Times of India: New Delhi: Monday, September 23, 2013.
In a strange twist to a 20-year-old case, a man
acquitted of rape in 1994 was rearrested and put on trial as the file
pertaining to the case had apparently gone missing. However, on the day the
judge was going to pronounce the verdict, the "missing file"
resurfaced, forcing the court to drop the proceedings, keeping with the legal
principle a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence.
The discrepancy came to light in January when the
Delhi high court encountered a PIL seeking the status of a 20-year-old rape
case allegedly forgotten by the criminal justice delivery system as its file
has been missing.
When attempts to find the "missing file"
in the trial courts failed, a shocked HC directed a district and sessions judge
to "reconstruct the records" of the matter related to the alleged
rape of a 16-year-old girl in Connaught Place by accused Karan Pal in June
1993.
The matter reached trial court once again in April
and the accused was taken into custody. After hearing the case for four months,
the court of district and sessions judge reserved the matter for judgment.
However, on the day of the the verdict, the "missing file"
resurfaced. To everyone's surprise, not only was the rape case heard two
decades ago by the then additional sessions judge, the accused had also been
acquitted on October 18, 1994.
In its order, the court noted that the file was
traced from the record room of Tis Hazari court complex and the case had been
decided in October 1994. When the PIL was being heard in HC, a report of the
Saket district judge had said the matter was disposed of on October 18, 1995,
as per the court register but no record was found.
The confusion regarding the year in which the case
was decided seems to be the possible reason for the file having remained
"untraceable". While disposing of the matter, district and sessions
judge I S Mehta said, "Once the original file has been received and all
the accused have already been acquitted, no further trial is required."
The PIL in HC had created quite a stir, with the
HC directing the trial court to initiate action against officers responsible
for non-availability of files. It had also constituted a three-member panel to
examine the practices and systems prevailing in connection with the custody,
maintenance, handing over, taking over and disposal of judicial record.
Another controversy had erupted when the
investigating officer told HC that the victim had informed him about a
settlement with the accused after which the case was disposed of, prompting the
bench to demand how a serious crime of rape could be compounded and settled.
The matter had come to HC after a lawyer had filed
an RTI to find out the status of the case. In the reply, it was said the file
had been misplaced while the matter was shown as active in police and court
records.
The FIR lodged by the victim 20 years ago had
alleged that the minor was lured by a home guard woman constable, Brahm Pali,
and taken to her house while she was waiting in CP in June 1993. Pali's son
allegedly raped the girl the next day and tried to get her married forcibly. She
was rescued by two men when she raised an alarm in public. Later, her parents
had lodged the FIR.
.JPG)
.JPG)
