Patna: The Jhanjharpur court has recommended special training from three police officers including Madhubani SP observing that they do not have basic and fundamental knowledge of laws relating to violations of small girls.
The direction came after the court found that the police submitted a chargesheet with accused of only below section 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and section 366a (little girl contract) from the Indian Criminal Code (IPC) while the kidnapping case, married and had a physical relationship with a little girl aged 15 years infused.
Two other officers for whom special training have been recommended are Jhanjharpur Sub-Division Police officers and the Bhairavstan Sho police station.
The Avinash Kumar-I court in Jhanjharpur’s subdivision observed that since SP was an IPS officer, he was sent to the National Police Academy for Special Training of Laws such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Law and Child Protection of the Act of Sexual Violation.
The court was also directed at sending orders to the Minister of Houses of the United States and the DGP country to see this problem, conduct an investigation and act accordingly.
Orders uploaded on the public domain on Wednesday night.
The court did not even set aside Jhanjharpur ACJM-III and published performances – therefore on the basis of what was observed and concluded that the victim was an adult in January 13 when there was no legitimate documentary evidence or medical reports that apply to assign it.
The court revealed a surprise and astonishment on the type and level of police investigation where the final supervision was carried out by SP only after the Chargesheet was filed against the defendant.
The court observed that even when SDPO in the supervision note said that marriage was accused of small victims but still he did not implement Pocso Law, the ban on children’s wedding law and part 376 (rape) of the Indian criminal code in this case.
The court observed that SP approved the SDPO supervision report without giving instructions to request three laws against the defendant.
The court observed that the police did not apply the relevant provisions of the law and part 376 IPC in cases where little victims.
“Non-application of this action by this official i.e, SDO and SP is a big miscarriage of justice,” observed when forced and bound to make recommendations.
It was on Monday when the court heard the Balbir Sadir Guaranteed Petition Regulation accused of kidnapping a little girl to get married after laughter at her residence on January 6 this year.
The court observed that according to the diary, the girl was examined medically on January 13 and her age was established as 15 years in a report and the doctor also found an injury in her personal part.
To find a guarantee, the applicant begged that the material was compromised with the victim and he also married his now pregnant.
Denying guarantees, the court observed that according to the Supreme Court’s decision, sexual relations with a girl under 18 years was rape despite the fact whether she was the person’s wife.
It also observed that such cases did not stand out and the approval of a little girl did not agree according to the law.
Based on the allegations of FIR, the facts mentioned in the case of a diary and submission, the court explained the provisions of the law that observed that the police failed to implement children’s wedding laws which were a maximum of two-year impressions that were strict and good to marry adult men and also for Those who do, do, direct or leave every child marriage.
The court also observed that there was a minimum of seven years and a life sentence in prison as well as those who carried out penetrative sexual attacks and at least ten years for maximum lifetime imprisonment for penetroat sexual attacks that were exacerbated by Pocso’s actions under the case, also not called in this case.