LUCKNOW: The investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the rape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl in Boolgarhi village of Hathras district in mid-September, this year, has exposed the lapses and negligence on the part of district police. The premier probe agency has also contradicted the Hathras police claim that the initial FIR lodged by the victim’s brother had talked only about the physical assault and not the rape.
The case had sparked a nationwide outrage compelling the Uttar Pradesh government to recommend CBI probe into it on October 4. After taking over the case, the premier probe agency had lodged an FIR on October 11 on the basis of the report registered at the Chandpa police station.
As per details of the chargesheet available with the The New Indian Express, the probe agency has brought out a number of lapses on the part of the Chandpa police station
officials in handling the case.
The CBI had filed the chargesheet in the SC/ST court of Special Judge BD Bharti in Hathras on Friday (December 18, 2020).
Contrary to the claims of Chandpa police station personnel that the FIR registered by victim’s brother Satendra Kumar had no mention of rape and mentioned physical assault of the girl by a person named Sandeep of the same village, the CBI has contended that during investigation when the video clip of the victim who was present in the police station, was minutely analysed, she was found to be clearly uttering the term ‘Zabardasti’ (molestation) done with her by Sandeep who she claimed tried to strangulate her with her ‘dupatta.’
As per agency sources, the video footage analysed by them was shot by Omveer Singh, the gunner constable when the victim was lying on a cemented platform at the police station in critical condition with her mother by her side.
Even while the reports from Central Forensic Science Laboratory over phones calls, laptop data and CCTV footages have yet to land, the CBI has reportedly taken a number of factors into consideration to invoke rape and murder charges against the four accused including Sandeep, Ravi, Luvkush and Ramu alias Ramkumar.
All four have been booked under IPC Section 302, 376, 376-A and 376-D along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The probe agency has reportedly mentioned that the officials at the Chandpa police station failed to comply with the mandate of Section 154 CrPC and that the cops did not act promptly when Satendra Kumar (victim’s brother) approached them initially along with the bruised and battered victim. They neither recorded the girl's statement nor did they send her for medical examination due to which incriminatory and valuable forensic evidence couldn't be collected and saved.
The CBI has also claimed in the chargesheet that in the absence of physical evidence and forensic samples collected from the victim’s body immediately after the incident, the agency had made her ‘dying declaration’ recorded in front of Manish Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Kol, Aligarh, the basis for invoking the charges of rape and murder against the accused.
The agency sources said that in her dying declaration on September 22, 2020, the victim had clearly reiterated the names of Sandeep, Ravi, Luvkush and Ramu who allegedly gang-raped her and tried to kill her.
The probe agency has also underlined that the Chandpa Police Station SHO did not allot any female inquiry officer (IO) and the victim was not examined till September 19.
The CBI team has also pointed out that on the same day, in another statement, the victim mentioned the term "chedhkhani" (eveteasing), but even then she was not sent for medical examination to confirm sexual assault.
It was only on September 22, when she openly said "balatkar" (rape) in her statement at Aligarh hospital naming the four accused that she was sent for medical examination, the CBI has said.
Moreover, the probe agency also claimed in the chargesheet that the four accused failed to give a convincing alibi to the investigators that they were not present at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident.
The CBI has also deliberated at length over the alleged ‘love affair’ between the victim and the main accused Sandeep on the basis of their CDR and the witnesses in the village. The chargesheet claims that Sandeep was victim’s neighbour, and their acquaintance developed into a love affair owing to which they used to often meet at isolated places. However, the agency has not linked it in any way with the crime.
As per the analysis of the call details record, as many as 105 calls were made from October 17, 2019 and March 3, 2020 were made between numbers owned by Sandeep and the victim's family, the chargesheet says, adding that the fact that they used to talk on phone and were in a relationship was confirmed by many witnesses.
The agency has also delved over the families’ objection to the relationship between the victim and accused Sandeep and the issue was taken to the village pradhan.
“The negligence during the handling of the case by police as well as concerned authorities clearly led to delay in examination of victim...," the CBI has concluded
The lapse also led to a delay in the collection of crucial evidence.
However, a senior police official, while reacting to the charge of lapse on police, counted on the suspensions including that of the Hathras SSP.