Unhappy with police probe, court asks CID to take over
The probe into a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws alleging harassment and attempt to murder has been transferred from the Dadar police to the Crime Investigation Department (CID).mumbai Updated: Dec 26, 2010 01:39 IST
The probe into a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws alleging harassment and attempt to murder has been transferred from the Dadar police to the Crime Investigation Department (CID).
While transferring the probe to CID, a division bench of justice AM Khanwilkar and justice AP Bhangale of the Bombay high court directed the home department to take necessary action against the investigation officer as they were displeased with the casual manner in which the case was handled.
Sangeeta Dharap, 24, had filed petition in the high court alleging that the police were not thorough in their investigation.
Mahesh Vasvani, Sangeeta’s advocate, argued that in September 2009, her husband Rajesh beat her up and dragged her by the hair. Her in-laws then tried to throw her off from the fourth floor of their house at Worli, Vasvani said.
Sangeeta managed to escape, and underwent treatment at KEM Hospital.
A day after the incident, she filed a complaint with the police who initially lodged a complaint for harassment and not attempt to murder.
Besides, the police failed to conduct a spot panchnama (document recording incident at the spot of the crime) of the place from where Sangeeta’s in-laws allegedly tried to push her, argued Vasvani.
Taking note of the failure on the part of police, the judges said, “No explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the investigating officer to conduct a spot panchnama… More so, why the investigating officer failed to file the charge sheet without complying with this basic requirement because the allegation was one of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder).”
Vasvani further argued that Sangeeta’s in-laws had failed to return her streedhan (ornaments gifted by her parents).
Dharmendra Rohra, advocate for Rajesh, argued that they had returned all the gold ornaments. Dharap’s cousin was a witness when the ornaments were returned, Rohra said.
Dismissing the argument, the court observed: “Nothing further has been done by the investigating officer. That would indicate that he accepted the statement made by the husband, without himself investigating the husband’s stand.”
Sangeeta, who got married to Rajesh in May 2006, alleged she was harassed for more dowry soon after the wedding. A dowry of Rs 6 lakh was already given, states the petition.