By Vineet Malik | July 26, 2023 | London, England
In a startling revelation, first a Special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Court Judge granted bail to School Warden for sexually assaulting 21 government school children and thereafter Chief Justice (CJ) Gauhati High Court (HC) Sandeep Mehta took suo-moto cognizance, canceled bail of the accused with an act of concealing the name of his subordinate Judge in the order passed last Friday
The brazen series of repeated incidents came to light when the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to investigate the matter, shared its outcome at a press conference last week.
Children were Sexually Assaulted in 2019 and 2022
The Police in Monigong Village, Mechuka in West Siang district in Arunachal Pradesh
registered First Information Report (FIR) on a complaint made by victim's father.
According to the Police, such incidents occurred in 2019 and 2022 where-in, the accused Yumken Bagra – school warden sexually assaulted and molested 15 girls and six boys aged six to 12 years of class one to five.
The accused exposed the victims to sexual objects and pornographic movies. The Police seized medications from the crime scene that contained ‘antihistamines’. Such medications cause drowsiness after they are given to the victims prior to committing a crime.
The accused has been charged with aggravated penetrated assault and molestation that led to a criminal case registered under several sections of POCSO Act along with sections 6, 8, 10, 12, and 376 A, B, and C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
About POSCO Act
Condemnation of Special POSCO Court Judge by High Court
The order passed by CJ Mehta stated that the majority of the victims medical records support their assertions of having been sexually assaulted given the visible signs of abuse in their private areas, yet the Special POCSO Court Judge, Yupia in the Papum Pare district, Arunachal Pradesh granted bail to the accused.
Furthermore, the HC also observed that the subordinate Judge ignored the objections and plea raised by the Special Public Prosecutor – Arunachal Pradesh State and granted bail to the accused.
"The conscience of the Court has been shaken by the way in which a case of such grave magnitude and sensitive nature has been dealt with in an absolutely cavalier fashion by granting bail to the main accused without assigning any plausible reasons. The larger issue which bothers the mind of the Court is regarding safety of the victims of the ghastly act of sexual assault after the release of the accused on bail."
Flimsy reasons were given by the Special POCSO Court Judge in the bail order.
Special POCSO Court Judge acted in gross contravention of Section 439(1A) of the Cr.PC where-in, it is mandatory to ensure presence of the informant or any person authorized by him at the time of hearing of the application for bail.
CJ Mehta not only allegedly concealed the name but also failed to take action against the Special POCSO Court Judge
Supreme Court of India in the matter of R.R.Parekh vs High Court Of Gujarat & Anr dated 12 July, 2016 held that
"Chief Judicial Magistrate was guilty of dereliction in discharging his judicial functions. He acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer for awarding less than the minimum punishment prescribed under the statutory provisions of law. All the accused were granted a set-off by the Judge. These acts would amount to acts of grave misconduct and tantamount to conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The Committee held that even assuming that there was no oblique motive, the established facts reflected gross negligence and a dereliction of duty on the part of the Appellant Judge. It was further found the charge of misconduct was established and came to the conclusion that the Appellant should be dismissed from service under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971. A charge of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The report of the Disciplinary Committee was adopted by the Full Court. The State Government by a notification dated 14 July 2009 dismissed the Appellant Judge from service. We confirm the judgment of the High Court in so far as it rejects the challenge by the Appellant to the finding of misconduct. However, for the reasons which we have indicated above we direct that the order of dismissal from service shall stand substituted with an order of compulsory retirement which shall take effect from 14 July 2009, the date on which the final order of penalty was imposed upon the Appellant Judge."
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Prabha Sharma vs Sunil Goyal dated 17 January, 2017 held that
"Judicial officers are bound to follow the Judgments of the High Court and also the binding nature of the Judgments of this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the appellant Judge by the High Court. We make it clear that the High Court is at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at an independent decision, however, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the Judgment. Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant have been pending for long, we request the High Court to finalise the same expeditiously."
Two Attempts made by The Revelation were Glossed Over by Gauhati HC, Itanagar District Court and Arunachal Pradesh Police
In a bid to right to know the name and action initiated against the errant Special POCSO Court Judge, 'The Revelation' reached out to Gauhati HC CJ Sandeep Mehta, District and Sessions Judge Itanagar, Gote Mega, Director General of Police (DGP) Arunachal Pradesh Satish Golchha – Indian Police Service (IPS), Superintendent of Police Rohit Rajbir Singh – IPS and Deputy Superintendent of Police (SIT) Moyir Basar Kadak.
Despite, two attempts made by ‘The Revelation’ to seek explanation, none of the above individuals mentioned above have responded till date.
HC order can be read here.
Commentaires