The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench took strong exception to a father “donating” his daughter to a baba who was accused of sexually assaulting the 17-year-old along with his disciples.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi was hearing a bail application filed by the baba, Shankeshwar alias Shambhu Dhakne, and his disciple Sopan Dhakne, who lived on the premises of a temple, the Bar and Bench reported.
“When the girl as per her own statement is minor, then why the father who is in all respect guardian of the girl should give the girl as Daan ? A girl is not a property which can be given in donation,” the Court said.
The two bail applicants were charged with sexually assaulting a minor girl who lived with her devotee father and the two accused applicants.
Justice Kankanwadi was informed of the troubling fact that the father of the girl had executed a ‘Danpatra’ (donation deed) with the baba, and that the kanyadan (girl donation) was done in the presence of God.
The baba and his disciples allegedly consumed narcotic and intoxicating substances and enlisted the help of village youth in such activities.
It was stated that the village held a Gram Sabha at which a decision was made to remove the baba and his disciples, as well as the victim-girl, from the temple premises because he was influencing the village’s youth to consume narcotic drugs.
After the two sexually assaulted the victim, she filed a police complaint, and a FIR was filed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
The applicants sought bail on the grounds that they did not require physical custody. They claimed that because there was no evidence for her birth date on the chargesheet, the provisions of POCSO would not apply.
They also claimed that no signs of force were found on the victim’s body.
The prosecution’s case, on the other hand, was that the victim provided her date of birth in the FIR, which was corroborated by the Aadhaar card submitted by her father.
Justice Kankanwadi granted bail to both accused based on the fact that the chargesheet had been filed, implying that the investigation was complete and thus there was no need for the applicants to be held in custody.
When the Court learned of the donation deed during the hearing, it asked the victim’s father to explain his position on an affidavit.
After much deliberation, the Court determined that the person who filed the affidavit was not the same person who was named as the victim’s father in the chargesheet.
The affidavit stated that after the girl’s mother died, her father gave the girl up for adoption to the baba, who signed the affidavit, in 2018. The affidavit further stated that a proper adoption deed had not been executed and that the process had yet to be completed.
The father’s attorney was also unable to explain why a document titled “Danpatra” was executed. In light of these developments, Justice Kankanwadi expressed concern about the minor girl’s future.
“in view of such document coming forward, (the Court) can’t shut the eyes,” the judge said, according to the report.
In the order, the Court stated that “this Court is required to intervene because of the actions taken by the girl’s father in executing “Danpatra.” This is for the girl’s future, and she should not be pushed to engage in illegal activities.”
The Court ordered the Child Welfare Committee to “hold an expedited inquiry in respect of the girl and to determine whether she is a fit person to be declared as a child in need of care and protection.” The CWC submitted its report on January 21, 2022, and the case will be heard again on February 4, 2022.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment