HYDERABAD: Though the Telangana Police Department is always on the forefront to boast of the high-tech CCTV surveillance system in place for crime detection and prevention, the report filed by the three-member Justice VS Sirpurkar Commission, that had probed into the alleged encounter of four youths accused in the gang rape and brutal murder of a 27-year-old veterinarian that took place in 2019, exposed how the CCTV evidence was ignored during the vital stages of the investigation.
Ironically even in 2019, Telangana had the highest number of CCTVs in the country. The CCTV footage was the basis for the identification of the accused and connecting them to the alleged offence. Investigation into the rape and murder and the enclosed documents showed that a large amount of scientific evidence in the form of CCTV footage and call details records was collected. In fact, the CCTV footage shows that there is a very effective network of CCTV in the State of Telangana even in rural areas, particularly along the highways.
“However, during the investigation of the encounter, there is not only a failure to collect scientific evidence, but it is also noticed that some evidence routinely collected such as all the relevant photographs and entire footage of video recordings, are not placed before the Commission and it also appears that some attempt is made to manipulate some of the material documents such as statements recorded under Section 161 and log books of the vehicles etc,” the Commission said. The Commission also pointed out that in the rape and murder case, though there is no order by any court, scientific evidence was collected. However, in the encounter case though there are specific directions by the High Court of Telangana, the Investigating Officer and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) don’t appear to have made sincere attempts to collect such scientific evidence, it added.
Tutored witness
P Srinivas Reddy, the owner of the lorry used by the suspects during the offence, whose statements were in contradiction to the “CCTV Identification Proceedings’’ memo, was found to be a tutored witness. He had identified one of the accused Jollu Shiva from the footage at Essar petrol pump in Kothur.“It can be seen that there are major contradictions in the number and identity of the CCTV footage shown to Srinivas Reddy which lead to the identification of the accused. Given the contradictions in the CCTV footage identification, P Srinivas Reddy is not just worthy of credibility, but also seemed to be a tutored witness to suit the case of the police,” opined the Commission.
‘Suppression of crucial evidence’
Further, no CCTV footage from the Shadnagar police station was produced before the Commission. J Surender Reddy, the Investigating Officer (IO) in the encounter case, informed that he didn’t collect footage from the Shadnagar police station, Ravi Guest House, where the accused were interrogated during their police custody, and from the guest house to the place of the incident and the jail premises. He had said that since there were a large number of eye-witnesses, recovery of articles, safe house witnesses, vehicle logbooks and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, he didn’t consider it necessary to get the CCTV footage.
“The entire evidence in this aspect shows that there is a deliberate suppression of crucial evidence which has a bearing on the matter under inquiry......However, immediately after the formation of the SIT, necessary steps ought to have been taken to preserve the available evidence, more particularly the scientific evidence such as CCTV footage, call records etc,” observed the Commission.
WHAT THE REPORT SAYS
Evidence withheld
Police also claimed that the bus carrying the accused and the police party from the guest house to Chatanpally travelled through a service road along the Outer Ring Road. However, they didn’t explain why the bus did not travel through the ORR which is an eight-lane expressway. Even then the bus would have certainly travelled through the Tondupally toll plaza where the entry of the vehicle would have been recorded in the CCTV camera, but it’s not explained why such crucial evidence wasn’t collected “Above all, there is a grave suspicion that the best evidence in respect of CCTV footage, video recording of inquest and crime scene has been withheld from the Commission,” the report said.