PANAJI
The contempt notice from the Bombay High Court at Goa regarding the 'parade and pose' stunt might have certainly prompted some police officials to reassess their actions; however, it has also sparked a debate about the necessity of revealing the accused, albeit with muffled face.
In cases where it is crucial to reassure the crime victim that accused has been arrested, such as in instances of rape, there have been occasions where victims personally visit the police station to verify the arrest of the accused.
A senior police officer highlighted several cases, especially in instances of rape, where victims personally visit the police station to confirm the arrest. “In numerous cases such as rape, robbery, and other serious offenses, victims are adamant until they are personally assured that the accused is taken into custody. Hence, we photograph the accused, although by keeping their faces muffled, until the completion of the test identification parade,” the officer explained while speaking to The Goan.
According to the Evidence Act and Supreme Court rulings, particularly concerning rape cases, it is mandatory to conceal the face of the accused in public until the test identification parade. Failure to adhere to this guideline results in ineffective test identification parade wherein this crucial exercise becomes meaningless and the accused can take advantage of it.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Valmiki Menezes on Tuesday issued contempt notices to six officers including Superintendent of Police Bossuet Silva. While majority of them were photographed alongside a mother who had been arrested for abandoning her child, the SP was photographed with an accused in a drug seizure operation.
While acknowledging the High Court’s authority, another officer emphasized that the purpose of parading the accused is not to shame, humiliate, or violate their human rights; but to reassure the victim that police action is indeed taken.
Simultaneously, the department highlighted certain orders that impose restrictions on parading female accused and juvenile delinquents, while other cases are subject to fewer limitations.
In 2019, the Division Bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Nutan Sardessai had directed police inspector Kapil Nayak and sub-inspector Amin Naik “ then posted at Mapusa police station to compensate a woman with Rs 30,000 and Rs 10,000 respectively within four weeks for having violated her human and fundamental rights to privacy and dignity with impunity.
The suo moto action was taken when the two officers paraded the mother before the media for abandoning her child. “The Respondent no.3 (Kapil Nayak) by his acts, has made the general public aware of his insensitivity, thereby creating an impression that police officials in Goa are not at all sensitive in such matters. The actions of respondent nos. 3 (Nayak) and 4 (Amin Naik), far from uplifting the image of the police, have contributed precisely in the reverse direction… The police officials were seen posing with the mother as if “displaying some trophy,” the court had then observed.
In fact, DGP Director General of Police Jaspal, who was then the IGP, had pulled up the duo before the suo moto cognizance of the high court.
Nayak and Naik are once again under court scrutiny and are among six officers issued contempt notices, which will be next heard on April 15.
