KOCHI: Coming down heavily on the woman police officer attached to the Pink Patrol who had allegedly mortified an eight-year-old child and her father in public accusing them of theft in Attingal, the Kerala High Court said the officer's behaviour reflected "khaki ego and khaki arrogance". The court made the observation while considering a petition filed by the girl seeking action against the cop. The court also directed the state police chief to produce the order transferring the officer out of the Pink Patrol unit and the reasons that impelled her transfer.
After watching video footage of the incident online, Justice Devan Ramachandran said the incident was very disturbing and added that he was pained to see the child crying when the police officer reprimanded her.
The judge pointed out that the girl was totally terrified. The girl and her father belonged to the vulnerable section of society. "When the missing phone was discovered, the police officer could have bent down and apologised to the child. The
matter would have ended there," observed the court.
The court asked would the girl have any confidence in the police after the incident and would she regard the police as a protector. After seeing the child crying, everybody's eyes would have glistened with tears. But the police officer, who was a woman and mother, did not have such feelings. In fact, she or other police officers in the vehicle could have consoled the girl. But they did not do so.
The court asked what would have happened if the missing phone was in silent mode. The girl and her father would have been put behind bars. In fact, the life of the girl was more valuable than the price of the mobile. It had all happened because of the carelessness of the police officer. The responsibility of the police officer was millions of times more when they were in uniform. Every police officer should understand this. Besides, the woman police officer had judged the father of the girl by his looks. Would anybody judge a person by such attributes? In fact, the police officer was trying to defend her indefensible conduct.
The court also directed the State Police Chief to file a report after bestowing his attention on the issue. The court pointed out that the petitioner said the police had not taken the statements of her and her father even three months after the incident.
The court asked the SPC to keep in mind that the petitioner was under severe emotional psychiatric stress on account of the behaviour of the police officer. The court asked the petitioner's counsel to place the details of the treatment the girl was undergoing following the incident.