PRESENT : Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR, Chairperson. Hon’ble ThiruV.KANNADASAN, Member. xxxxxx … Complainant -Vs- (1)Tmt.M.Shagin, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore.

STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
‘Thiruvarangam’
No.143 P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai
(Greenways Road), Chennai-600 028.

Friday, the 26th day of December 2025

SHRC Case No.11207/22/53 of 2022

PRESENT : Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR, Chairperson.
Hon’ble ThiruV.KANNADASAN, Member.

xxxxxx … Complainant

-Vs-

(1)Tmt.M.Shagin, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore.
(2)Tmt.P.Shyamala, the then Inspector of Police, Vellore South Police Station.
(3)Tmt.A.D.Vasuki, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore.
(4)Tmt.S.Sathiyavani, the then WSI, AWPS, Vellore.
(5)Tmt.N.Dhamayanthi, the then Woman Gr.I.P.C., AWPS, Vellore.
(6)Tmt.M.Jayasudha, the then Woman Gr.I.P.C., AWPS, Vellore.
(7)Thiru S.V.Venkatesan, the then SSI, Vellore North Police Station.
(8)Dr.S.Sankaranandhi, DGO, Gynecologist, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Vellore.
(9)Thiru E.Thirunavukarasu, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub-Division.
… Respondents
ORDER

Gist of the complaint allegations is as follows:-
Complainant a 15 year old girl, has averred that one Tmt.Mohanapriya called her to come to her house and when she entered into the house, Tmt.Mohanapriya closed the door and the girl was sexually abused by one Thiru Santhoshkumar and she was threatened by one Thiru Meganathan and Tmt.Mohanapriya. The Complainant was compelled to stay there and informed to satisfy VIPs and other Government officials, failing which they would kill her. They have assaulted and harassed to do prostitution. Though a complaint was lodged against the persons, who ruined her life, the police for namesake registered a case. Tmt.Sathiyavani, WSI, asked her not to co-operate for the medical test. The other police did not act upon their duties. The Complainant has also made various accusations against the police. She has prayed for necessary action against the police personnel. The said complaint was sent by her from the Home for Girls at Vellore.

2. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigation Wing of this Commission was directed to conduct an investigation and file a report with supporting documents. Accordingly, they have submitted a report dated 18.03.2025 along with documents. It has been stated in the report that Vellore AWPS has registered a case on 23.06.20222 in Cr.No.20/2002 U/s 3(a), 4(2), 17 of POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of IPC and the case was handled by the incharge Inspector Tmt.Shyamala, Sub-Inspector Tmt.Sathiyavani, Writer Tmt.Dhamayanthi. The victim girl was sent to the hospital through a woman PC Tmt.Jayasudha on 26.06.2022, i.e. nearly after 3 days from the date of registration of the case, but no medical checkup was conducted on that date, citing some lame-excuses. Once again the girl was produced for medical checkup only on 09.07.2022 and underwent medical examination. On 13.07.2022, the Learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Vellore has recorded the statement of the victim girl wherein, she has stated that she was sexually abused by Thiru Santhosh after being locked inside the house by Tmt.Mohanapriya. While she tried to expose the truth, one Thiru Meganathan intruded in the matter and by beating her threatened not to proceed further in this matter. Adukkamparai Government Hospital Doctor Tmt.Snakaranandhi has examined the victim girl and issued a medical certificate as “Hymen does not appear to be intact” and hence she could not say whether the girl was virgin. Further, the Doctor has categorically stated that on 26.06.2022, a woman constable, without any family member brought the girl for medical examination, but without conducting any medical examination taken back the girl. Once again, on 09.07.2022, the girl was brought for examination and found that she was between the age of 14-16, there were no external injuries in her private part.
3. The report further states that while perusing the case history, lots of strange things were found in the investigation procedure from the normal course of action, by violating the line of investigation by the Inspectors Tmt.Shyamala, Tmt.Shakin, Tmt.Vasuki, Sub-Inspector Tmt.Sathiyavani and Writer Tmt.Dhamayanthi.
(a)On receipt of the information that a girl was sexually abused, the Child Welfare Officer was not informed.
(b)It is found that the girl was sent for medical examination only after 3 days from the date of registration of a case registered under POCSO Act.
(c)Even when the girl was taken for medical examination on 26.06.2022, no family member or Child Welfare Officer accompanied the police, instead, only one Constable was deployed for such work.
(d)Of the three accused Tmt.Mohanapriya, Thiru Santhosh and Thiru Meganathan, Tmt.Mohanapriya managed to get anticipatory bail and no action was taken against the other two accused.
(e)It is very shocking that despite the Doctor is opinion that her hymen was not intact, the police personnel closed the case in a hurried manner by cooking up some stories and served a RC Notice No.3/2003 on 25.08.2023, by the Inspector Tmt.A.D.Vasuki.
(f)It is pertinent to mention that the victim girl’s statement recorded by the Magistrate is wholly ignored by the investigating officer, before concluding the case.
From the facts and circumstances of the above case, some clarifications were sought for by the Inspector General of Police, Investigation Wing of this Commission, the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Chennai and the same are as follows:-
(a)Why was the Child Welfare Officer not informed upon receiving the information that a girl was sexually abused?
(b)Why was the medical examination of the victim girl delayed for 12 days after the registration of the case under POCSO Act?
(c)On 26.06.2022 and 09.07.2022, why was the girl taken for medical examination without being accompanied by a family member or Child Welfare officer and why no examination was conducted on that day?
(d)Why was the girl not kept in a Government Home for protection, thereby allowing a third party, Thiru Meganathan, to interfere with the case and coerce the victim?
(e)Why no action was taken against the other two accused, Thiru Santhosh and Thiru Meganathan?
(f)Despite the medical certificate stating that the victim’s hymen was not intact, why was the case closed in a hurried manner without further investigation?
(g)Why was the victim’s statement, recorded by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, ignored by the investigating officer?
However, in the case file there is nothing to indicate as to whether any reply was received from the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Chennai, regarding with the above clarifications. Finally, it is concluded in the report of the Investigation Wing of this Commission that the Respondents No.1 to 5 did not investigate the case in fair manner and they had supported the opposite party of the victim girl.
4. While investigating the case, the Investigation Wing of this Commission had collected certain documents. The transfer certificate of the victim girl would show that her date of birth is 15.05.2007. A perusal of the statement given by the victim girl before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Vellore U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 13.07.2022 in Cr.No.20/2022 on the file of AWPS, Vellore would show that the victim girl had clearly mentioned the names of Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan, their harassment and the sexual harassment by the said Thiru Santhosh. A medical memo had been issued by the Inspector of Police Tmt.Shyamala, AWPS, Vellore dated 26.06.2022. A hand-written copy of medical report is also found in the records. In that report, it is mentioned by Dr.Sankaranandhi that a 17 years old female child was brought by PC Mrs.Dhamayanthi WGI.890 on 09.07.2022 at 12.15 PM. Earlier the same girl was brought on 26.06.2022 at 02.45 PM, by another PC Mrs.M.Jayasudha Gr.I.1838, Vellore AWPS, but both the victim and the police constable did not turn up for examination. Both had left the hospital without intimation and they had come back today (09.07.2020) for examination. 17 years old female child was brought by PC Mrs.Dhamayanthi (WGI.890) not accompanied by relatives. She had given the alleged history of having forced to have sexual intercourse with a known person Mr.Santhosh who was a relative of her neighbour (Mrs.Mohanapriya) on 2.6.22 afternoon, around 12 PM, at Tmt.Mohanapriya’s house while she was crossing that place. As per her statement, she was locked inside Tmt.Mohanapriya’s house along with Mr.Santhosh by Tmt.Mohanapriya and Mr.Santhosh had intercourse with her against her will. After examining the victim girl the Doctor has opined that hymen does not appear to be intact and she could not say whether the girl was a virgin and not found any injuries in her private part and the individual should be above 14 years of age and below 16 years of age.

5. Further enquiry report was submitted by the Investigation Wing of this Commission after examining further witnesses along with documents. A letter has been received from the Child Welfare Committee, Vellore District dated 20.08.2025, by the enquiry officer of the Investigating Wing of this Commission. It is stated in the letter that the victim girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 29.07.2022 by Tmt.Mahalakshmi, WSI, AWPS, Vellore, on the request of her father, Thiru Kumar, District Social Welfare Officer Tmt.Indira and the Sub-Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore. On the basis of the report of the Probation Officer the Child Welfare Committee recommended that the victim girl should be kept in the Govt. Children’s Home for Girls in Kellys, Chennai, for two years, for providing education and training. After producing before the Child Welfare Committee, the victim girl was kept in Govt. Reception Unit for Girls, Allapuram, Vellore, temporarily between 29.07.2022 to 20.10.2022 and thereafter, she was transferred to Govt. Children’s Home for Girls in Kellys, Chennai on 20.10.2022. Another letter has been sent by the Superintendent, Govt. Home for women, Allapuram, Vellore, dated 20.08.2025. In the said letter, he has submitted that the victim girl was admitted on 29.07.2022 and was transferred to Govt. Children’s Home for Girls in Kellys, Chennai on 29.10.2022. The victim girl returned to her home on 05.04.2023.

6. In the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing of this Commission it has been further stated that initially the victim girl denied the averments made in her complaint and other facts. However, after further enquiry, she had admitted that she was sexually harassed by Thiru Santhosh and has elaborately stated, in the complaint given to the Sub-Inspector of Police on 23.06.2022 as to how she was victimized, in the statement given by her on 24.06.2022 and in the statement given to the Inspector of Police on 13.10.2022, when she was kept in the Govt. Reception Unit for Girls, Allapuram, Vellore and in the petition given before the Child Welfare Committee, Vellore on 19.10.2022. But on the contra when she was in the Govt. Children’s Home for Girls in Kellys, Chennai, she has given a statement before the Inspector of Police Tmt.Shyamala on 25.03.2023 that no such occurrence was took place. From the date of complaint i.e. on 23.06.2022 and the further statement recorded by the Inspector of Police Tmt.Shyamala on 25.03.2023, there was 9 months gap. However, the police officials have not taken any steps to find out the accused. Similarly, the victim girl has given a confession statement before the Learned Judicial Magistrate U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. that she was threatened by Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan that complaint should be given to the police. Even after such confession statement, the police did not take any steps to implicate Thiru Meganathan in the criminal case and they supported the opposite party.

7. Tmt.M.Shagin, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore, the 1st Respondent has filed a counter statement. It is submitted in the counter statement that the respondent is well acquainted with the fact and circumstances leading to the present complaint, on perusal of records and as such all the allegations contained in the above said complaint are denied except those that are specifically not adverted to and admitted hereunder. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred the complaint before this commission stating that the respondent has not taken proper action on the allegations and prayed this commission to take action against the respondent. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 1 to 4 of the complaint deal with complainant’s family and that this respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 5 to 15 of the complaint deal with the alleged incident mentioned in complainant’s father’s complaint. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 16 to 37 of the complaint deal with the complainant’s alleged incident and that this respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 38 to 56 of the complaint deal with the alleged complaint given by complainant’s father and the subsequent registration of a case in A.W.P.S. Vellore Crime No. 20/2022 and further investigation, wherein the respondent has a small role. The case was registered by Tmt.Sathiyavani, S.I. of Police and she had started the investigation, further investigation was done by other officers. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 57 to 72 deal with the alleged threat faced by the complainant and that this respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that only after receipt of the complaint preferred by the complainant before the commission, this respondent came to know about the allegations mentioned in the complaint. This respondent was working as Inspector of Police A.W.P.S. Vellore from 02.09.2021 to 13.05.2023. But, from 10.03.2022 to 18.12.2022, she was posted at Temporary Police Recruit School, Tamil Nadu Special Police XV Battalion, Sevoor, Vellore District as Inspector. She worked on deputation. While she was away on duty, on 23.06.2022 complainant’s father has preferred a complaint and that the same has been registered in A.W.P.S. Vellore Crime No. 20/2022 and investigation was taken up. After returning to duty on 19.12.2022, the respondent took up the investigation in Crime No. 20/2022, inquired the complainant Thiru Kumar, neighbours, Chithra, W/o. Kottai and Jenina, W/o. Suresh. Both complainant in Cr.No.30/22 and the present complainant xxx have given different statements during investigation, contrary to Section 164 statement made before the Learned Magistrate. Respondent has stated that in the statement recorded before the Deputy Superintendent at Government Children’s Home for Girls, Kellys, Chennai, they have denied all the allegations mentioned in the earlier statement and also denied the allegations against the Police Officers. According to the respondent, a gradual perusal of both the statements, clearly shows that the complaint was influenced and coerced by one Ms.Usha. The said Ms.Usha and Ms.Mohanapriya (Accused in Crime No. 20/2022) had an issue. Both made complaints against each other before Vellore North Police Station. To wreck vengeance, the said Ms.Usha has made this complainant, to lodge a false complaint, with false allegations against Mohanapriya and others. During the month of February 2023, this respondent became ill and was on medical leave from 20.02.2023 to 27.03.2023. Subsequently, on 19.05.2023the respondent was transferred from A.W.P.S. Vellore to A. W.P.S. Ranipet. This respondent was away from the Station on duty, for a long time and subsequently, transferred during the investigation of the case in Crime No.20/2022. It is submitted that neither the complainant nor the alleged accused in the Crime No. 20/2022 are friends or foes of this respondent. Hence any alleged inaction by the respondent, in favour of the accused in the above said issue will not arise. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against this respondent, in the complaint preferred by the complainant, before this commission. The complainant has not stated any single allegation how this respondent has committed acts violating human rights. This respondent has not violated any rights of the complainant; the complainant has filed this complaint before this commission without any basic evidence against this respondent. Therefore, in view of the facts and other circumstances, stated above, it is prayed that the Commission may be pleased to exonerate this respondent and thus render justice.

8. Tmt.P.Shyamala, the then Inspector of Police, Vellore South Police Station, the 2nd respondent, has filed a counter statement, wherein the respondent has denied all the allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. She has submitted that the complaint is baseless, malicious, and filed with an ulterior motive to harass the respondent. The complainant has averred that on the night of 23.06.2022 around 21:30 hrs, Thiru Kumar, aged 46, son of Govindaraj, appeared at the police station and gave a complaint. In his complaint, he has stated that he was married and had two wives. From his first wife, Sasikala, he had three children, two sons and a daughter. While the first wife was separated, the eldest son, Suresh, and the youngest daughter, xxx, were living with him. He later married Ilavarasi, as his second wife, and they had a 4-year-old daughter. For living he worked as a milk vendor, his son Suresh was employed as a mechanic, and his daughter xxx had studied up to 8th standard at Chenpakkam Panchayat Union School and was at home, thereafter. He had further stated that while he went to work, his disabled wife and daughter xxx were at home. He had warned xxx not to associate with one Ms. Mohanapriya, a woman from their locality, who frequently accompanied her to the temple nearby. Despite warnings, on 02.06.2022 around 12:00 noon, xxx had gone to Ms.Mohanapriya’s house while they were standing outside and talking. Ms.Mohanapriya had asked her to come inside to drink water. While she entered, one Mr. Santhosh, a relative of Mohanapriya, was present inside. After taking drinking water when xxx tried to leave, she allegedly found the door locked from outside. Ms.Mohanapriya had locked her inside and left. Mr.Santhosh, then allegedly forced himself upon xxx and committed sexual assault. About an hour later, when Ms.Mohanapriya opened the door, xxx confronted her, asking why she had done so. Ms.Mohanapriya threatened her, saying if she disclosed the matter, she would get boys to harm her. xxx, was distressed and did not know how to reveal the incident. Later narrated the same to her father, Thiru Kumar, who lodged a complaint that very same night. Following this, a case was registered at the Vellore All Women Police Station in Cr. No. 20/2022 under Sections 3(a) r/w 4(2) and 17 of the POCSO Act, and 506(1) IPC. Investigation was conducted; the victim was subjected to medical examination and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Learned Judicial Magistrate. During further investigation by her, as Inspector of police and Investigating Officer, neighbours, including one Chitra and Jerina were examined. They have stated that no such incident had taken place, at the house of Ms.Mohanapriya. It was later found that jewellery and money were stolen from Ms.Mohanapriya’s house, and a complaint was filed at the North Police Station alleging theft. Further, on 20.06.2022 at 19:00 hrs, Ms.Pavithra, Ms.Usha, and xxx had allegedly assaulted Ms.Mohanapriya. A complaint was registered in CSR No. 412/2022. The case was investigated and closed. Holding a grudge against Ms.Mohanapriya, Ms.Usha has allegedly conspired to falsely implicate her in the sexual assault case. Under their influence, accused Mr.Santhosh has assaulting her on 02.06.2022. Respondent has submitted that subsequent investigation revealed inconsistencies. Medical report of the minor girl showed no signs of injury in her private part. The re-examination of the girl revealed she was compelled to make false allegations under pressure from Ms.Pavithra and Ms.Usha, due to personal enmity with Ms.Mohanapriya. The girl’s 164 CrPC statement has also suggested external coaching and false implication. Hence, the case was treated as False (FIR declared as Final Report-False) and filed as RCS 03/2023. As Witness No.1 Thiru Kumar had passed away, no further action could be taken, and the case was closed. This was duly recorded in the final report submitted on 25.08.2023 by the Investigating Officer, Ms. Vasuki. A clarification was called for with regard to the final report submitted by the aforesaid Investigating Officer, alleging violation of human rights during the course of investigation. In this connection, the respondent has submitted that the questions raised by the Hon’ble commission are as follows:
(a) Why was the child welfare officer not informed upon receiving the information that a girl was sexually abused?

(b) Why was the medical examination of the victim girl delayed for 12 days after the registration of the case under the POCSO Act?

(c) On 26-06-2022 and 9-07-2022 why was the girl taken for medical examination without being accompanied by a family member or child welfare officer and why was no examination conducted on the day?

(d) Why was the girl not kept in a government home for production thereby allowing a third party Meganathan to interfere with the case and coerce the victim?

(e) Why was no action taken against the other two accused Santhosh and Meganathan?

(f) Despite the medical certificate stating that the victim’s hymen was not intact, Why was the case closed in a hurried manner without feather investigation?

(g) Why was the victim’s statement recorded by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, ignored by the investigation officer?

(i) The respondent has stated that she was not working at that police station, on the date of registration of the said case. She was working as an inspector at the South Crime Police Station, Vellore District. Further, the Sub Inspector Mrs.Sathiyavani, who registered the above case, humbly informed that she was the one who was obliged to inform the District Child Welfare Officer about the sexual harassment of the above girl child. Furthermore, this respondent did not even work as a police Inspector in charge, at that police station. This respondent does not know anything about it.
(ii) Furthermore, on the very next day, i.e. on 24.06.2024, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mrs.Sathiyavani, proceeded to the residence of the victim minor girl and conducted a field inspection. During the said inquiry, she recorded statements from the victim’s father Thiru Kumar, her elder brother Thiru Suresh, Thiru Senthilkumar, and subsequently Thiru Vijayakumar. The said statements were duly recorded by the officer herself. Following the examination, the said Mrs.Sathiyavani also prepared a spot observation a mahazar (observation mahazar/scene mahazar) and made contemporaneous entries in the case diary. It is further respectfully submitted that the said officer also noted in the same case diary that the minor victim had been referred for medical examination, and at that time the medical certificate of the victim was obtained. The respondent most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Commission that she had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the aforesaid steps taken by the said officer during the investigation.
(iii) It is further respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Commission that at the relevant point in time, the said Sub-Inspector of Police was not working under the supervision or control of this respondent, and moreover, this respondent was not serving as the Station House Officer (SHO) or Officer-in-Charge of the said police station.
(iv) It is respectfully submitted that as per the records submitted along with the Final Report dated 25.08.2023, the alleged victim minor girl was staying at Chennai Kelly’s Children’s Home. On 25.03.2023, this respondent recorded the statement of the minor girl. It is further submitted that this respondent functioned as the Station House Officer of the concerned police station only on that specific date, i.e. 25.03.2023.
(v) Thereafter, the statement recorded from the minor girl was duly attached with the earlier investigation documents prepared by the then Sub-Inspector Mrs.Sathiyavani. On the following day, i.e., on 24.06.2022 and 25.06.2022 2022 respectively this respondent was deputed with a special force, for bandobust duty for the Sl written exam at VIT, Vellore. Also on 26.06.2022, 27.06.2022 and 28.06.2022 respectively, this respondent was deputed with a special force to Tiruvannamalai, Ranipet and Vellore, for VVIP bandobust duty.
(vi) This respondent has no knowledge as to who subsequently took the minor girl for recording her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Magistrate or who escorted her for medical examination, if any. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that, among the documents annexed with the charge sheet, the only genuine signature of this respondent is the one found in the statement recorded at Chennai Kelly’s Children’s Home.
(vii) Any other signature found in the case documents, other than the one mentioned above, does not belong to this respondent. It appears that certain documents have been deliberately fabricated and dated, without proper authorization to falsely implicate this respondent in the present case. The respondent humbly places these facts before this Hon’ble Commission for its kind consideration.
She has further submitted that the actions of the respondent are well within the framework of law and official duties. There is no violation of human rights or any illegal act committed by this respondent as alleged. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant as devoid of merits.

9. Tmt.A.d.Vasuki, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore, the 3rd respondent has filed counter statement, wherein it is submitted that the 3rd respondent is well acquainted with the fact and circumstances leading to the present complaint on perusal of records and as such all the allegations contained in the above said complaint are denied, except those that are specifically not adverted to and admitted hereunder. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred the complaint before this commission stating that the respondents have not taken proper action, on the allegations and prayed this commission to take action against the respondents. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 1 to 4 of the complaint deal with complainant’s family and that the 3rd respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 5 to 15 of the complaint deal with the alleged incident mentioned in complainant’s father’s complaint. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 16 to 37 of the complaint deal with the complainant’s alleged incident and that the 3rd respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 38 to 56 of the complaint deal with the alleged complaint given by complainant’s father and the subsequent registration of a case in A.W.P.S. Vellore Crime No. 20/2022. The case was registered by Sathiyavani, S.I. of Police and further investigation was taken up by other officers in that the 3rd respondent has a small role. It is submitted that the details mentioned in the lines 57 to 72 deal with the alleged threat faced by the complainant and that the 3rd respondent is no way connected. It is submitted that only after the receipt of the complaint preferred by the complainant before the commission, the 3rd respondent came to know about the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The 3rd Respondent was working as a Inspector of Police A.W.P.S. Vellore, only from 15.05.2023 to 21.10.2024. Subsequently she was transferred to A. W.P.S, Arakonam. While she was not working at A.W.P.S, Vellore, complainant’s father has preferred a complaint and the same was registered in A.WP.S. Vellore Crime No. 20/2022 and investigation taken up. At that time, the 3rd respondent was working at A.W.P.S. Ranipettai. Both complainant Thiru Kumar and the present complainant xxx have given different statements during investigation and recording of 164 statement before the Learned Magistrate. In the statement recorded before the Deputy Superintendent at Government Children’s Home for Girls, Kelly’s, Chennai they have denied all the allegations mentioned in the earlier statement and also denied the allegations against the Police Officers. A perusal of both the statements it clearly shows that the complaint was influenced and coerced by one Ms.Usha. The said Ms.Usha and one Ms.Mohanapriya (Accused in Crime No. 20/2022) had an issue. Both made complaints against each other before Vellore North Police Station. To wreck vengeance the said Ms.Usha made this complainant (xxx) to lodge a false complaint, with false allegations against Ms.Mohanapriya and others. It is submitted that neither the complainant nor the alleged accused in the Crime No. 20/2022 are friends or foes of the 3rd respondent. Hence the alleged action by the 3rd respondent in favour of the accused in the above said issue will not arise. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against the 3rd respondent in the complaint, preferred by the complainant before this commission. The complainant has not stated any single allegation as to how the 3rd respondent has committed acts violating human rights. The 3rd respondent has not violated any rights of the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint before this commission without any basic evidence against this respondent. Therefore, in view of the facts and other circumstances stated above, it is prayed that the Commission may be pleased to exonerate the 3rd Respondent and others and thus render justice.

10. Tmt.S.Sathiyavani, the then WSI, AWPS, Vellore, the 4th Respondent filed counter statement, wherein the respondent has denied all the averments/ allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The respondent has stated that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. She has suppressed the facts. The complaint is not supported with evidence and documents. The respondent has submitted that when she was working as Sub inspector at AWPS Vellore, on 23.06.2022 around 21.30hrs one Thiru Kumar S/o Govindaraj, lodged a complaint alleging that on 23.06.2022, about 9.00 PM, when he returned home, after completing his work, he found his daughter crying. He was informed by her that on the same day, she went to the house of Mrs. Mohanapriya and the said Mrs.Mohanapriya locked her inside the house along with one Mr.Santhosh. The said Santhosh is alleged to have committed rape on his daughter and threatened her with dire consequences. Since the station Inspector of Police was on leave, after informing the Incharge Inspector, Mrs.Sharmlia attached to Vellore South Crime Police station, she registered a case in Cr.No.20/2022 for the offences U/s 3(a), 4(2), 17 of POSCO Act and Section 506(1) of IPC, as against one Mr.Santhosh and Mrs.Mohanapriya. In the complaint, the complainant had stated only two people, namely, Mr.Santhosh and Mrs. Mohanapriya. The respondent went to the victim’s house to record the victim’s statement in civil dress and recorded the victim girl’s statement. Further statement of the father of the Victim, the defacto complainant, Thiru Kumar, victim’s brother, Mr.Suresh, Mr. Jaykumar S/o. Govindsamy and Mr.Suresh Kumar S/o of Rangasamy were also recorded by her. After recording the statement of the victim and witness, She placed the case records before the Inspector of Police. The respondent never prolonged the medical examination of the victim, nor indulged in any illegal activities. When the police requested the victim to go for a medical test, the victim informed that she was menstruating. It is learnt that as per the hospital memo issued by the Inspector of Police on 26.06.2022, the victim xxx was taken to the government hospital for medical examination. After submitting the documents, for the reasons best known to the victim, she had expressed her unwillingness, for medical examination and left the hospital. This respondent’s understanding is that the victim will act on the instructions of one Ms.Usha (She claims herself as Human Rights Protection Activist). Further, she runs an office in the name of “Human Rights Protection and Welfare”. On perusal of the complaint dated 17.08.2021, it is hand written and in the last page it is stated that “குறிப்பு ஆதார் அடையாளம் இணைத்து கலெக்டர் பங்களா பக்கத்தில் உள்ள, அரசு விடுதியில்”. This shows that the complaint was sent from Government Children Home for Girls. The entire complaint is typed in Tamil. It is not at all possible to send a typed complaint from Government Children Home for Girls. If it was typed and sent with the knowledge of the officers of the Government Children Home for Girls, it will have their signatures and official seal. It is learnt that the victim girl escaped from the Government Children Home for Girls. The respondent submits that the vague allegations on the complaint are frivolous and vexatious, meant only to cause nuisance and harass her. She has substantiated documentary evidence to prove her case. The allegations of the complainant are vague and lack any meaningful particulars, as they are not based on proper facts. There is no question of human rights violation and therefore, the complaint will not come under the purview of this Hon’ble commission. Therefore, the respondent prays that this Hon’ble commission may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint.

11. Tmt.N.Dhamayanthi, the then Women Gr.I.PC, AWPS, Vellore, the 5th respondent has filed a counter statement wherein she has denied all the averments/ allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The respondent states that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. She has suppressed the facts. The complaint is not supported with evidence and documents. The respondent submits that when she was working as a Women Grade-1 at AWPS Vellore, she came know that on 23.06.2022, around 21.30 hrs, one Thiru Kumar S/o Govindaraj had lodged a complaint, alleging that on 23.06.2022, about 9.00 PM when he returned home, after completing his work, he found his daughter crying. He was informed by his daughter that on the same day, she went to the house of Mrs. Mohanapriya and the said Mrs.Mohanapriya locked her inside the house along with one Mr.Santhosh. The said Mr.Santhosh is alleged to have committed rape on his daughter and threatened her with dire consequences. On 09.07.2022 as per the orders of higher officials she took the victim xxx to the Government Hospital for medical Examination. She has further stated that the Victim xxx did not cooperate for the medical examination. Prior to that, on 26.07.2022, the victim xxx was taken to the hospital, by Mrs.Jayasudha GR-1. She came to know that the victim xxx was not cooperate for the medical examination. Thereafter Police constables, Mrs. Meena and Mrs. Kavitha were deputed to take the victim xxx for medical examination. However the victim did not cooperate with the police. Hence she was deputed to take the victim xxx for medical examination. As per the directions of the higher officials she accompanied the victim xxx for medical examination. She has not committed any unlawful activity as alleged. There is no specific allegation against her. When the police requested the victim to go for a medical test, the victim informed that she was menstruating. It is learnt that as per the hospital memo issued by the Inspector of Police on 26.06.2022, the victim xxx was taken to the government hospital, for medical examination. After submitting the documents, for the reason best known to the victim, she expressed her unwillingness for medical examination and left the hospital without informing the police. There is no question of human rights violation and therefore, the complaint will not come under the purview of this Hon’ble commission. The respondent submits that the above complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

12. Tmt.M.Jayasudha, the then Women Gr.I.P.C., AWPS, Vellore, the 6th Respondent has filed counter statement, wherein the respondent has denied all the averments/ allegations contained in the complaint except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The respondent has submitted that when she was working as Woman Grade-1 Police at AWPS Vellore. She came to know that on 23.06.2022 around 21.30 hrs, one Thiru Kumar S/o Govindaraj lodged a complaint alleging that on 23.06.2022, about 9.00 PM when he returned home, after completing his work, he found his daughter crying. He was informed by his daughter that on the same day, she went to the house of Mrs. Mohanapriya and the said Mrs.Mohanapriya locked her inside the house along with one Mr.Santhosh. The said Mr.Santhosh is alleged to have committed rape on his daughter and threatened her with dire consequences. As per the order of Inspector of Police Mrs.Shyamala on 26.07.2022, she took the victim xxx to Government Hospital. She has produced all the necessary documents for medical check-up. However, the victim xxx did not complete for medical examination and without saying anything, left the hospital. Thereafter, Police constable, Mrs. Meena and Mrs.Kavitha were deputed to take the victim xxx for medical examination. However, the victim did not cooperate with the police. As per the directions of Inspector of Police Mrs.Shyamala, Gr-1 Police Dhamayanthi took the victim xxx for medical examination. As alleged in the complaint she has not committed any unlawful activity. There is no specific allegation as against her. The above complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no question of human rights violation and therefore, the complaint will not come under the purview of this Hon’ble commission. Therefore, the respondent prays that this Hon’ble commission may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint.

13. Thiru S.V.Venkatesan, the then SSI, Vellore North Police Station, the 7th respondent has filed counter statement wherein the respondent has denied all the averments/ allegations contained in the complaint except those that are all specifically admitted herein. The respondent submits that in the complaint there are no specific allegations as against him. The respondent submits that when he was working as SSI at Vellore North Police station, on 20.06.2022 around 23.00hrs an intimation was received from Government Pentland hospital Vellore stating that one Mrs. Mohanapriya was admitted in the hospital alleging that on 20.06.2022, she was beaten by 3 known persons. It is submitted that based on the hospital intimation, he went to the hospital, received the copy of the Accident Register No 850/22 from Government Pentland hospital Vellore and enquired the injured, the Defacto complainant, Mrs. Mohanapriya who gave a written complaint against Mrs. Pavitra, xxx and Mrs. Usha. The said complaint was registered as CSR No.412/2022. It is submitted that the Doctor who examined her, has mentioned in the Accident register that, “the above said person was examined by me on 20/06/2022 at 8.25.PM”. (“Alleged assault by 3 Known persons (Female 28,16,40 years) at around 7.10 PM, Human Rights Office, Mullipalayam with a wooden Log and foot”). It is further submitted that the said Mrs. Mohanapriya gave a written request, stating that she is withdrawing her complaint, the complaint was closed. The respondent submits that the vague allegations in the complaint are frivolous and vexatious meant only to cause nuisance and harass him. According to him, he has substantiated documentary evidence to prove his case. The Respondent submits that the above complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

14. Dr.S.Sankaranandhi, the 8th Respondent has filed a counter statement, wherein she has stated that she is a qualified Doctor by Profession and presently working as Gynecologist, Government Vellore Medic College Hospital, Vellore. She been impleaded as the 8th respondent by this Hon’ble Commission in the above Case No: 11207/22/53/2022/HCP+HM-2 Bench. According to her, it is pertinent to mention that on the face of the complaint, there is no averment/allegation against me by the Victim/Complainant in the complaint. On 26.6.2022, when she was on duty in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at GVMCH, Vellore, at 2.45 pm, a 17 years old female child (the Complainant herein), D/o. Mr.Kumar, bearing Identification marks i)ABM (A Black Mole) over ventral aspect of the left forearm and ii)ABM(A Black Mole)over the chin, was brought to her by a police constable Mrs.Jeyasudha (6th respondent herein) Gr I 1838, Vellore AWPS (Ph:9498150391) as a case of POCSO for medical examination at 2.45 PM. She has further submitted that she made an AR entry in Hospital No: 34755, AR No: 2471534 dated 26.6.2022. The Victim/Complainant was presented with an alleged history of sexual assault, by a known person Mr.Santhosh, against her will (presented 24 days, after the incident), who was a relative of her neighbour (Mrs. Mohanapriya). On 02.06.2022, afternoon around 12 pm at Mrs.Mohanapriya’s house, while the victim was crossing that place, victim was locked inside Mrs.Mohanapriya’s house along with Mr.Santhosh by Mrs.Mohanapriya. Mr.Santhosh had intercourse with her against her will. On the same day (26.6.2022) she conducted a preliminary basic enquiry with the victim girl regarding the history of the incident and documented the same, as per her version. She asked the victim to pass urine, collected the sample, for Urine Pregnancy test, empty her bladder and come back for the physical examination, on the same day. It is pertinent to mention here that, both the victim and the police escort never came back. Thereafter, she has contacted the police constable, namely, Mrs.Jeyasudha through phone, on the same day, and informed her that the victim had not come back for examination, but the said Mrs.Jeyasudha told her that the victim/complainant had ran away and that she will find out the whereabouts of the victim and come back. In fact, both the victim and the escort police did not turn back, on the same day or thereafter. The said facts have been documented by her in the AR copy. In fact, the police escort has the responsibility to complete the medical examination for the victim/complainant. However, even after her information through phone, Mrs.Jeyasudha, the 6th respondent, did not produce the victim for medical examination. In such a scenario, on 09.07.2022, when she was on duty at GVMCH, about 12.15 pm again the Complainant was brought to her by another police constable, namely Mrs. Dhamayanthi (WGr I 890, AWPS, Vellore) at 12.15 PM, the 5th Respondent herein with a new ‘OP’ token showing Hospital No: 37253. She made an AR entry in AR No: 2471565 dated 09.07.2022 and commenced her examination and started detailing the history of the incident. As the history sounded familiar, she enquired the victim/complainant and the police constable further, and it came to her knowledge that complainant was produced before her on 26.6.2022 and she ran away before the physical examination. She has duly documented the said fact in her enquiry report, and continued with her physical examination. Preliminary examination does not bear any external injuries over her body and private parts [Absence of injuries does not rule out sexual assault), expert ultrasound abdomen and pelvis were done and reported by the Department of Radiology which showed a normal study [copy of Guidelines enclosed), and vagina smear report issued by department of pathology shows no evidence of Spermatozoa [Forensic evidence is likely to be found only up-to 96 hours after the incident] and as per the age certificate issued by the department of forensic medicine she must be above 14 years of age and below 16 years of age. It is pertinent to mention here that a true copy of the entire medical report of the victim/complainant is filed by the Dean, Government Vellore Medical College and Hospital (GVMCH), before this Hon’ble Commission. The respondent did a complete and thorough physical examination of victim girl and documented the same. The victim had no external visible injuries over her private parts and other parts of her body. Then, she conducted a thorough local examination and documented her findings and the details are mentioned hereunder:
(1) No external injuries noted. This is substantiated by the (Guidelines and Protocols for the Medico-legal care for the Survivor/Victims of Sexual Violence, 2014 page 27, Point No 17 regarding Examination for Injuries says, “Presence of injuries is only observed in one third of forced sexual intercourse. Absence of injuries does not mean the survivor has consented to sexual activity. As per law, if resistance was not offered that does not mean the person has consented”.
(II) External examination of the genitalia of POCSO victim was done without doing the two finger test (as the same is not mandated as per the Guidelines/Court Orders/Circulars) and appearance of the hymen was documented as ‘Hymen does not appear to be intact.
[Guidelines and Protocols for the Medico-legal care for the Survivor/Victims of Sexual Violence, 2014 Page 28, 4th paragraph under 18.B. says, “The status of hymen is irrelevant because the hymen can be torn due to several reasons such as cycling, riding, or masturbation among other things. An intact hymen does not rule out sexual violence and a torn hymen does not prove previous sexual intercourse”].
In fact, the aforesaid guidelines and orders passed by the Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts in several Cases clearly observed that “Two Finger Test” should not be conducted for establishing rape/sexual violence. It is pertinent to mention here that I did not perform two finger test to the Victim/Complainant.
(iii) No discharge P/V-There is no discharge per vaginam.
In fact, as the victim was not willing for local examination of her vaginal part, I assured the Victim/Complainant that per vaginal examination by two finger test will not be done by me. Thereafter, I took other test and procedures without doing a two finger test. More so, the Victim/Complainant did not give her consent for per vaginal (PV) examination for two finger test and it was not done by me. I have duly documented the same in my AR copy and got signature from the victim. [Guidelines and Protocols for the Medico-legal care for the Page 25, 5th Survivor/Victims of Sexual Violence, 2014 paragraph under 12. says, “The consent form must be signed by the person him/herself if s/he is above 12 yrs. of age. Consent must be taken from the guardian/parent if the survivor is under the age of 12 years”).
In fact, the incident happened on 02.06.2022 (as per the statement of the victim) and the girl had taken bath several times, changed her clothes, had one menstrual cycle on 23.06.2022, over the past 37 days since the incident had happened. [Guidelines and Protocols for the Medico-legal care for the Survivor/Victims of Sexual Violence, 2014 2nd paragraph under 20.Collection of samples for central/ State forensic science laboratory says, “If a woman reports within 96 hours (4 days) of the assault, all evidence including swabs must be collected, based on the nature of assault that has occurred. The likelihood of finding evidence after 72 hours (3 days) is greatly reduced; however it is better to collect evidence up to 96 hours in case the survivor may be unsure of the number of hours lapsed since the assault”. As per the statement of the victim, during my enquiry the incident happened on 02.06.2022 but the victim was produced for medical examination on 26.06.2022 (24 days after the incident) which was an inordinate delayed presentation. Furthermore, her LMP (Last Menstrual Period) was on 23.6.2022. The specimens and smears were collected on 09.07.2022 as the victim ran away before examination on 26.6.2022 and police had not brought the victim back inspite of my intimation. It is pertinent to mention here that this shall not make a difference in the vaginal smear report as the smear and specimens have to be collected ideally within at least 72 hours of the incident to be valid and to the maximum within 96 hrs from the incident. As per medical protocol I have taken a per vaginal swab and sent it to pathology department to screen for traces of semen. The pathology report dated 11.07.2022 showed ‘No evidence of spermatozoa in the smear’ studied. The said report is already filed by Dean, Government Vellore Medical College and Hospital (GVMCH) before this Hon’ble Commission. Further, I took the routine basic blood investigations, STD screening, Expert Ultra sound abdomen and pelvis, X-ray wrist for age estimation and referred to the concerned specialties like Department of Radiology for Expert Ultrasound abdomen and pelvis, Department of Forensic medicine for Age estimation, Department of Pathology for vaginal smear examination for their expert opinion with all the requisitions on the same day. The copy of the said compiled reports of the aforesaid tests, my examination findings and final opinion are already filed by Dean, Government Vellore Medical College and Hospital (GVMCH) before this Hon’ble Commission. The Guidelines and protocols copy circulated from Director of Medical and Rural Health Service Ref. No. 46289/P&D3/1/2023 dated 10.11.2023 stated that “2. The designated medical practitioners should strictly adhere to the protocol while dealing with the victims cases. NOTWO FINGER TEST SHOUL BE CARRIED OUT. “In fact, per vaginal examination, the Two finger test) should not be done as this examination would further traumatize the victim and that the status of hymen is obsolete to determine the virginity of the victim. It is pertinent to mention here that during my examination I did not do the two finger test to the Victim/Complainant. I am a qualified doctor and completed my M.B.B.S., at Government Coimbatore Medical College in the year 2007 and D.G.O., at Government Stanley Medical College in the year 2019 and practicing in Government Medical Profession since, 2010. Thereafter, since 2020 1 am practicing Obstetrics and Gynecology at Government Vellore Medical College and Hospital. In fact, for the past 15 years I rendered my service without any blemish with good name and reputation. It is pertinent to mention here that I have examined the Victim/Complainant with due care and adhered to the medical protocol and guidelines. I have a good and valid case on merits and the present complaint is not maintainable as against me. Hence the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. Thiru E.Thirunavukarasu, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub-Division, the 9th Respondent has not filed any counter statement. However, he was examined by this Commission and his statement recorded.

16. The points for consideration before this Commission are as follows:
(1) Whether the respondents had violated the human rights of the
Complainant?

(2) To what reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

17. Point No.1 :- This complaint is filed against the respondents police officials stating that one Tmt.Mohanapriya called her to come to her house and when she entered the house, Tmt.Mohanapriya closed the door and the girl was sexually abused by one Thiru Santhoshkumar and she was threatened by one Thiru Meganathan and Tmt.Mohanapriya. The Complainant was compelled to stay there and informed to satisfy VIPs and other Government officials, failing which they would kill her. They have assaulted and harassed to do prostitution. Though a complaint was lodged against the persons, who ruined her life, police for the namesake registered a case. Tmt.Sathiyavani, WSI, asked her not to co-operate for the medical test. The other police did not perform their duties, as per law. The Complainant has also made various accusations against the police. She has prayed for necessary action against the police personnel.

18. Respondents No.1 to 8 have filed separate counter statements in a detailed manner, denying the averments made in the complaint by the Complainant. After filing of the counter statements by the respondents, Commission recorded their statements separately. Complainant was also examined as PW1 and she was cross-examined by the respondents.

19. Therefore, on the facts and circumstance of the case, evidence and material on record, including the Case Diary pertaining to the case registered,
Commission has to decide whether the allegations of the romplainant against the respondents are proved and whether the same amounts to violation of human rights of the Complainant or not.

20. Complainant has been examined as PW1. In her examination in chief she has submitted that her date of birth is 15.05.2007. When she was 11 months child, her mother deserted her and her father. She has a brother and his name is Suresh. She has studied up to VIII Standard at Sembakkam Panchayat Middle School. When she was studying in V Standard, her father got second marriage. Her stepmother did not take care of her. Her father was a milk vendor. On 02.06.2022, after picking leaves for garland, when she crossed the house of one Tmt.Mohanapriya, the said Tmt.Mohanapriya called her to her house. Since she was very familiar to her, she went inside her house. There she saw a person, but she did not know who he was. At the time, the said Tmt.Mohanapriya asked her, to get water from inside. Accordingly, PW1 went inside and at that time, Tmt.Mohanapriya locked the door from outside. The said person attempted to sexually assault her. Though she cried to open the door, the same was not opened, and that the said person sexually assaulted her, for one hour. Later, he came to know the name of the person, who committed penetrative sexual assault to her as Thiru Santhosh. Thereafter, Tmt.Mohanapriya opened the door and PW1 asked her about such activity of her, for which she threatened PW1 that if she gives any complaint against her, she would kill her.

21. PW1 has further stated that she went to her house and informed her father. Her father abused and assaulted her and after two days he took the PW1 to AWPS, Vellore and lodged a complaint. The 4th Respondent enquired her and she informed her everything. The 4th Respondent informed that PW1 has to come for medical examination. However, her father did not give any assistance to her and left PW1 and gone away. At the time, PW1’s friend one Tmt.Usha helped her and protected her in her house. The police did not take any steps for medical examination and thereafter, PW1 was taken to the police station, by Tmt.Usha and one another person and asked the police to take action. Then PW1 was taken by 5th & 6th Respondents to the Vellore Adukkamparai Govt. Medical College Hospital for 7 days. But no medical examination was done. The 6th Respondent threatened her not to agree for the medical examination. Later, PW1 came to know that all the police had supported Tmt.Mohanapriya. Finally on 26.06.2022 PW1 was taken to the hospital, for medical examination and the Doctor asked her to bring a slide. At that time, the 4th Respondent called the 5th Respondent by phone and directed to bring PW1 to the police station, without agreeing for medical examination. Hence, the 5th Respondent took her to the police station and admitted her in the Girls Home at Allapuram, Vellore.

22. PW1 further has stated that when she was in the Home, she was not enquired by the Child Protection Officer. However, the 2nd & 4th Respondents came there and PW1 informed about the accused. But they did not take any action and advised her to continue her study in the Girls Home at Chennai and the 2nd Respondent enquired her when she was in the Girls Home at Chennai. Then, she escaped from that home along with one girl and went to her village and saw her father. Thereafter, police came to her house and again admitted her in the Girls Home at Chennai. Thereafter, she was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board at Vellore and she was handed over to her father and she got marriage with one person on 26.06.2023 and she has a girl child. But her husband is not aware of the above incidents. Then the police obtained the signatures from her, her husband and her in-laws in plain papers for the reason for not filing any case against her husband for marrying the minor girl and also got signatures from her brother one Thiru Karthikeyan and her grandfather Thiru Anbu. On 13.07.2022 she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3 and she gave her statement about the sexual assault on her and sought appropriate action against Tmt.Mohanapriya, Thiru Meganathan and also stated about the inaction of the police. On 16.08.2022 she lodged a complaint before this Commission through her friend Tmt.Usha and on the basis of her complaint. Thiru Krishnamurthy, DSP, Investigation Wing of this Commission enquired her and gave statement to him about the incident. Hence, she prayed for appropriate action against the erring police officials and to award compensation.

23. During the cross-examination by respondents No.4 to 7, PW1 replied that her father lodged a complaint on 23.06.2022 after 21 days of the date of occurrence and after receipt of the complaint, she was enquired by the 4th Respondent. PW1 admitted that before the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between Tmt.Mohanapriya and Tmt.Usha. PW1 denied the suggestion that there was no person in the name of Santhosh and that name came to be known through Tmt.Usha and PW1 replied that Santhosh has another name as “Satheesh” and she saw him once. For a question relating to the sending of the complaint to this Commission, PW1 replied that she told the information to Tmt.Usha and she typed the same and the Complainant sent the complaint before this Commission and she clarified the typographical error in the complaint as ‘jäœ vªÂ’ instead of jkaªÂ. PW1 admitted that on 23.06.2022 when she was called for medical examination, she refused for the reason that it was menstrual period. PW1 also admitted that on 26.06.2022 the 6th Respondent took her to the hospital for medical examination and she left the hospital for the reason that the Doctor asked to bring a slide.

24. The 1st Respondent has cross-examined PW1. During the cross-examination PW1 denied the suggestion that 1st Respondent came in un-uniform when she was in Kellys Home and enquired her. She also denied the other suggestion that the 1st Respondent and another police videographed her. During the cross-examination by the 2nd Respondent, PW1 admitted that the 2nd Respondent met her at Allapuram Home when she was there. However, she did not say anything to her. But when PW1 was in Kellys Home, she gave a statement to the 2nd Respondent before the Superintendent of that Home and also revealed the names of the accused. But no action was taken by the 2nd Respondent on her complaint.
25. The 3rd respondent cross-examined PW1. During the cross-examination PW1 denied the suggestion that the 3rd respondent enquired her grandfather and brother at the police station. But after the death of his father and after her marriage only, she was examined by the 3rd respondent. PW1 also denied the suggestion that she was called by the 3rd respondent over phone for enquiry. The 3rd respondent did not call her for enquiry. But after her marriage, the 3rd respondent obtained her signatures, her brother, grandfather and in-laws in the police station. During cross-examination by the 8th respondent, PW1 admitted that the 8th respondent did the medical examination in the right way.

26. On the basis of the counter statements filed by the respondents No.1 to 8, this Commission has recorded their statements. The 1st Respondent has stated in her statement that now she is working as Inspector of Police in AWPS, Ranipet. On 02.06.2022 she was working in AWPS, Vellore, but she was working in 15th Battalion at Sevoor Unit on deputation. She assumed the office on 09.12.2022 and she enquired the defacto complainant Thiru Kumar, Tmt.Chitra and Tmt.Jelina in the case in Cr.No.20/2022 and she is also aware of the statement given by the victim girl before the Learned Judicial Magistrate U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. on 13.07.2022. However, she did not enquire the named accused Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan found in the statement of the victim girl, for the reason that the victim girl denied such occurrence and denied the complaint of her father, when she enquired the victim girl at Kellys Home. However, she did not know about the allegations leveled by the victim girl in her statement about the police personnel. In the counter statement, the 1st Respondent has submitted that to wreck vengeance against the opposite party Tmt.Mohanapriya, Tmt.Usha used the victim girl as a tool to file such a false complaint. But the 1st Respondent has admitted that she did not conduct any enquiry to arrive at the above conclusion. The 1st Respondent has admitted that she did not enquire the victim girl and she did not record any statement. She has also admitted that the statements of Thiru Kumar, Tmt.Chitra and Tmt.Jelina, which were recorded by her, are not found in the CD file. The CD file was also shown to her during the examination. The 1st Respondent has also admitted that she went to Kellys Home to enquire the victim girl, but she did not record any statement from her and there are no such entries in the CD file to show that she went to Kellys Home to enquire the victim girl.

27. The 2nd Respondent has stated in her statement that now she is working as Inspector of Police, EOW in Thiruvannamalai District. She was working as Inspector of Police in Vellore South Crime PS on 02.06.2022 and 23.06.2022. On the oral instructions of the 8th Respondent DSP, she went to Girls Home at Chennai on 25.03.2023 and she recorded the statement of the victim girl. The 2nd Respondent has submitted that she did not know that a Government servant shall not act upon the oral instruction of the superior officers and she admitted that no written order was issued to her to record the statement of the victim girl. The 2nd Respondent has admitted that she is aware of the statement given by the victim girl before the Learned Magistrate U/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.07.2022. She has also admitted that no order was passed to conduct further investigation by her in that case. She has submitted that she has enquired the Superintendent of Girls Home and the victim girl, and recorded their statements and the victim girl gave a statement, as if she was not subjected to any sexual assault and that statement is also not found in the CD file. The 2nd respondent has stated in her counter statement that it was later found that jewellery and money were stolen from Tmt.Mohanapriya’s house, and a complaint was filed on the file of North Police Station regarding theft. Further, on 20.06.2022 at 19:00 hrs, Mrs.Pavithra, Mrs.Usha, and the victim girl had allegedly assaulted Tmt.Mohanapriya. A complaint was registered in CSR No. 412/2022, and the case was investigated and closed. Holding a grudge against Tmt.Mohanapriya, Mrs.Usha allegedly conspired to falsely implicate her in the sexual assault case. The victim girl under their influence has told that accused Mr.Santhosh assaulting her on 02.06.2022 and the subsequent investigation revealed inconsistencies. But in her deposition, she did not give any explanation and admitted that she did not investigate to find out the inconsistencies in the investigation.

28. The 2nd Respondent has also stated in her counter statement that the girl’s 164 CrPC statement also suggested external coaching and false implication and hence, the case was treated as False (FIR declared as Final Report-False) and filed RCS No.03/2023. When the Commission questioned her, on what basis, she came to that conclusion, she replied that she came to such conclusion on the basis of the statement given by the victim girl on 25.03.2023. However, the 2nd Respondent deposed that neither she was the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore nor she was the investigating officer in Cr.No.20/2022. The 2nd Respondent has also admitted that there is no written order that she was the incharge Inspector of Police on AWPS, Vellore on 25.03.2023. The 2nd Respondent has stated in her counter statement that some of the documents were fabricated and created in that case. When it was posed to the 2nd Respondent, she replied that in the CD file dated 25.03.2023 her signature was forged by someone else as if ‘Inspector of Police incharge’. She has also submitted that the request letter to produce the victim girl before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and the letter for requesting medical examination of the victim girl are fabricated and created documents.
29. The 3rd Respondent has stated in her statement that she had worked as Inspector of Police in All Women Police Station, Vellore from 15.05.2023 to 21.10.2024. She took up the investigation of the case of the victim girl on 12.06.2023 and recorded the statements of the defacto complainant Thiru Kumar, victim girl and witnesses Tmt.Chitra and Tmt.Jelina and the Deputy Superintendent Tmt.Meena, Nurse Tmt.Uma Maheswari of Kellys Home and recorded their statements. Finally, she enquired the grandfather of the victim girl Thiru Anbalagan. However, she did not record his statement. But she has admitted candidly that such statements were not found in the CD file. She has also submitted that before recording the statements of the above witnesses, she verified the CD file and no signature was found in the statements recorded by her predecessor Investigating Officers including the 4th Respondent and hence she recorded the statements of the above witnesses again. Though she enquired the victim girl and recorded her statement and the same was found in the CD file, no date is mentioned in the statement. The 3rd Respondent admitted that she perused the statement given by the victim girl before the Learned Judicial Magistrate U/s 164 of Cr.P.C., but she did not enquire about the inconsistencies of the victim girl and she did not enquire the persons Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan, who threatened the victim girl not to reveal the incident to anybody.
30. When the Commission asked the 3rd Respondent as to how she came to a conclusion that the complaint of the victim girl is false, she replied that on the basis of the theft case registered against the victim girl in Vellore North Police Station, she came to that conclusion. The 3rd Respondent has submitted that since her predecessors the 1st & 2nd Respondents refused to affix their signatures in the CD file, even though she requested them, she could not continue the further investigation in that case. However, she did not report the said fact to the higher officials. But she mentioned the fact in the CD file on 13.06.2023 and made an entry. The 3rd Respondent had submitted that no final report was prepared and after the death of the defacto complainant Thiru Kumar, she came to a conclusion that the case is mistake of fact and she obtained the signature of his son Thiru Suresh in the RCS notice but it was not served to him. She has also submitted that the signature found in the final report form dated 25.08.2023 was not her signature. But she admitted that she was working as Inspector of Police in AWPS, Vellore on 25.08.2023.

31. The 4th Respondent has stated in her statement that on the basis of the complaint given by the victim girl’s father Thiru Kumar, a case in Cr.No.20/2022 was registered by her against Thiru Santhosh and Tmt.Mohanapriya and she started her investigation and enquired the victim girl, her father Thiru Kumar, brother Thiru Suresh and witnesses Thiru Jayakumar and Thiru Suresh and recorded their statements. In her statement, the victim girl has stated that she was penetrative sexual assaulted by a male person with the help of Tmt.Mohanapriya. She produced the victim girl before the Learned Judicial Magistrate for obtaining a statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. on the request given by the 2nd Respondent. Concurred with the complaint of her father, the victim girl has also stated before the Learned Judicial Magistrate about the abetment of Tmt.Mohanapriya, that she was subjected to sexual harassment and she was threatened by Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan not to tell about such incident to anybody. The 4th Respondent has also submitted that a medical memo was issued by the 2nd Respondent to produce the victim girl for medical test and the victim girl was also taken for the medical test on 26.06.2022 through the 6th Respondent. But she did not co-operate for medical test and she went out and again she was taken for medical test and the same was conducted and then, as per the instruction of the 2nd Respondent, the victim girl was admitted in Allapuram Home and the 2nd Respondent also went there and met the victim girl. The 4th Respondent has submitted that on the directions of the 2nd respondent only, she conducted the investigation. But there was no written order to carry on the investigation, by her. The 4th Respondent has admitted that she did not know that without assistance of any relative or known person, the victim girl should not be subjected for medial test and there was no entry in the general diary about the escape from the hospital of the victim girl and who escorted her to the hospital. She has also submitted that on 23.06.2022 she handed over the CD filed to the 2nd Respondent. But she admitted that she gave a request letter dated 29.07.2022 to produce the victim girl before the District Child Welfare Committee. As per the statement given before the District Child Welfare Committee, the 4th Respondent has admitted that the victim child was enquired by her on 22.06.2022. The 4th Respondent has submitted that there was no person in the name of Thiru Santhosh and she did not enquire about Thiru Meganathan. When a question about the failure to affix her signature in the CD file was posed, she has admitted that she failed to affix her signature in the CD file.

32. The 5th Respondent has stated in her statement that she took the victim girl for medical examination on 09.07.2022 and she knows the facts of that case. She took the victim girl on 09.07.2022 to the hospital at 10.45 AM and medical memo was issued by the 2nd Respondent. When she met the Doctor, she prepared the accident register. However, on 26.06.2022 no accident register was prepared, as informed by the 6th Respondent. The 5th Respondent was the Station Writer, at the relevant point of time. Initially 4th Respondent started the investigation and further investigation was carried on by the 2nd Respondent. CD file was in her custody. On 09.07.2022 three tests were conducted on the victim girl. On 09.07.2022, afternoon she was transferred to Vellore South Police Station. The 2nd Respondent was the incharge officer of the police station on 23.06.2022 and the 4th Respondent carried on the investigation till 09.07.2022, the date of her transfer.

33. The 6th Respondent has stated in her statement that she did not know the facts of the case. She took the victim girl on 26.07.2022 for medical test as per the medical memo issued by the 2nd Respondent. On that day, at about 12.15 PM, Doctor called them, but the victim girl did not co-operate for the medical test and about 12.30 PM, the victim girl asked her, for food and she provided food to her. But she escaped from the hospital and she informed the same to the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent directed her to find out the victim girl and then she and the 4th Respondent secured the victim girl about 10.30 PM and took her to the police station and handed over to her family. The 6th Respondent denied the allegation that she forced the victim girl not to co-operate for the medical examination. But she has admitted that such escape of the victim girl and other facts stated by her, were not mentioned in the general diary and neither the Inspector of Police nor the Sub-Inspector of Police obtained any statement from her and the 4th Respondent investigated the case.

34. The 7th Respondent has stated in his statement that he was the then SSI of Vellore North Police Station. On 21.06.2022 one Tmt.Mohanapriya lodged a complaint and he received the complaint. Generally if any injured is admitted in the hospital, the police would go to the hospital and record their statements and registered a case. But in the CSR issued by him, he did not mention as to who has given the intimation given to the police station. He did not collect the information from the hospital about the admission and discharge of the said Tmt.Mohanapriya. But he received the complaint from Tmt.Mohanapriya at 06.30 AM in Vellore Government Hospital and he did not register any FIR on that complaint. In the complaint lodged by Tmt.Mohanapriya, the date of occurrence was written as 21.06.2022 and there was correction in the date, as 20.06.2022. The same correction was made in the complaint allegedly given by Tmt.Mohanapriya to the police station. But he did not enquire about such correction to Tmt.Mohanapriya. The receipt of closure of the complaint of Tmt.Mohanapriya was not entered into the general diary and the document produced by him before this Commission does not contain the signature of the Inspector of Police. When he saw Tmt.Mohanapriya, he did not see any external injuries on her. He enquired one Tmt.Usha on 21.06.2022. Tmt.Mohanapriya withdrew her complaint on the same day and therefore, her complaint was also closed, on the same day. But he received a letter from the said Tmt.Usha dated 05.08.2022. So, there is suspicion in the enquiry made by the 7th Respondent. He has further submitted that he knew a case registered against Tmt.Mohanapriya in Cr.No.20/2022.

35. The 8th Respondent has stated in her statement that the accident register dated 26.06.2022 was prepared by her and she recorded that the victim girl has informed that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault on 02.06.2022. Though she informed the 6th Respondent to bring the victim girl on the afternoon, but she did not turn up and when she contacted the 6th Respondent, she replied that the victim girl escaped and after she finds the girl, she would bring her back. However, she did not bring the victim girl, on that day, and she closed the accident register. On 09.07.2022, the 5th Respondent brought the girl for medical test and she recorded the statement given by the victim girl in the accident register. On her preliminary examination, it did not bear any external injuries on her body and private parts, and expert ultrasound abdomen and pelvis were done and reported by the department of radiology, which shows a normal study and vagina smear report issued by department of pathology also showed no evidence of spermatozoa [forensic evidence is likely to be found only up-to 96 hours after the Incident] and as per the age certificate issued by the department of forensic medicine she must be above 14 years of age and below 16 years of age.

36. The 9th Respondent has stated in his statement that he was the DSP in Vellore Sub-Division from April 2022 to 22.08.2024 and under his jurisdiction there are10 Law & Order police stations, 2 Crime Branch police stations, 2 Traffic police stations and one All Women Police Station. He came to know about the registration of the case on 23.06.2022 through DSR by next day. He instructed the concerned Inspector of Police to send the victim girl for medical test and to arrest the accused concerned in the case. He also knew about the guidelines issued under POCSO Act. He did not send any report to the Superintendent of Police, about the improper investigation done in this case. He has also enquired the investigating officers, and asked them, as to why they did not arrest the accused, for which, they replied that they did not know the accused Thiru Santhosh. He has also questioned them for not affixing their signatures in the CD file. But he did not issue any memo to them. This Respondent is aware of the statement given by the victim girl U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. and also aware of the persons mentioned as accused in that statement. He did not given any instruction to the 2nd Respondent to obtain the statement of the victim girl in Kellys Home. But the Investigating Officer has informed him that the victim girl has given a statement that no such occurrence was took place. But he advised them to take action on her statement given U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judicial Magistrate.

37. In the detailed enquiry report, the Investigation Wing of this Commission, has pointed out the role of all the respondents herein except the 8th & 9th Respondent. After examining the victim girl and the respondents and available documents, it came to be known that though the occurrence took place on 02.06.2022, a complaint was lodged by the father of the victim girl on 23.06.2022 and the FIR was registered on the same day. Thought the FIR was registered on 23.06.2022, at the end of the FIR it is mentioned as follows:-
“Received a complaint and registered the case in AWPS Cr.No.20/2022 U/s 3(a) r/w 4(2) and 17 of POCSO Act, 506(i) IPC on 23.06.2022 at 21.30 hrs. signed xxx S.Sathiyavani, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vellore, Ï›tH¡»‹ Kjš jftš m¿¡ifæ‹ c©ik efiyÍ« thÂæ‹ mrš òfh® kDitÍ« Ïiz¤J fd« Áw¥ò ÚÂk‹w« (ghèaš F‰w§fëèUªJ FHªijfis ghJfh¡F« r£l« 2012) ntYh® mt®fS¡F« k‰w efšfis r«kªj¥g£l ca® mÂfhçfS¡F« mD¥Ã¡ bfh©nl‹.”
However, the seal found in the FIR shows that the FIR was forwarded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore on 07.03.2023 (in page No.6 of the CD file). From the available records, it is found that the FIR was not forwarded to the court concerned, but the FIR was forwarded to the court without jurisdiction and that it was also belatedly sent to that court only after nine months from the date of registration of the FIR. In one of the copies of the FIR found at the page No.3 of the CD file, some endorsements were covered by using whitener.

38. In the CD file page No.16 it is seen that at the place of Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vellore, there was a question mark. But the same has been struck off, by using whitener and on that question mark, a signature was affixed by someone. Similarly, in the CD file, most of the pages were not filled up or not signed, particularly at page Nos.49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56 etc. In page No.130 of the CD file, in the last page of the final form/report there are two signatures found, among them, one is the signature of 3rd Respondent, Tmt.A.D.Vasuki, in the place, Signature of the Investigating Officer and another signature is that of Tmt.P.Thamilarasi, in the place of Station House Officer/Officer in charge. Later, Tmt.Thamilarasi was examined by the Investigation Wing of this Commission and she has stated that the signature found in the final form/report was not her signature and on 25.08.2023 she was not the Station House Officer of that station. According to the 3rd Respondent, she has closed the case on 25.08.2023, as “mistake of fact” and mentioned that further action dropped as per RCS No.03/2023. Since the defacto complainant expired, she served the copy of the RCS No.03/2023 to his son, namely Thiru Suresh and she dropped further action. In the CD file page Nos.131 to 133, copies of the RCS notices are found without filling the matter, but the signatures of the 3rd Respondent and Thiru Suresh are found. So, there is suspicion in the mind of this Commission that the Respondents No.1 to 4 might have tampered the records found in the CD file of Cr.No.20/2022.

39. Though the occurrence took place on 02.06.2022, the complaint was received by the 4th Respondent on 23.06.2022. But the victim child was not sent for medical test, as per Section 19(5) of POCSO Act, 2012. Section 19(5) of POCSO Act, 2012 mandates that when a child sexual offense is reported, the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police must immediately arrange for the child’s care and protection, including admitting them to a shelter home or hospital within 24 hours if needed, ensuring their safety and well-being. This is part of the mandatory reporting procedure where the police record the incident and then provide immediate support for the child’s physical and emotional needs. Further, Section 19(6) of POCSO Act, 2012 mandates that the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police, upon receiving information about a child sexual offense, must immediately report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the Special Court (or Session Court) within 24 hours, ensuring the child receives necessary care and protection. This section emphasizes prompt action for the child’s welfare, guiding the police to involve child welfare bodies and the courts to deal with the matter swiftly for proper handling and rehabilitation. But in this case, unfortunately, the victim girl was not sent for medical test as prescribed U/s Section 19(5) of POCSO Act, 2012 and the FIR was not forwarded to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the Special Court within 24 hours as prescribed U/s Section 19(6) of POCSO Act, 2012.

40. As per the enquiry report submitted by the Investigation Wing of this Commission, the victim girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 29.07.2022, after a lapse of one month from the date of the complaint. The Respondents No.1 to 4 have failed to produce the victim before the Child Welfare Committee, as well as they have failed to send the FIR to the Special Court within the prescribed time i.e. 24 hours from filing of the complaint, as per the provisions prescribed in Section 19(6) of POCSO Act, 2012. So, it is the clear case of lapses on the part of the Respondents No.1 to 4. Though it is the duty of the 4th Respondent to send the FIR to the Special Court concerned, Respondents No.1 to 3 have failed to supervise this aspect, though they have admitted that they had investigated the case.

41. The victim girl was taken for medical test by the 6th Respondent on 26.06.2022 on the medical memo issued by the 2nd Respondent Inspector of Police. However, it is said to be the girl ran away and not willing for medical test. But the 6th Respondent has stated that she reported the same to her higher officials. But no such report is found in the CD file. In her statement, the 8th Respondent Medical Officer has categorically stated that the 6th respondent brought the victim girl on 26.06.2022 and she asked them to wait for some time and come after lunch time. But both absented and even after she informed the police, they did not respond to the Doctor in proper manner. The victim girl also submitted that the 4th respondent called the 5th respondent over phone and directed to bring her to the police station, without conducting medical test. Finally, the victim girl has been examined by the Medical Officer only on 09.07.2022 when she was brought by the 5th respondent. Section 27(3) of the POCSO Act specifies that the medical examination of a child victim must occur in the presence of the child’s parent or another trusted person, ensuring comfort and support, and if they can’t attend, a nominated woman from the medical institution will be present instead, all following procedures outlined in Section 164A CrPC. However, it is the admitted fact that the above mandatory provision has not been followed by the respondents No.1 to 4 as well as the 5th & 6th Respondents. They did not bring the parent or relative or another trusted person of the victim child along with the victim child for the medical test on 26.06.2022 and 09.07.20222. The 8th Respondent Medical Officer has also recorded the same in the medical records. So, the respondents No.1 to 6 have violated the provisions prescribed in Section 27(3) of the POCSO Act.

42. As per the statement given by the victim girl U/s 164 of Cr.P.C before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, respondents No.1 to 4 did not attempt to secure the accused persons and even they did not touch the said Tmt.Mohanapriya and Thiru Meganathan. They also did not conduct any enquiry on the suspect Thiru Santhosh, the named accused mentioned by the victim girl. CD file in Cr.No.20/2022 is perused by this Commission and it reveals that no action was taken by the respondents No.1 to 4 to find out the accused persons in that case. However, they had shown very much interest to close the case as mistake of fact and drop further action.

43. The 1st Respondent Tmt.Shagin, Inspector of Police, has stated in her counter statement that she was working as Inspector of Police A.W.P.S. Vellore from 02.09.2021 to 13.05.2023 but, from 10.03.2022 to 18.12.2022. She was posted at Temporary Police Recruit School, Tamil Nadu Special Police XV Battalion, Sevoor, Vellore District as Inspector of Police, she worked on deputation while she was away on duty on 23.06.2022 complainant’s father preferred a complaint and the same was registered in A.W.P.S. Vellore Crime No. 20/2022 and investigation was taken up. After returning duty on 19.12.2022, the respondent took up the investigation in Crime No. 20/2022 inquired the complainant Thiru Kumar, neighbours, Tmt.Chithra, W/o. Kottai and Tmt.Jenina, W/o. Suresh. According to her, both complainant and present complainant xxx gave a different statement, during investigation and statement recorded before the Learned Magistrate and also she perused the statement of the Deputy Superintendent of Kellys Home. The 1st respondent has admitted that she took up the investigation in Cr.No.20/2022 and even according to her version, she did not peruse the CD file, whether the FIR was forwarded to the concerned court and as to the steps taken to secure the named accused persons mentioned in the FIR, as well as in the statement given by the victim girl U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judicial Magistrate. So, it is proved that the 1st Respondent has acted in gross negligent manner.

44. The 2nd Respondent Tmt.Shyamala, Inspector of Police, has stated in her statement that she was the Investigating Officer in that case and the complaint was filed by the father of the victim girl Thiru Kumar on 23.06.2022. She has spoken about the registration of the case in Cr.No.20/2022. The 2nd Respondent has submitted that she was not working at the AWPS, Vellore on the date of registration of the case and she was working as Inspector of Police in Vellore South police station. However, she has submitted that she went to the Govt. Home for Girls at Chennai on 25.03.2023 and enquired the victim girl and the Superintendent of that Home and recorded their statements and in that statement the victim girl denied all the allegations made by her father. The 2nd Respondent has submitted that no order was issued to her to investigate the matter and no specific direction was given to her, by the higher officials to examine the victim child at the Home. The 2nd Respondent has admitted that she has not served as Station House Officer or incharge of that police station. But she has not explained under whose direction or order she went to Kellys Home for children and examined the victim girl on 25.03.2023 and before that the child was sheltered at Home for Children at Vellore. So, it is proved that the 2nd Respondent investigated the matter without any written order which shows her gross negligence in the discharge of her duty.

45. The 3rd Respondent Tmt.A.D.Vasuki, Inspector of Police, in her statement submits that she was the investigating officer in that case and she enquired the matter and recorded the statements of the witnesses and the victim girl and finally she came to a conclusion that the case does not require any further action and further action was dropped in that case and she prepared the RCS notices and obtained the signature of the son the defacto Complainant. However, she did not fill up the RCS notice though it is mentioned that the notice was served to the son of the Complainant Thiru Kumar. But a perusal of the CD file, the RCS notice was not served to him and the copies of the same are kept in the CD file. However, the original RCS notice is not available in the CD filed and the Xerox copies only are there at page Nos.131 to 133 of the CD file. So, it is proved from the records that the 3rd Respondent has derelict her duty.

46. The 4th Respondent Tmt.Sathiyavani, Sub-Inspector of Police, the Officer who registered the case on the complaint dated 23.06.2022. Though she has mentioned in the FIR that the FIR was forwarded to the Special Court under POCSO Act on the same day, the FIR found in page Nos.6 to 8 of the CD file would show that it was forwarded to the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, which is not the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act at Vellore. After registering the case, the 4th Respondent did not place the FIR and other documents to the Inspector of Police. But she started her investigation on the next day and examined the victim girl and the defacto complainant and other witnesses on the same day and visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a observation mahazar. The 4th Respondent did not explain about the delay in sending the FIR to the court which is not the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act at Vellore. So, it is proved that the 4th Respondent has also acted contrary to law.

47. So far as 5th & 6th Respondents are concerned they had acted upon the directions of the 2nd Respondent and took the victim girl to the hospital for medical examination without the assistance of the parent or a trusted person of the victim girl and they did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 27(3) of POCSO Act, 2012.

48. As the 7th Respondent, he had registered a complaint of one Tmt.Mohanapriya on 21.06.2022 against the victim girl and other two persons that she was assaulted by them. The 7th Respondent has submitted that the defacto complainant Tmt.Mohanapriya lodged a complaint from the hospital against Tmt.Usha and the victim girl. Though she has stated that she sustained grievous injury, she was discharged from the hospital on the same day and that withdrew her complaint on the same day, which indicates that Tmt.Mohanapriya has attempted to create a false case against Tmt.Usha, who has helped the victim girl. The anticipation of the alleged complaint by Tmt.Mohanapriya is only to save her skin. The 7th Respondent has further submitted that he closed the complaint lodged by Tmt.Mohanapriya against the victim girl and others on the same day. There is no specific allegation made against the 7th Respondent in the complaint. Hence, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the 7th Respondent has not violated any of the human rights of the victim girl and therefore, the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.
49. The 8th Respondent Dr.Sankaranandhi has submitted in her statement about the role of the 5th & 6th respondents in this case and the conduct of the victim girl. After examining the victim girl, she has opined that “Hymen does not appear to be intact.” Hence it is the conclusive proof of the 8th respondent that as per version of the victim girl she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. So, according to her statement and the records submitted by her, Commission comes to the conclusion that the 8th Respondent has done her duty, in proper manner and there is no specific allegation made against the 8th Respondent in the complaint also. Hence this Commission is of the considered opinion that the 8th Respondent has not violated any of the human rights of the victim girl and the complaint against her is liable to be dismissed.

50. The 9th Respondent, Thiru Thirunavukarasu, the then DSP, Vellore Sub-Division, has submitted that though he has instructed in the monthly meeting about the pending cases, relating to POCSO cases, respondents No.1 to 3 did not bring to his notice, about this particular case. During the examination by this Commission, respondents No.1 to 3 have also admitted that they did not report the present case in Cr.No.20/2022 to the 9th Respondent. There is no specific allegation made against the 9th Respondent in the complaint also. Hence, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the 9th Respondent has not violated the human rights of the victim girl and therefore, the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.

51. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is enacted to provide for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As per Section 2(d), Human Rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

52. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the arguments put forth, the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing of this Commission and the CD file in Cr.No.20/2022 on the file of AWPS, Vellore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that this is not a mere case of violation of the provisions of a statute, the procedure to be followed, but it is clear case that the respondents No.1 to 6 have violated the human rights of a victim girl. From the available records it is clear, that respondents No.1 to 6 have played a game in the life of the victim girl, though they are duty bound to act as per the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012, which is a stringent law, for the protection of children from sexual assault. Respondents No.1 to 6 did not act in accordance with law. They had casually and negligently acted in Cr.No.20/2022. Respondents No.1 to 6 have not only failed to discharge their duties in investigating the case, in the manner stated supra, but they have also acted in a most callous manner, violating the human rights of the victim. As discussed earlier, violation of human rights against Respondents No.7, 8 & 9, is not proved by the Complainant. Commission reiterates that respondents No.1 to 6 have grossly violated the human rights of the Complainant and they are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant. Besides, it is a fit case where departmental action has to be taken in accordance with the service rules. Complaint against the Respondents No.7, 8 & 9 is dismissed. This Point is answered accordingly.

53. Point No.2: – While answering Point No.1, this Commission has categorically arrived at the conclusion that respondents No.1 to 6 have violated the human rights of the Complainant. It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the cases, that monetary or pecuniary compensation may not be the absolute remedy to the inexplicable hardship and mental agony faced by a victim girl, but sometimes, it may be reparative measure and perhaps, a remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental and human rights of a citizen, by the public servants, and in the case on hand to a minor child. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant has to be paid a just and reasonable compensation, for the violation of human rights by respondents No.1 to 6 and considering the age of the victim and other attendant circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, fixing an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant would be just, fair and reasonable and that the same would meet the ends of justice. Liability has to be apportioned. Hence this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- each from the respondents No.1 to 4 and Rs.50,000/- each from the respondents No.5 & 6, as compensation. Commission also directs the competent authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents No.1 to 6 in accordance with the service rules. This Point is answered accordingly.
54. In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-
Respondents 1 to 6 are working under the State Government. Hence, government is liable to pay the abovesaid amount and recover the same from the erring servants.
(i) Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) to the Complainant xxx, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this recommendation. Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.2,00,000/- each from respondents No.1 to 4 (2,00,000×4=8,00,000) and Rs.50,000/- each from respondents No.5 & 6 (50,000×2=1,00,000) (totally Rs.9,00,000/-) in accordance with rules. Complaint against the Respondents No.7, 8 & 9 is dismissed.
(ii) Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents No.1 to 6, as per the Rules.
(iii) Commission also recommends to re-investigate the case in Vellore AWPS Cr.No.20/2022 by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and file a final report before the Court concerned within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Recommendation.
Sd/- xxx Sd/- xxx
Hon’ble Member Hon’ble Chairperson
To

The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.

Copy to

(1) XXX
(2)Tmt.M.Shagin, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore.
(3)Tmt.P.Shyamala, the then Inspector of Police, Vellore South Police Station.
(4)Tmt.A.D.Vasuki, the then Inspector of Police, AWPS, Vellore.
(5)Tmt.S.Sathiyavani, the then WSI, AWPS, Vellore.
(6)Tmt.N.Dhamayanthi, the then WHC.890, AWPS, Vellore.
(7)Tmt.M.Jayasudha, the then WHC.1838, AWPS, Vellore.
(8)Thiru S.V.Venkatesan, the then SSI, Vellore North Police Station.
(9)Dr.S.Sankaranandhi, DGO, Gynecologist, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Vellore.
(10)Thiru E.Thirunavukarasu, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub-Division.

Mmk 26.12.2025
//BY ORDER//
Assistant Registrar