the CBI has based its charges on the victim’s statement on September 22, which was regarded as her ‘final statement’, in which she accused four young men from her village of raping her and trying to strangle her. The defendants were unable to provide convincing alibis that they were not present at the crime scene at the time of the incident.
In reaction to the accusations of failures, a senior police official said that five policemen, including the SP, were suspended as soon as the government learned of their negligence. “Our investigation was going in the right direction and the four defendants were arrested immediately after the girl named them. The IWC took over our FIR which had all the sections under which the defendants have been charged,” he said. In addition, it was the UP government that recommended the CBI investigation without any lawsuit from the victim’s family, he added.
Based on the exclusive details available with TOI, the charge sheet, filed in a special court in Hathras, has noted that the police officers at the local Chandpa police station made the mistake of not correctly recording the victim’s statement as mandated by the Section 154 of the CrPC. , when she and her family first approached to report the crime on September 14.
No female officer, SHO in police stn examined victim: CBI report
The CBI report notes that while the FIR presented by the victim’s brother said that ‘the defendant Sandeep tried to strangle her with the intention of killing her’, the girl in one of the recordings had mentioned ‘zabardasti’ (abuse, use of force) but still not sent for a medical examination and a valuable forensic evidence could not be saved.
The charge sheet also mentions that no female officer or the police station officer at the Chandapa police station bothered to examine the victim until September 19. The CBI team also noted that on September 19, in another statement, the victim mentioned the term “chedhkhani.” (jokingly), but she wasn’t sent for a medical exam.
“… nor Section 354 (use of force with the intent to violation) of the IPC or Section 376 (violation) of the IPC was added by the police at the beginning … ”, mentions the charge sheet.
Only on September 22, when she explicitly said “balatkar” (rape) in her statement at the Aligarh hosital and mentioned the four defendants, was she sent for a medical examination, the IWC said. In its concluding observations, the central agency says: “The negligence mentioned during the handling of the case by the police and the concerned authorities clearly led to a delay in the examination of the victim …”. It adds that the lapse resulted in crucial evidence not being collected in a timely manner. The charge sheet also mentions that the main defendant, Sandeep, had an affair with the victim. Sandeep was his neighbor, and their friendship turned into a love story, the charge sheet says, but he has not linked him in any way to the crime.
According to the analysis of the call details log, up to 105 calls were made between October 17, 2019 and March 3, 2020 between numbers owned by Sandeep and the victim’s family, the charge sheet says, adding that the fact that they used to talk on the phone and were in a relationship was confirmed by many witnesses.
“Later, their relationship came to the knowledge of family members and was dented (sic),” he says, adding that “the victim’s father filed a complaint with the pradhan’s son against Sandeep for making calls to the victim.” .
Citing another witness, the CBI has said after March 2020 that there was no call from the girl’s side. Sandeep tried to contact her but she was trying to avoid him and his calls for some time, the witness has mentioned the agency, adding that “due to his change in behavior, the defendant Sandeep was frustrated … (sic) The Key evidence, the agency says, it is the victim’s statements under dying declaration that established the charges against the defendant. The CBI has also said that the investigation has revealed the presence of the four defendants in the village at the time of the One of the defendants, Ravi, had claimed that he had gone to the milk collection center run by Shri Jai Kishan at 7:30 a.m., but could not answer his whereabouts after that, as the crime had taken place at 9:30 am
Similarly, Ramu was asked his whereabouts at the time of the incident and was unable to explain it because there was no rigid assistance system at Madhusoodan Dairy, where he worked. Similarly, Luvkush also failed to explain his position and place.
CFSL reports on phones, laptops and CCTV are expected.
A senior UP police officer, on condition of anonymity, said that all the charges brought by the CBI have been in line with the UP police investigation. “No FIR or separate charge has been added or subtracted from the fact by us,” he said, adding: “We share only the FSL victim’s report that was inconclusive while the investigation was still ongoing. It was not a conclusion. ”
.
