Goa police inspector among two arrested in minor’s sexual assault case at Cyber Crime Police Station

Two people were arrested in the case, making the number of accused clear. They are suspended police inspector Vikas Deykar, aged 40, and Rajani Palekar, aged 37. Police arrested both on Wednesday after questioning them further.

Deykar was previously posted as inspector of the Cyber Crime division of the Crime Branch. Palekar is accused of facilitating the alleged sexual assault. The minor named both accused in her complaint about events at the Cyber Crime Police Station.

Police said they had earlier joined the investigation after receiving notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. During further interrogation, officers found material inconsistencies in their statements and said their explanations were unsatisfactory. Police also cited the need for custodial interrogation and concerns about witness influence and evidence tampering. The case includes charges under the BNS and the POCSO Act.

The minor alleged that she was asked to undress and touched inappropriately during visits to the Cyber Crime Police Station. These allegations concern two occasions earlier this year. The reported dates were July 25 and October 27.

Her complaint places the alleged conduct inside a police station, where she had gone for visits. Police named suspended inspector Vikas Deykar and Rajani Palekar in the case. The article describes Palekar as accused of facilitating the alleged sexual assault. Deykar was the inspector of the Cyber Crime division of the Crime Branch.

The allegations led to an FIR and Deykar’s suspension before the arrests. Police later arrested both accused after further interrogation. They said material inconsistencies appeared in the accused persons’ statements and that they did not provide satisfactory explanations about crucial aspects of the case. The investigation also cited concerns about witnesses and evidence.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, or POCSO, is India’s special law for sexual offences involving children. It creates offence categories and procedures focused on protecting minors. The article reports that Sections 10 and 12 were included in the charges against Deykar and Palekar.

Section 10 addresses punishment for aggravated sexual assault. Section 12 addresses punishment for sexual harassment of a child. The reported allegations that the minor was asked to undress and touched inappropriately led police to invoke these provisions, alongside charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The article does not describe the full legal reasoning for selecting both POCSO sections. It states that the sections were applied in the case and that the alleged conduct occurred during visits to a police station. The investigation and later court proceedings will determine how the allegations and charges are assessed.

The article identifies two alleged roles. Vikas Deykar, a suspended police inspector, was accused in the alleged sexual assault involving the minor. Rajani Palekar was accused of facilitating the alleged assault. Both were arrested and booked in the same case.

The minor’s complaint said she was asked to undress and touched inappropriately during visits to the Cyber Crime Police Station. Deykar had been posted as inspector of the Cyber Crime division of the Crime Branch. The article does not give a more detailed account of what Palekar allegedly did to facilitate the conduct.

Police charged both under provisions covering sexual harassment, wrongful confinement, abetment, and criminal conspiracy under the BNS. They also face Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. These are allegations at the investigation stage. Police said their arrests followed inconsistencies in statements and the need for custodial interrogation.

Joining an investigation after a notice does not necessarily end police questioning or prevent arrest. In this case, Deykar and Palekar had earlier appeared pursuant to notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Police then questioned them further on Wednesday.

North Goa Superintendent of Police Rahul Gupta said officers noticed material inconsistencies in their statements. Police also said both accused failed to give satisfactory explanations about crucial aspects of the case. These findings changed the immediate investigative position, according to the police statement.

Police cited three additional reasons for arrest: the alleged involvement of both accused, the need for custodial interrogation, and apprehensions that witnesses could be influenced or evidence tampered with. The article reports that both were placed under arrest that day. Their arrest followed an earlier FIR against Deykar, who had already been suspended.

After an arrest, police generally continue the investigation and produce the arrested person before a court within the legally required period. A court may decide whether the person remains in police custody, is sent to judicial custody, or is released under conditions. The article does not state what court order followed these arrests.

Custodial interrogation can give investigators time to question suspects, compare accounts, and examine disputed details. Police said material inconsistencies were found in Deykar’s and Palekar’s statements. They also said both had not satisfactorily explained crucial aspects of the case, making custody necessary from the investigators’ perspective.

Witness protection can reduce the risk of pressure or influence. Evidence preservation can help prevent alteration, concealment, or destruction of material relevant to the allegations. Police specifically cited apprehensions about influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. These concerns explain the stated reasons for arrest, but they do not establish guilt.

Special protections recognise that children may be vulnerable when reporting or facing alleged sexual abuse. A child can depend on adults and institutions for safety, support, and access to justice. The POCSO Act provides a legal framework for offences involving children, including the alleged conduct described in this case.

The reported allegations involved a minor being asked to undress and touched inappropriately during visits to a police station. The location does not remove the child’s protection. Police booked the accused under Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO, along with provisions of the BNS. The case therefore combines child-protection law with general criminal charges.

The article shows why institutional safeguards matter: the allegations were made against people connected with a police station, and police cited possible influence over witnesses and tampering with evidence. The arrests allow the investigation to continue, but the allegations still require legal examination. The article does not state the case’s final outcome.