Calcutta HC Punishes Police Officers For 'Excesses" Against Survivor Of Sexual Assault
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-09-08 08:38:31
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
The Calcutta High Court took a stern view of the fact that officers-in charge of two police stations in Kolkata contacted a sex-abuse victim late at night and even visited the victim's home well past midnight. The two officers made WhatsApp calls on the victim's phone past midnight and visited her at her home at 2 am. The court directed them to give a written apology and pay a token compensation of Rs 5000 each from their own funds to the victim. The court said that these were "excesses" committed by the police officers and they had no regard for the right to dignity of the victim.
The court said that the right to privacy and dignity of every individual is the "cornerstone of a civilized society". In case of a sex-abuse victim the matter is even more sensitive. It said that "the investigative agency, which is duty-bound to preserve, protect and champion the fundamental right of privacy of the victim appears to have encroached upon it themselves. The factual background shows brazen disregard for the rule of law, privacy and dignity of a victim of sexual assault".
The court also observed that "no police officer, unless persuaded by extremely compelling circumstances relating to protection of life and safety of the victim, shall take recourse to measures like midnight calls/visits which would impact the privacy, dignity and respect of the victim in her social surroundings." The court wondered whether the police did so in this case because the victim had moved court against some police actions.
In the instant case, the survivor was scheduled to depose before the judicial magistrate on July 7. The intimation of the court was sent to the police station where the original complaint was lodged. The said police station informed the police station under the jurisdiction of the place where the victim stayed by email. All this was done within June 29. Then, instead of sending a lady constable in plainclothes to inform the victim about the date, the jurisdiction police station tried to call the victim over Whatsapp on the intervening night on July 4/5 and not getting a response, officers visited her home at 2 am. The court said that they "unnecessarily harassed" the survivor.
In the first instance, the original police station should not have emailed the jurisdictional police station. It should have contacted the victim over phone during normal hours to inform her about the date. Then, the jurisdictional police station in no case should have sat on the email for 4/5 days but should have immediately informed the victim over phone, again during normal hours, about the court date, failing which they should have sent a lady constable in plainclothes (to protect the victimâs privacy and dignity in her social surroundings) to inform her about the same.
The court has rightly taken the officers to task. Despite several orders by the Supreme Court that categorically direct the investigative agencies to show sensitivity in such matters and do all to protect the privacy and dignity of a victim, the ground reality is that most of the times the police forces treat it just like any other case. They do not understand the trauma of the victims and pile up more stress on them and their families by ignoring rules and judicial orders to take actions that compromise their privacy and lower their dignity.
