The Bombay High Court on Thursday raised serious questions about the handling of the investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of two minor girls at a school in Badlapur, Thane district. The court expressed its dismay over the apparent negligence by the Maharashtra Police in recording the statements of the victims in a timely manner.
Badlapur school sexual abuse case
The case, which has attracted significant public attention, was brought before a division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan. The judges were particularly disturbed by the fact that the statement of the second victim had not been recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is crucial in cases involving minors and sensitive matters.
Expressing their concerns, the bench stated, “We are appalled by the fact that the Badlapur Police did not record the statement of the second victim girl under Section 164.” The court’s remarks underscored the gravity of the situation, particularly in cases involving the safety and security of young girls.
Also read: Badlapur Sexual Abuse Case: Court Extends Custody of Accused Till August 26 Amid Protest
Bombay HC treats this case as suo moto
The high court is treating this as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL), reflecting the broader implications of the case beyond the individual incidents. “Since this is a suo motu PIL on larger issues, the security and safety of girls cannot be compromised. Unless there is a strong public outburst, the machinery does not work,” the bench observed, emphasizing the need for systemic accountability in such cases.
The judges did not limit their scrutiny to the actions of the police alone. The bench also criticized the school authorities in Badlapur for failing to report the incidents of sexual abuse to the police, despite being aware of the occurrences. The court expressed hope that “no stone will be left unturned to ensure justice” for the victims.
Justice Mohite-Dere questioned the Maharashtra Police about the delay in recording the statements, highlighting the discrepancy between the date of the incident and the filing of the First Information Report (FIR). She remarked, “You (police) recorded statements so belatedly; the incident is of August 13, and the FIR is of 16th. Statement recorded now? Why were the statements of parents not recorded earlier? The duty of the police officer is to record the statement as per procedures. We are interested in ensuring victims get justice.”
Only one victim’s statement recorded
The division bench further noted that the statement of the father of one of the victims was only recorded after the court registered the suo motu PIL, which occurred post-midnight the previous day. This delay in action has raised questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of the investigative process.
In addition to probing the police, the high court has demanded that the authorities provide a detailed account of the measures taken to ensure the safety and security of the two girls involved in the case. The court has indicated that it will closely examine these measures to ensure that the rights and well-being of the victims are adequately protected.
