UP: In a false report filed by a married woman accusing her of raping her for two years on the pretext of marriage, the Fast Track First Court of Ravi Kumar Diwakar acquitted the accused within five months of the charge being framed. The court has also ordered the woman to pay a compensation of Rs 1,000 for sending an innocent youth to jail on the charge of rape. The court has also ordered the SSP to take action against the investigating officer of this case SI Dushyant Goswami, the then SHO of Baradari and CO III.
The girl, a resident of Baradari, was married in CBganj area. After marriage, they had three children, but after a dispute with her husband, the woman started living in her maternal home without taking a divorce. It is alleged that during this time she fell in love with Rahul, a neighbor of her in-laws’ house. The woman had a love affair with Rahul for about two years. He used to come and stay at the woman’s house at night, but refused to marry her. On this, on the orders of the State Women’s Commission, on 20 August 2023, the woman had lodged a report against Rahul, his mother Lakshmi, his sister’s mother-in-law Basanti, brother Rajkumar and brother-in-law Jitendra and Dharampal at the Baradari police station.
This case was investigated by SI Dushyant Goswami. During the investigation, the investigator wrote in his case diary that the married woman had a love affair with Rahul, he also used to stay at her house. But on refusal to marry, the woman, out of revenge, made exaggerated and false allegations against Rahul and others. In his conclusion, the investigator recorded the matter of the woman filing a false case and gave a clean chit to Lakshmi, Basanti, Rajkumar, Jitendra and Dharampal and filed a charge sheet against Rahul. Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar’s court has written in its decision that the investigator has clearly written in the case diary that Rahul had a love affair with the woman. He also used to stay at her house. When Rahul refused to marry her, the woman made exaggerated allegations against him and his family.
The court said that the investigator himself reached the conclusion during the investigation that the case was false. Despite this, he did not take action against the woman by expunging the case. The then police station in-charge Baradari and the concerned CO also did not use their supervisory powers. The court has written in its order that the investigator should not work like a clerk. His duty is to find out the truth, not to convict. In this case, the investigator did not search for the truth. The judge has written in his order that the judge should also not become a mere spectator and a recording machine. The court has said that the investigating officer SI Dushyant Goswami, the then police station in-charge Baradari, CO III did not perform their duties. It is expected from SSP Bareilly that he ensures action against the concerned police officers. SSP should alert the district police that the job of the investigator is to find the truth, not to implicate the accused in a false case on the basis of false statements.
