Delhi court summons teachers & police in probing into rape of 13-yr-old :- In probing a sexual assault case of a minor by her teacher inside the classroom, the lapses by cops have drawn flak from a Delhi court which has directed senior police officers, the school principal and several teachers to appear before it.
The prosecution created doubt on the genuineness of the investigation because the police claimed that the minor girl who is 13 years old was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her father, but the victim takes a firm stand that her perpetrator was her class teacher at a government school.
Additional Session Judge – Vinod Yadav said that there appears to be lack of supervision on part of superior officers of the district in flagrant violation of the ‘Sakshi’ guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court.
The Delhi court directed then DCP (outer district), concerned ACP, SHO and other officials of Aman Vihar police station to be present before it on 14th February 2017, to explain the position.
The court also directed the investigating officer of the case to bring before it all the teachers and principal, who had signed a letter containing alleged confession of the girl’s father that he had repeatedly sexually assaulted the minor.
The incident occurred in the month of August last year when the girl who is a Class V student of an MCD school in Aman Vihar, posed a query to the teacher who asked her to meet him alone later.
In her complaint, the minor girl said that the teacher molested her and when her parents came to school next day to complain about his conduct, he threatened them and took thumb impression of the father of the child on a blank paper.
The teacher allegedly wrote a confession letter on behalf of the father of the girl that he had repeatedly sexually assaulted his daughter and got signatures of other colleagues.
In this case, a case was registered by the police against the accused teacher under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
In its order, the court noted the alleged confession letter was within the SHO’s knowledge who “illegally ignored” it and did not carry out the legal procedure.