Inspector, SI in dock for inaction in attempt to rape case

CHENNAI: A police inspector and a woman sub-inspector are in the dock for not arresting an accused in an attempt to rape case more than six months after the incident. One of the accused surrendered only after the victim approached the state human rights commission (SHRC).
The SHRC ordered inspector M K Mohan and sub-inspector B Muthu Meenakshi, then with the Dindigul district police, to pay Rs 25,000 each to Padma of Vedasanthur taluk.
According to the complainant, she was returning home from a shop on December 3, 2006, when two men of her village, intercepted her, took her to a thorny bush and attempted to rape her. As she raised an alarm, a neighbour rushed to the spot and rescued her, she said.
Later, Padma went to the Eriyodu police station where sub-inspector Muthu Meenakshi. took down the statement but allegedly destroyed the paper later and told Padma she could only register it as a scuffle as attempt to rape was "shameful."
Padma then moved the commission saying that police had not taken action only because the two men involved were politically influential,.
In his counter, the inspector said he had registered a case on Padma's complaint. One of the accused, as mentioned by the complainant, surrendered before the Vedasanthur magistrate in June 2007, following which he had filed the chargesheet in the case. The second accused's name was not mentioned by the witnesses, the inspector said. SI Muthu Meenakshi claimed the charges levelled against her were false.
Commission member K Mariappan called for a report from the district superintendent of police and, on perusal of the documents and statement of witnesses from both sides, said, "The complainant has established her case on the basis of strong and cogent circumstantial evidence."
Condemning the police for not arresting the accused, a native of the same area, even six months after the incident, the member said the accused had surrendered before the magistrate court only after receiving summons from the commission.
"It is clear that the complainant and her husband orally narrated the event before the sub-inspector, who recorded their statements on a paper correctly but destroyed it later with some ulterior motive and changed the incident from attempt to rape to a scuffle. The two police officials not only failed to discharge their legitimate duties but also committed injustice to the complainant, since she is a poor lady," the commission held and ordered compensation.