The Delhi High Court has recently expressed its concerns regarding the impending closure of a case involving alleged sexual harassment of female students during a cultural festival at Gargi College, Delhi University, in February 2020.
Police have submitted an ‘untraced report’ before a trial court, prompting the high court to unease its unease over this development.
The court, stated media reports about individuals being detained and subsequently released, has called for a comprehensive investigation. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has been directed to oversee the inquiry personally and ensure proper handling of the criminal case related to the alleged incident of sexual harassment.
The court’s order, issued on August 17, was made available on the court’s website on Tuesday.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula stated in its five-page order, “The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, ought to be leveraged to fortify the investigation and safeguard witnesses. It is crucial to scrutinize all available footage, especially those capturing the vehicles, given the evidence suggesting their significant role in the incident.”
The high court stated, “This court voices its unease regarding the impending closure of a grievous incident without holding any individual accountable. While some testimonies have been collected, the lack of definitive evidence under Section 164 of CrPC poses challenges.”
The bench stated that such hesitancy on part of the witnesses to come forward to make a statement needs to be addressed.
Notably, according to the newspaper report on record the accused arrived in the vicinity of the campus in trucks and stated that the CCTV footage must be thoroughly examined for identifying vehicles that could lead to offenders.
Previously, On February 6, 2020 a group of men broke into Gargi College at the ‘Reverie’ fest and allegedly groped, molested and harassed the attenders and claimed that the security officials stood watching when the incident took place.
Furthermore, the incident came in light after some students took Instagram for narrating their ordeal and alleged security personnel done nothing for controlling untruly groups.
The bench noted that media reports indicate certain individuals who were apprehended but later released on bail and stated to let go of such potential leads without meticulous scrutiny will be a “miscarriage of justice”.
For ensuring prevention of any recurrence of such incidents, the high court stated a two-pronged approach requirement.
The bench stated, “First, the Commissioner of Police, in conjunction with the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University, is directed to bolster police visibility and surveillance during college events. Secondly, both the college and Delhi University administrations must work in concert with the police to establish protective protocols, ensuring students’ safety.”
The court’s order came while disposing of a PIL seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into the incident.
During the hearing, the counsel for Delhi Police put forth that an “untraced report” was submitted to the trial court, as no individuals, including a single girl, were able to identify those responsible for the alleged sexual harassment. Such a report is lodged when a suspect remains untraceable or fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Delhi Police affirmed that, the students acknowledged being subjected to molestation; however, none of them came forward to provide statements before a magistrate. They cited moving on with their lives and their families don’t want to pursue criminal action as reasons.
Further, the Delhi Police’s legal representative stated that they reviewed the CCTV footage from the camera situated outside the college gate but were unable to identify the individuals involved in the alleged acts of sexual harassment.
With respect to the ongoing criminal investigation, the bench declared that, given the proceedings pending before a magisterial court in Saket, the high court found it suitable to abstain from further oversight. Thus, no additional orders were deemed necessary in the context of the PIL.
According to the police, a case was registered under Indian Penal Code sections 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
