Hathras Case| No Medical Evidence Of Gang Rape, Victim Was Possibly Tutored; Can’t Say Prime Accused Intended To Kill Her: UP Court

Convicting one person in the Hathras alleged Gang Rape & Murder case, the Uttar Pradesh Court, in its judgment noted that since the entire case had assumed political undertones, it was possible that the victim had made allegations of gang rape against the 4 accused after being tutored by her family members and other people who had been coming to meet her, The Special Judge Trilok Pal Singh was also of the view that it can’t be said that the intent of the Prime Accused Sandeep was to kill her as the victim continued to talk even after 8 days of the incident and hence, he was liable to be punished under Section 304 of IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder) and not under Section 302 (Murder). It may be noted that the Hathras Court had, on March 2, sentenced the sole convict (Sandeep Sisodia) in September 2020 alleged Gang Rape and Murder case (concerning a 19-year-old Dalit Girl) to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000 (of which ₹40,000 will be given to the victim's mother). The court of Spl. J. (SC/ST, Pev.of Atroci Act) Hathras, Judge Trilok Pal Singh pronounced the verdict today convicting Sandeep Sisodia for the offences of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder under the Indian Penal Code (Section 304) and for offences under the SC-ST Act. The other three accused – Ravi (35), Luv Kush (23), and Ramu (26) – who faced the trial in the case, have been acquitted of the charges. However, none of the four accused had been found guilty of offence of Gangrape, or Murder by the Special Court. It may be recalled that the victim in the case was allegedly abducted and gang raped by four men in UP's Hathras district on September 14, 2020, and she was subjected to brutal torture by breaking her bones and cutting off her tongue. She passed away on 29 September 2020 and was cremated by police officials (allegedly at the directions of Hathras DM) in the middle of the night without the consent of her family. Calling the act of hurried cremation an "extremely sensitive" matter, touching upon the basic human/ fundamental rights of the citizens, the Allahabad High Court had taken suo moto cognizance of the entire episode in October 2020. Court's significant observationsIn its analysis of the material on record, the Court found that after this incident, the entire episode had taken a political undertone and many people were coming to meet the family members of the victim and the family members of the victim were meeting the victim, so a possibility cannot be ruled out that other people or on being taught by her family members, apart from accused Sandeep, the names of other accused were mentioned by the victim in her statement given Chief Constable and Naib Tehsildar Manish Kumar eight days after the incident.Regarding the evidence of Rape, the Court noted that in none of the medical tests of the victim has it been mentioned that she was raped. The Court also observed that if the offence of rape had been committed against her by four persons, she would have given the names of all of them and also informed the police and the media about the gang rape on the date of the incident, which she did not do."Five days after the incident, even in her statement given to female constable Ms Rashmi, she has given the name of only one accused Sandeep and did not tell about any incident of rape, therefore naming four accused on 22.09.2020 before P0W0-7 Sarla Devi and P0W0-6 Naib Tehsildar Manish Kumar by the victim cannot be said to be credible among those who caused the incident, nor can the statement that the victim was raped be called as credible," the Court noted.Further, regarding the nature of offence committed by Prime Accused (sole convict), the Court noted that the material on record proved that on September 14, 2020, convict Sandeep did pull the victim by the dupatta wrapped around her neck, due to which she fainted on the spot and later died on September 29 during her treatment.The court further noted that as per the material on record, the death of the victim had occurred due to a severe blow to her neck, however, since the victim kept on talking even after eight days of the incident, it can't be said that the intention of the accused Sandeep was definitely to kill her. The Court also noted that as per the nature of the injuries, found on the body of the victim, the same were most likely caused by only one person."In this case, the victim kept talking and speaking for eight days after the incident, so it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was definitely to kill the victim. Therefore, the act of accused Sandeep comes under the category of offense punishable under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC," the Court said.Importantly, the Court also noted that it came out in the probe that there was enmity between the family members of both the accused and the victim sides and that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused...

Hathras Case| No Medical Evidence Of Gang Rape, Victim Was Possibly Tutored; Can’t Say Prime Accused Intended To Kill Her: UP Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags