THE ALLAHABAD High Court directed enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case of alleged rape, violence and loot, which took place during the communal riots in Mau district in October 2005.
One Farzana Khatoon had alleged that rioters forcibly entered her house and raped her and her daughter. She and her husband were thrashed and valuable articles were looted by the rioters.
The court asked the CBI director to submit a progress report to the court within 60 days and fixed December 4 for further hearing.
This order was passed by Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi on a petition filed by Farzana Khatoon and her husband Mohd Muslim of district Mau.
The applicants had moved the court alleging that they had been trying to get their statements recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code by the chief judicial magistrate, Mau, but the investigating officer did not turn up and the magistrate did not record their statement.
Earlier, by means of order dated March 30, 2006, the High Court had directed the senior superintendent of police, Mau, to transfer the investigation of the case to any other police station instead of Kotwali, Mau. The court had further directed for getting her statement recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.
{{/usCountry}}Earlier, by means of order dated March 30, 2006, the High Court had directed the senior superintendent of police, Mau, to transfer the investigation of the case to any other police station instead of Kotwali, Mau. The court had further directed for getting her statement recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.
{{/usCountry}}It was alleged in the present petition that in spite of the High Court order, the investigating authorities did not take steps to get the statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It was further alleged that the investigating authorities recorded the statements under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code falsely and wrongly according to their whims.
It is to be noted that under Cr PC, the statement under section 161 is recorded by investigation officer and statement under section 164 is recorded before the magistrate.
The court also directed the SP Mau to take steps for protection of the two applicants and their family. Ordering CBI enquiry, the court observed that the facts of this case were reminiscent of what happened in Gujarat in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another.
Passing the above-mentioned directive, the court further observed that it was not possible to expect a fair and impartial investigation by the present prosecuting agency and was necessary that the matter be entrusted to a more responsible and independent investigating agency.