The fifth case related to the Paravoor sex scam gave some tense moments to the investigation team and prosecution, as the statement and evidences produced before the Additional Session Court contained several contradictions.
Interestingly, the prosecution or the victim could not establish the date on which the crime took place.
Even in the court order it was stated that the incident took place between 14/8/2009 and 30/8/2009.
The investigation led by the Crime Branch faced a set back when the parents of the victim deposed to the court that the date of birth of the girl as told to the prosecution was incorrect.
The victim and prosecution had stated that the date of birth was 23/8/1994. In order to prove the correct age of the victim, the court had asked the prosecution to produce a copy of the birth certificate.
In this regard, the registrar of births and deaths in Aluva municipality has issued an original birth certificate on the basis of information obtained from the hospital where she was born.
In the birth certificate, the date of birth is recorded as 1/9/1994 and the name of the father is given as Suneer.
On this the defence counsel submitted that the investigation is not proper and requested for further investigation.
However, the investigation could end up proving that the victim’s father has another name.
In regard to the birth date, the court has decided to consider the birth date as per what is registered in the school records.
Another major contradiction came when the victim deposed to the court that she was raped in November 2009 while she was studying in the 10 standard.
However, Beeran, one among the accused, was in jail during the period.
In her statement to the court, the victim had said that her father took her to an exhibition named ‘Fiesta’ at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, owned by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA), and on the way she was handed over to a person named Lilly.
In this regard, the court had asked the prosecution to produce officials of GCDA and the company which had organised the exhibition.
From their statement, it has become evident that the exhibition was organised during the August 14-30 2009 period.
The court later considered a prosecution request for amending the charge which was granted.