Hathras: The special ST-SC court in Hathras gang rape and murder Two years ago there was a case of “accident” with a 19-year-old Dalit woman.
The court of special judge Trilok Pal Singh made the finding last Thursday while acquitting three of the four men from the upper caste community – Ramu, Lavkush, and Ravi – who were arrested and charged with murder as well as the scheduled The crime under caste was charged. and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. ThePrint has a copy of the judgement.
According to Additional Sessions Judge Trilok Singh, the prosecution failed to establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Only one accused, Sandeep, was found guilty, albeit for the lesser offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sandeep was convicted under section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which punishes a person who commits a criminal offense against a person on the ground that such person belongs to the SC/ST community. is a member. The court has sentenced Sandeep to life imprisonment.
However, Sandeep was absolved of the sexual offense charge after the court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that an act of rape had been committed against the victim. The court relied on the woman’s video, which also went viral soon after the incident, in which she is heard naming Sandeep as the culprit, who injured her neck. The injuries resulted in severe spinal injuries and the woman died. In the same video, she can also be heard denying that she was sexually assaulted.
That’s why the court imposed a fine 50 thousand rupees on Sandeep, out of which 40 thousand rupees will be given to the victim’s mother Rama Devi. If Sandeep defaults in paying the fine, he will have to undergo an additional imprisonment of two years. Since he was already in jail for almost 30 months, an equal amount of time will be adjusted against his jail term.
The court has ruled out the possibility of rape in this case, and the victim’s death has been ruled out as an accident, with the victim’s family planning to appeal against the verdict in the High Court. Sandeep’s family is also planning to file an appeal against the verdict, claiming that the life sentence was too harsh and that he was innocent.
Read also: Pawan Khera’s remarks on Modi part of ‘conspiracy’ to destabilize country: Assam Police tells SC
Case
The Hathras case turned into a controversy, especially when the UP police cremated the woman in the dark of night without informing her family. The police had arrested upper caste men for allegedly raping and brutally assaulting the woman in Hathras on September 14, 2020. He had suffered multiple fractures, spinal cord injury and a deep cut on his tongue.
taking self motivation Taking cognizance of the events leading up to the incident and the cremation of the victim, the Allahabad High Court transferred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation.
However, the UP administration has always denied that the woman was raped. This claim was based on the report of the forensic lab which said that there were no traces of sperm in the victim’s sample.
The special judge of the SC/ST court, in his 167-page order, specifically noted that Sandeep was named by the woman in her initial complaint to the police. Others were named eight days after the incident, which, according to the court, “after being coached by his relatives and others who were visiting him.”
Rejecting the theory of gang rape or rape, the judge observed, “while recording her statement five days after the incident, the victim did not mention that she was raped, nor did she name any other accused besides Mentioned the name of Sandeep.
The court noted that the prosecution’s case was also not supported by the medical evidence. “…none of the medical examination of the victim has indicated that she was raped. The MIMB (Multi-Institutional Medical Board) team has also not confirmed that the victim was raped,” the court said.
The court observed that the medical examination report also did not corroborate the police’s theory that she was strangulated.
Describing the victim’s death as accidental, the judge said, “As per the evidence on record, no strangulation marks were found on the victim’s neck, and only a ligature mark was found on the front of the neck, whereas if her Had she been strangled, the ligature mark would have been around her neck.
He also argued as to why the cause of death in this case could not have been strangulation, as recorded by the prosecution.
“Normally during strangulation, the victim dies within a few minutes, but in this case, the death of the victim, which is due to the fracture of her cervix due to the forceful blow to her neck, was due to subsequent complications. It is true that the MIMB team has expressed a definite opinion that the C-6 (vertebrae) injury It is possible due to sudden jerk and it is not possible due to direct injury. It is also true that the injury marks on the victim’s body could at most have been caused by the same person.”
Describing the death as ‘accidental’, the judge recorded, “In this case the victim continued to speak and speak for eight days after the incident, therefore it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to kill the victim.” The aforesaid act of accused Sandeep is punishable offense u/s 304 Part-I IPC and not u/s 302 IPC.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Read also: End ‘long’ court holidays, get judges to declare assets – parliamentary panel members