Inquire into missing records of rape case: HC

The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed district and sessions judge, Faridabad to inquire into reported incident of missing of documents in a rape case at the district courts.

The high court bench of justice JS Puri termed the concerned additional district and sessions judge explanation unfounded, who in his report had said that once the accused was supplied the documents why he was wanting the same for the second time. “(judge’s argument) is not justified because if a document was there on record and it is not available now then it becomes a serious issue but such kind of explanation given by additional district and sessions judge is unfounded,” the court observed asking the sessions judge to conduct an enquiry on the issue at hand and submit a report by July 3.

The court was hearing a plea from an accused, who after dismissal of his plea by the additional district and sessions judge seeking copy of some documents related to the case had approached high court challenging the order. The documents were about an FIR registered on June 23, 2016, registered on the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation at women police station Faridabad.

Acting on the same on November 8, 2024, the high court had sought a report from the sessions judge, Faridabad, who had informed the court that in his explanation the additional district and sessions judge in question had said that the matter was inquired into from the Ahlmad as well as from the office file and therein it was found that there were no “annexures” (the documents, which petitioner claimed were part of court record). It was further stated in the report that his application seeking the documents in question was dismissed as the same were not found in the court’s record.

As per his lawyer, Salil Dev Singh Bali, the petitioner accused had argued in the court that during the proceedings of the case, he had got certified copies of those documents. But somehow misplaced them. Hence, he filed for these copies again. But the application was dismissed by the court in question on the report of court staff that the documents sought never existed. He had argued that the additional district and sessions judge should have inquired into the matter and should not have passed the order merely on the report of court staff. As per his case before the high court there were entries by the court staff about the documents in question, which they are now claiming never “existed”.