Pathanamthitta schoolgirl assault case: SI transferred following DySP report on harassment

The Pathanamthitta police on Thursday transferred a Koodal police sub-inspector who was accused of assaulting a 20-year-old youth during questioning in connection with a case involving the alleged sexual assault of a 13-year-old schoolgirl.

The transfer comes a day after Pathanamthitta Special Branch DySP Aneesh K G submitted a report on allegations of police brutality and procedural violations raised by the youth in a complaint to Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala. The SI, Jaimon, was transferred to the Pathanamthitta AR camp.

According to the DySP, the report was forwarded to the Director General of Police, who will decide on the action against the circle inspector.

The case was registered based on statements made by the 13-year-old girl during a counselling session at her school, in which she alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by six individuals, including minors who were her schoolmates. As part of the investigation, police questioned six people, including four minors. However, the girl later changed her statement and told police that she had not been sexually assaulted. The development triggered widespread criticism, with the families of the youths alleging police brutality and harassment over what they described as a false complaint.

The Special Branch report, submitted to District Police Chief R Anand on Wednesday after the inquiry, found violations of the standard operating procedure during the investigation and pointed to indications of harassment.

In his complaint, the youth said he had undergone heart surgery and was living with health restrictions during his recovery. Despite this, he alleged that police assaulted him during questioning.

He further alleged that officers subjected him to abusive questioning before assaulting him with lathis. He also claimed that they stepped on his foot while wearing boots and pulled his ear with force, causing injuries.

The youth sought action against the police officers for allegedly misusing the provisions of the POCSO Act and against the complainant for allegedly furnishing false information in the case.