Retrial ordered in case dismissed over 'lack of probe'
The charge sheet was filed in connection with an incident that took place in December 2019.
By
Aman Haleem
High Court on Friday set aside and instructed the reopening of a case where a magistrate court decided to dismiss the case after a pre-trial application, saying that the charge sheet was filed on grounds that were exempt from the investigations.
The dismissed charge is of sexual assault against a minor in a position of trust. The lower court dismissed the plea on the ground that the accused was "denied his rights" as he was not questioned in the investigation about the incident on the date mentioned in the chargesheet.
As per the High Court's ruling on Tuesday, when the PG office challenged the decision:
-
The decision that the prosecution cannot proceed in view of the change in the date of alleged incident, was set aside
-
The lower court will resume its probe only after deciding other pre-trial submissions
Looking at what happened in the case:
-
After his arrest, he was questioned during the investigation about an incident that took place in January 2020
-
The charge sheet was filed in connection with an incident that took place in December 2019
-
The accused claimed that he was not questioned in the investigation about the 2019 incident
-
The accused's statement was recorded and remand extended in connection with the 2020 incident
The PG lawyers told the court that they do not believe it is illegal to prosecute an incident that was not questioned in the investigation. The reason they cited was that the recording of the interview of the man's investigation did not violate any of his rights as he was questioned in connection with the 2019 incident as well.
Justice Fathimath Farheeza, who presided over the High Court bench, wrote in her opinion that if it was found that the date of the incident had changed, the right thing to do would be to question the person about the allegation. However, it is not enough of a violation of the law to dismiss the charges, the verdict said.
Explaining the reason for deciding that the case was dismissed incorrectly, the judge wrote, "Though the closure was in the wake of the incident in 2020, it can be concluded that since the previous incident was questioned during the course of the investigation, the charge sheet was valid."
"The charge against [name withheld] is that the same offence has been repeatedly committed, and since the nature of the alleged offence has not changed [name withheld], the charge against [name withheld] is deemed to have been investigated after receiving a proper notice [name withheld]," Farheeza wrote in the bench's unanimous verdict.
