Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Journalism of Courage
Premium
This is an archive article published on August 28, 2013
Dec 16 gangrape: Defence questions victim’s male friend,the sole eyewitness
The defence also harped on the irregularities in the prosecution's case.
The defence in the Delhi gangrape case began their arguments at a city court on Tuesday by questioning the relationship between the 23-year-old victim and her friend who had accompanied her on the bus at the time of the incident. “The man accepted that he had other female friends besides the prosecutrix… how could he have protected the victim when he had a line of female friends?” A P Singh,defence counsel in the case,asked.
In an attempt to rip apart the reliability of the testimony given by the victim’s friend,also the sole eye-witness to the gangrape,the defence insisted that he was lying and had exaggerated the facts on the instructions of the police. According to the defence,his testimony on the night of the incident lacked many elements which were later added when he was testifying in court.
The defence also harped on the irregularities in the prosecution’s case. They pointed out that the prosecution had not called any public witnesses even though 35-40 persons had gathered around the spot where the victim and her friend were thrown off the bus. The police officer had not recorded the name and details of the anonymous caller who had informed the police about the incident,they said.
Picking on the testimony of the victim after she reached the hospital,the defence said that she had not mentioned that she was assaulted with rods during the gangrape. Upon the judge observing that the victim was in a drowsy state and was not in a condition to narrate the details,Singh said,“She spoke of being slapped and raped… how could she not have spoken about being assaulted by rods.”
Singh alleged the assault by rods was an addition to the story cooked by the police. “They used rods because it was easy to find one on a bus…or else,they would have planted knife or a country-made pistol,” he alleged.
In response to the judge’s remarks that the DNA results make a clear case against the accused,Singh alleged that the evidence was fabricated. The bus in question was not kept in jail but at Thyagraj stadium,where police must have planted the incriminatory evidence against the accused,he alleged. He supported his allegations with newspaper reports on the stadium being given a gold rating by the government recently. This must have been in response to their assistance to the police,he alleged. “If the entire bus was washed,how did they recover the DNA?” he asked.
“Even if those accused were not involved in the incident,who was?” the judge asked. In response Singh said the accused must have fled the city after the crime. “Who would commit the crime and then park the bus in the same city?… the police were under pressure and arrested a random bus with the name Yadav on it,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
Singh also rubbished the charges of murder against the accused. “If they had wanted to kill,they would have done so in the bus. They would not have waited to throw them off the bus and attempt to crush them in the manner of a movie,” Singh said.
The defence shall continue its arguments in the case on Thursday.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Live Blog