The Supreme Court was hearing a series of allegations that have sought a court-supervised investigation into the Hathras case, in which a Dalit girl was allegedly brutally raped and died of her injuries.
On the reason for the transfer of the trial in the case to Delhi, the SC said that since CBI is investigating the incident, there should be no fear about having the trial annulled.
However, he said the issue will remain open and will be addressed, if necessary, after completing an investigation into the case.
On October 15, the court had reserved its verdict on public interest litigation (PIL) and several requests for intervention from activists and lawyers who have argued that a fair trial was not possible in Uttar Pradesh as the investigation had allegedly been an botched.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta had referred to the affidavit filed in the higher court by the Uttar Pradesh government, which provided details on the safety and protection provided to the victim’s family and witnesses in the case.
The state government, which has already transferred the case to the IWC and consented to the higher court overseeing it, filed the affidavit after the higher court requested details about witness protection and whether the victim’s family he had chosen a lawyer.
Referring to the compliance affidavit, Mehta said the victim’s family has reported that they have hired an attorney and have also requested that the government attorney also handle the case on their behalf.
A 19-year-old Dalit woman was allegedly raped by four upper caste men in Hathras on 14 September. He died on September 29 at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi during treatment.
The victim was cremated in the dead of night near his home on September 30. His family alleged that the local police forced them to hastily perform their last rites. However, local police officers said the cremation was carried out “according to the wishes of the family.”
During the high court hearing, activist and lawyer Indira Jaising also expressed her fear of not having a fair trial in the Uttar Pradesh case.
(With inputs from agencies)
.