HYDERABAD: The Justice VS Sirpurkar Commission expressed doubts on how the four suspects could have walked around 500 metres from the place where the victim’s charred body was found, to bury her belongings in a pit, and also the police’s claims that her belongings were recovered at the instance of the accused. “There was no electrical light available in that area. Traversing that land in day time itself is difficult if one is not familiar with the lay of the land. Traversing it during night time without light or even with some form of light would be extremely difficult and time consuming. It is not believable that the suspects would have taken the time to move across the field to hide the articles of the victim girl,” the Commission said in its report.
Act of non-cooperation
During the deposition before the Commission, when V Surender, the investigating officer in the rape and murder case, was asked to draw a sketch showing location of the place where articles were found, stated that he was not in a position to draw the sketch “now.” On the next day, he said “it is difficult”, stating that he has not seen the sketch drawn by J Surender Reddy, the investigating officer in encounter case. When he was shown the sketch drawn by Surender Reddy and asked if it represented the scene of incident, even without looking at the sketch, he stated: “I cannot say as it was prepared by the investigating officer.” This was clearly an act of non-cooperation, pointed out the Commission. Even other police personnel who were at the spot at the time of the incident also failed to identify the spot in the sketch shown to them, the commission said.
Confessions contradict
Further, as per the confessional statements of the accused, they had hidden the phone, power bank and wrist watch “in the bushes at some distance from the place where the body was burnt.” But according to their confessions recorded later at safe house, the accused are said to have stated that they had hidden the phone, power bank, connecting wire and wrist watch “near a big electric pole on the eastern side at some distance from the place where the body was burnt.” “ There is also no evidence to establish that the articles allegedly recovered belong to the victim and her sister has categorically stated that she was not summoned by the police after the alleged encounter, the report said.
The record also shows that till her examination by the Commission, the articles allegedly recovered were not shown to the victim’s family. Meanwhile, Surender Reddy stated that he had verified with her sister on the next day of the encounter, but did not record her statement.When he was confronted with the statement of the victim’s sister that she was not summoned by the police after the encounter, he stated that he was not aware.
‘Fingerprints of accused not found’
The Commission noted that the IO had admitted that the fingerprints of the accused are not found on any of the objects allegedly recovered from the scene of incident. In view of these findings, it is difficult to accept that there was any recovery of articles of the victim at the scene of incident, it said.