news details |
|
|
| Rape victim files petition seeking Rs.1 cr compensation | | HC directs Army to produce accused on November 27. | |
Jammu, October, 22
A married lady who was allegedly raped by an Army personnel of her village has in a writ petition filed in the State High Court sought CBI inquiry and a compensation of Rs. one crore for the failure of the State government to protect the life and honour of the petitioner, Justice JP Singh of J&K High Court Jammu wing issued notice to the respondents.
In the petition it has been submitted that one Rifleman Tanzim Ahmed serving in the Army in November, 2005 committed rape on the victim when she went to her cattle-shed. In the petition, she said that her husband Mehmood Ahmed who was then working as labourer in KSA, and she was alone at home and could not share her feelings and in the meanwhile she became pregnant and delivered a male baby in the district hospital on July 8, 2006. She alleged that she lodged a report with P/S Gursai and FIR was registered against the accused but failed to arrest him.
The State Government in its objections filed through Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia submitted that the averments made in the petition unless specifically admitted may be treated as having been denied by the respondents as the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact, which this court may not like to adjudicate upon in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and therefore, the petition deserves outright dismissal.
A case u/s 376 RPC vide FIR NO 37/2006 was registered and investigation entrusted to ASI Ghulam Ahmed Manhas of P/S Gursai and arrest warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate directing the concerned Army officer to produce the accused in the court. In response to the court directions, a communication dated August 9, 2006 addressed to the Magistrate was received in which it was intimated that Rifleman Tanzem Ahmed is undergoing medical treatment in the hospital. The Magistrate, upon this issued fresh arrest warrants directing the army authorities to produce the accused on November 27, 2006. It is in the backdrop of these facts that the police could not arrest the accused and allegations made by the complainant in the writ petition are not only false but also motivated to defame and discourage the police officials and seeking dismissal of this petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
