Why the Unarrested POCSO Accused and Subsequent Murder Highlight Gaps in Investigation Duties and Victim Protection under Indian Criminal Law

A tragic chain of events unfolded when the father of a girl who had been subjected to sexual assault covered by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was violently slain by an alleged perpetrator who subsequently fled, leaving the family bereft and the investigation in a state of uncertainty, while the initial criminal complaint lodged in the year 2024 against the suspected offenders has, to date, failed to produce any arrest or custodial apprehension of those alleged to have committed the heinous acts. The absence of any apprehension of the accused, despite the existence of a registered First Information Report, raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the statutory mechanisms designed to compel law enforcement agencies to act promptly, secure evidence, and prevent further harm to the victim and her relatives, especially in light of the special provisions of the POCSO legislation that mandate swift investigation and protective measures for child survivors of sexual offences. Moreover, the subsequent homicide of the child’s father at the hands of the same individual alleged to have participated in the original sexual assault underscores the intersection of two distinct but cognizable offences—rape of a minor and murder—each demanding immediate police intervention, arrest without warrant, and adherence to the procedural safeguards enumerated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby exposing potential lapses in the execution of mandatory duties by the investigating officers. Given that the alleged perpetrators remain at large, the enduring impunity not only contravenes the protective intent of the child‑safety framework but also jeopardizes the broader public interest in ensuring that crimes against vulnerable persons are met with decisive legal action, compelling courts, supervisory authorities, and civil society to scrutinise the systemic gaps that allow such failures to persist and to consider remedial avenues available under constitutional and statutory law.

One question is whether the failure to secure the arrest of the alleged POCSO offenders violates the statutory duty imposed by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which expressly requires that investigations be conducted with speed, sensitivity and a view to preventing further victimisation, thereby obligating law enforcement to take all reasonable steps toward locating and apprehending the accused within the parameters of procedural law. The answer may depend on judicial interpretations of the Act’s non‑procedural provisions, which, while not prescribing a specific timeline for arrest, have been read by courts as creating an enforceable expectation that authorities cannot unreasonably delay action that endangered the safety and well‑being of a child, and that any undue delay could constitute a breach of the statutory mandate for timely protection.

Another pressing issue is whether the police exercised their powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to arrest without warrant in a cognizable offence such as murder, given that the act of killing the victim’s father appears directly linked to the same individual implicated in the earlier sexual assault, thereby triggering the legal requirement that the investigating officer may arrest the alleged offender immediately upon obtaining reasonable suspicion of involvement. A court examining this matter would likely consider whether the absence of an arrest despite the existence of a First Information Report and the aggravating circumstance of a retaliatory homicide reflects a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of the Code, which empower the police to commence investigation and, where necessary, seize the accused to safeguard the investigation and public order.

A further legal dimension concerns the child victim’s right to protection, compensation and speedy justice, raising the question of whether she may approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Article 32 to seek a writ of mandamus compelling the appropriate investigating authority to fulfil its statutory obligations, obtain a direction for the registration of a chargesheet, and ensure that protective measures such as a shelter home or counselling are provided in accordance with the POCSO framework. Perhaps the more important legal issue is whether the courts would entertain a claim for damages under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to wrongful death of the father, coupled with the special provisions of the POCSO Act that allow for compensation to the child survivor, thereby creating a composite cause of action that addresses both the loss of parental support and the ongoing trauma endured by the minor.

An additional possible view is that the police, by not effecting any arrest, may be held administratively liable for dereliction of duty, opening the door for a writ of certiorari challenging the legality of the inaction, or for a complaint before the State Vigilance Commission or the Central Bureau of Investigation, should evidence suggest systemic negligence, thereby invoking the principle that public officers must perform their functions without unreasonable delay as enshrined in the constitutional guarantee of equality before law. The legal position would turn on whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the failure to arrest constitutes a breach of a legal duty that is enforceable by the courts, a determination that would require a factual inquiry into the steps taken by the investigation team, the availability of leads, and the existence of any procedural lapses that could be corrected through supervisory judicial intervention.

In sum, the confluence of an unarrested POCSO complaint, the subsequent homicide of the child’s father, and the apparent inertia of law‑enforcement agencies underscores the urgent need for judicial scrutiny of procedural compliance, reinforces the protective ethos of the child‑safety legislation, and may compel the higher judiciary to articulate clearer standards for timely arrests, victim protection and accountability, thereby shaping future enforcement practices across the criminal justice system. A fuller legal assessment would require detailed records of the investigative actions taken, the availability of forensic evidence, and any prior judicial directions, but the present facts already suggest that the existing legal framework provides multiple avenues for the aggrieved parties to seek redress, compel action, and hold the responsible officials to account, ensuring that the rights of the minor and her family are not left perpetually unprotected.