Chennai: Cop, who raped girl 7 yrs ago, lands in trouble
However, the disciplinary authority, has graciously, chosen to award only a minor punishment of postponement of next increment for three years.
Chennai: Expressing shock, strong displeasure and disapproval on the meagre punishment of postponement of next increment for three years, imposed on a police constable, facing a charge of allegedly kidnapping and raping a minor girl by keeping her in his illegal custody for three days, the Madras high court has remitted the matter back to the Director General of Police (DGP) for reconsidering the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent and pass appropriate orders for imposing adequate and proportionate punishment on him.
Allowing an appeal filed by the DGP, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Dindigul district, a division bench comprising Justices K. Ravichandrabaabu and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has set aside an order of a single judge, dated June 4, 2018, quashing the minor punishment imposed on constable P. Karrupusamy.
The bench said perusal of the enquiry report, dated October 15, 2013, would clearly indicate that the victim, who was examined in the enquiry, has without any ambiguity, stated before the enquiry officer that it is correct that she has given police complaint in the year 2012 stating that Karrupusamy had abducted her and also committed sexual assault on her.
The delinquent has not chosen to cross examine the victim girl. Therefore, it is evident that the charge leveled against the constable is undoubtedly a very grave and serious charge and that the charge has been found proved in the domestic enquiry after following due procedure.
However, the disciplinary authority, has graciously, chosen to award only a minor punishment of postponement of next increment for three years.
“It is terribly shocking our judicial conscience to see the mechanical approach of the said disciplinary authority to simply impose such a minor punishment for the said proven grave and serious charge. It is not stated anywhere in the order of punishment, as to why the disciplinary authority has chosen to impose only a minor punishment on the delinquent despite the fact that he has fully agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. We do not find the punishment imposed is in proportion to the offence committed by the delinquent and on the other hand, it is totally disproportionate and inadequate. Undoubtedly, the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as review authority. Thus, we express our strong displeasure and disapproval on the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent”, the bench added.