Updated: December 21, 2020 7:26:10 am
A bench from the Pankaj Mithal justice division and Judge Rajan Roy will hear the matter on December 16. (Archive)
The 19-year-old Dalit woman killed in Hathras was allegedly raped by four men after she rejected one of them, Sandeep, and this “change in their relationship” “aggravated his feelings” and “frustrated him”. CBI has said on its charge sheet filed in the case.
The charge sheet also has a scathing indictment from Uttar Pradesh police, stating that even though the woman named three people when her statement was recorded on September 19, only one name was mentioned in the statement. . It also states that “although the victim alleged sexual abuse, her medical examination on sexual assault was not performed.”
The IWC charge sheet against the four upper caste men has been filed in a Hathras court under sections 376 (rape), 376 (D) (murder), 302 (murder) of the IPC and relevant sections of the SC / ST Law, against Sandeep (20), his uncle Ravi (35) and his friends Ramu (26) and Luv Kush (23). The woman was allegedly assaulted by the four on September 14 and died a fortnight later at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. The four defendants have been in judicial custody since their arrest in September.
According to the charge sheet, the woman and Sandeep lived nearby and “he developed a relationship with the victim two or three years ago, which gradually turned into a love story.” He states that “it was also recorded” that “they used to meet in isolated places”, and that “these events have the support of many residents”.
The charge sheet further states that Sandeep had three phone numbers and several calls were made from those to a phone number that belongs to the victim’s family. “However, all family members stated during their examination that they did not call or speak to Sandeep on the phone.”
“The investigation further revealed that when a family member of the victim learned of the mobile calls exchanged between the victim and Sandeep, they had a dispute with Sandeep’s family in front of their home. This incident was witnessed by several villagers … Subsequently, the father of the victim also made an oral complaint to the (pradhan’s son) about the phone calls made by the accused to the victim, as confirmed by witnesses … ”he says the charge sheet.
When contacted, the victim’s brother told 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 phone jokes, pretending to be someone else. Also a couple of missed calls. On top of that, no calls had been exchanged. All the people are against us and I think they would say anything to falsify the crime that occurred.
According to the charge sheet, “analysis of the defendant and victim’s call detail records and the pattern of mobile calls from October 2019 to March 2020 indicates that there were short duration (signal) calls from the side of the victim to Sandeep, followed by long-term calls from the defendant Sandeep to the number of the victim’s family. This established that the relationship / affair between the victim and the defendant Sandeep was in good shape as of March 2020 ”.
He adds: “Thereafter, no calls were made from (victim’s family number) to any of Sandeep’s numbers, demonstrating that their relationship / affair was disturbed.”
The charge sheet says the relationship soured further when family members found out and that after March 20, Sandeep attempted to contact the victim through various numbers from her friends and family.
The charge sheet states that a person’s examination revealed that Sandeep had asked him to call the victim’s family number and connect him on a conference call. “During questioning, (the person) also claimed that the victim was avoiding the defendant Sandeep and his mobile calls for some time. Due to her change in behavior, Sandeep was frustrated, ”the charge sheet says, adding that he suspected she was having“ an affair ”with someone. “This change in their relationship aggravated the feelings of the defendant Sandeep,” he says.
Regarding the allegations against the accused, the indictment states: “During her interrogation on September 22, the victim categorically stated that she was attacked by the four accused; he also named them in his final statement… It states that on September 14, the victim was hooked in the bajra field when she was alone. The investigation also revealed that the four accused were present in the village or nearby place, which corroborates the victim’s complaint ”.
The charge sheet also indicates that on September 22, a doctor from the AMU Department of Forensic Medicine carried out a medical examination on the victim and the final ruling indicated that “there are no signs of vaginal / anal intercourse. There is evidence of physical aggression (injuries to the neck and back) ”.
After the CBI took over, the AIIMS Forensic Department formed a Multi-Institutional Medical Board (MIMB), which stated: “The possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out as minimal bleeding was detected microscopically after one week of assault as alleged in the case. However, the pattern of injuries sustained during an incident of sexual violence can show considerable variation. This can range from a total absence of injuries (most often) to serious injuries (very rare). In this case, since there was a delay in sexual assault reporting / documentation / forensic examination, these factors could be responsible for the absence of visible signs of genital injury. “
.
