non-bailable arrest warrant case by a city court.</p>.<p>The high court had upheld the lower court’s orders when the inspector had approached the high court challenging the lower court’s order.</p>
<p>Two women investigating officers (IO) who had framed charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/pocso-case" target="_blank">Pocso</a>) against a 46-year-old man nowhere involved in the criminal case, were asked to pay a hefty compensation of Rs 5 lakh by the Pocso court.</p>.<p>Additional District and Sessions and Fast Track Special Court (FTSC-II) Judge K M Radhakrishna also ordered the judgement copy to be delivered to Principal Secretary of Home Affairs in order to initiate action against then Pandeshwara Women’s Police Station inspector Revathi and sub-inspector Rosamma P P.</p>.<p>In November 2021, Rosamma, based on the victim’s complaint, registered an FIR against one Naveen under section 8 of the Pocso act and sections 374 and 354 of the IPC. She then handed over the case to Revathi. “The Mangaluru rural police, instead of arresting Naveen, a 26-year-old youth who was known to both the victim and her brother, arrested my client Naveen Sequeira and handed him over to the Women’s Police Station,” advocates Rajesh Kumar Amatady and Girish Shetty told <em>DH</em>.</p>.<p>During trial, the judge became furious when the victim revealed that the perpetrator was a 26-year-old man and not 46-year-old Sequiera.</p>.<p>Both Rosamma and Revathi admitted in the court that the identification parade, mandatory in criminal cases, was not conducted and that even in CrPC section 164 (the victim’s statement recorded by a judicial magistrate) the accused’s name was spelt merely as Naveen.</p>.<p>“The judge also observed that it was still a gross injustice to have arrested Sequiera (once a petty thief and was leading a reformed life for past 10 years), in a case where he was nowhere connected,” advocate Amatady recollected.</p>.<p>This has exposed serious procedural lapses in Pocso cases which are scrutinised by police officials above the rank of assistant commissioner of police (ACP), argued child rights activists.</p>.<p>Sources in Women’s Police Station told <em>DH </em>that commissioner of police N Sashikumar had the Naveen case delivered to his office in the evening in order to pursue the next course of action, including arresting the real perpetrator. Sequeira, who walked free after a year in jail, on Thursday had switched off his cellphone and remained incommunicado even to his advocates.</p>.<p><strong>Bungling Cops</strong></p>.<p>Years ago, an inspector was slapped with a fine amount of Rs 50,000 for producing an innocent youth in connection with a non-bailable arrest warrant case by a city court.</p>.<p>The high court had upheld the lower court’s orders when the inspector had approached the high court challenging the lower court’s order.</p>