JNU rape case: Court issues showcause to cops for not filing timely forensic report

JNU rape case: Despite repeated reminders, police paid no heed to speedy trial, then why should action not be taken, the court warned during proceedings in the case.

Written by Aamir Khan | New Delhi | Updated: October 20, 2016 1:11 pm
jnu, jnu rape case, jnu rape case trial, jnu student rape, Anmol Ratan, rape, rape delhi, rape india, india news JNU rape case: A PhD scholar had filed a complaint against Ratan on August 21, alleging that he had spiked her drink and raped her in his hostel room while she was unconscious on the night of August 20.

ABSENCE of forensic report in the JNU rape case became the basis for a Delhi court on Friday to issue a showcause notice to DCPs of three zones, asking them to explain in how many such cases the police had filed chargesheets without obtaining forensic reports.

Despite repeated reminders, police paid no heed to speedy trial, then why should action not be taken, the court warned during proceedings in the case in which JNU student Anmol Ratan is accused of raping a fellow student on the pretext of giving her a movie CD on August 20.



According to Additional Sessions Judge Devendra Kumar Sharma, a standing order passed on September 8, 2015 lays down steps for expediting forensic reports. In case, officials do not adhere to the directions in the order, they are liable for a Rs 10,000 fine.

The chargesheet says that case-related exhibits and articles were sent to the FSL for expert opinion, on the basis of which, police plans to file a supplementary chargesheet. Despite repeated reminders and the standing order, the court found that the investigation officers (IOs), station house officers (SHOs) took no measure to expedite the FSL reports. The court also said there was “no supervision” on behalf of the DCPs concerned.

“It is submitted before the court that the reminder will be sent and precautions would be taken in future. On numerous occasions, the IO/SHO concerned as well as the DCP concerned have been reminded and warned to be cautious in future, but it appears that they do not have any time to pay heed for the speedy trial of the cases,” the court observed.

It also noticed in the present case that the prosecution was unable to examine witnesses in the absence of the FSL report or the case property. “In the circumstances, this court is constrained to issue showcause notice to all the concerned IOs/SHOs/DCPs as to why the costs in terms of the order dated September 8, 2015 which was already communicated to all the concerned should not be imposed,” ordered the court. The court also directed the DCPs of south, southwest and New Delhi regions to give in writing the number of cases in which FSL reports were pending and chargesheets had been filed.

In the present case, the court wanted to know the steps taken by the DCP from the point of deposit of the case properties to the receipt of the current notice “failing which they will appear and explain as to why appropriate action should not be taken against them”. Police were asked to show due compliance and file their reports on October 17, when the court would also hear arguments on charge and accused Ratan’s bail plea. Police had filed the chargesheet in the case last month.