CBI in Hathras rape: Defendant “frustrated” after rejection of victim

Posted by Amil Bhatnagar | New Delhi |

Updated: December 21, 2020, 7:26:10 am





A Department of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajan Roy will next hear the matter on December 16. (File)

The 19-year-old Dalit woman who was killed in Hathras was allegedly raped by four men after rejecting one of them, Sandeep. This “change in their relationship” “made his feelings worse” and “frustrated him” CBI said in its fee statement filed in the case.

The indictment also includes a damning charge against Uttar Pradesh police that, despite the woman who named three people when her testimony was recorded on September 19, the statement mentioned only one person’s name. It goes on to say that “although the victim committed alleged abuse, her medical examination regarding sexual assault was not carried out”.

The CBI indictment against the four upper caste men was brought up against a court in Hathras under IPC Sections 376 (Rape), 376 (D) (Rape), 302 (Murder) and the relevant Sections of the SC / ST Act Sandeep submitted (20), his uncle Ravi (35) and their friends Ramu (26) and Luv Kush (23). The woman was allegedly attacked by the four on September 14 and died two weeks later in Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. The four defendants have been in custody since their arrest in September.

According to the indictment, the woman and Sandeep lived nearby and “he met the victim two to three years ago, which gradually turned into a love affair.” It says that “it also became known” that they “met in isolated places” and that “these facts are supported by many villagers”.

The indictment goes on to say that Sandeep had three phone numbers and several calls were made from them to a phone number of the victim’s family. “However, all family members confirmed during their investigation that they did not call or telephone Sandeep.”

The investigation also found that when a family member of the victim learned of the cell phone conversations exchanged between the victim and Sandeep, he had a verbose argument with Sandeep’s family in front of his house. This incident was observed by several villagers … Subsequently, the victim’s father also verbally complained to (the son of Pradhan) about the defendant’s phone calls to the victim, as confirmed by witnesses … ”, the indictment says.

When contacted, the victim’s brother said to The Indian Express: “There was absolutely no acquaintance between my sister and the defendant Sandeep. He had gotten our number from somewhere and was making prank calls and pretending he was someone else. A couple of missed calls too. In addition, no calls were exchanged. The whole village is against us and I think they would say anything to fake the crime that took place. “

According to the indictment, “Analysis of the call detail recordings of the accused, victim and cell phone call patterns from October 2019 to March 2020 shows that there were short (signal) calls from the victim to Sandeep, followed by long duration calls from the accused Sandeep to the Family number of the victim. This established that the relationship / affair between the victim and the accused Sandeep was in good shape until March 2020. “

It adds, “Thereafter, no calls were made from (the victim’s family number) to any of Sandeep’s numbers, indicating that their relationship / affair was disrupted.”

The prosecution states that the relationship worsened when family members found out and that after March 20, Sandeep attempted to contact the victim from various friends and relatives.

The prosecution states that an individual’s investigation revealed that Sandeep had asked him to call the victim’s family number and put him on a conference call. “During the investigation, (the person) also stated that the victim avoided the accused Sandeep and his cell phone calls for some time. Because of her changed behavior, Sandeep was frustrated, ”the indictment reads. He suspected that she was “having an affair” with someone. “This change in their relationship has aggravated the feelings of the accused Sandeep,” it said.

Regarding the allegations against the defendant, the indictment states: “During her investigation on September 22nd, the victim categorically stated that she was raped by the four defendants; She also named her on her death certificate … It is found that the victim was raped in Bajra Field on September 14th when she was alone. The investigation also found that all four of the defendants were present in or near the village, which confirms the victim’s claim. “

The indictment also states that a medical examination of the victim was carried out on September 22nd by a doctor from the AMU’s forensic medicine department. The final statement states: “There are no signs of vaginal / anal intercourse. There is evidence of physical abuse (injuries to the neck and back). “

After the takeover of the CBI, the forensic department of the AIIMS formed a Multi-Institutional Medical Board (MIMB), which stated: “The possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out, as minimal bleeding was microscopically detected after a week of the attack alleged in the case. However, the pattern of injuries sustained during an incident of sexual violence can vary widely. This can range from the complete absence of injuries (more common) to severe injuries (very rare). In this case, these factors could be responsible for the lack of significantly visible signs of genital injury due to delay in reporting / documentation / forensic investigation for sexual assault. “

📣 The Indian Express is on the telegram now. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay up to date on the latest news headlines

Download the Indian Express App for the latest India News.

Source