The police investigation in the Hathras case raises several red flags and points to glaring loopholes.
Uttar Pradesh Senior Police Officer Prashant Kumar claimed on Thursday October 1 that the 19-year-old Dalit girl from Hathras, who succumbed to her injuries on September 30, was not raped because her forensic report found no sperm in her samples. . This, despite the fact that the girl alleged sexual assault and named the four defendants in her death statement.
But, here are some questions for the Uttar Pradesh Police:
QUESTION 1: Does UP police contradict Indian rape jurisprudence?
1. Indian rape jurisprudence clearly states that the absence of sperm in a swab sample alone cannot rule out rape. There are Superior Court rulings on this very issue. In 2012, the Bombay High Court ruled that the presence of semen is not necessary to prove the crime of rape. In 2018, the Uttaranchal High Court, while ruling on the alleged sexual assault of a one-year-old boy, confirmed the conviction of the defendant who had contested that no semen was found in the victim’s vaginal smear. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wahid khan v. MP status, (2010) 2 SCC 9 and Parminder v. State (Delhi NCT), (2014) 2 SCC 592.
2. In accordance with the definition of rape in Section 375 of the IPC (as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013), the definition of rape has been expanded to include acts other than peno-vaginal penetration. According to the anti-rape laws of India, insertions, to any extent, of any object or part of the body, other than the penis, into the vagina, urethra or anus of a woman may also constitute rape. So when the police recorded the victim’s statement, did she specifically mention that she had peno-vaginal penetration? If not, how do the police conclude that there is “no rape” based on the lack of semen in the vaginal smear? Because the rape laws of India clearly state otherwise.
.
