CBI Charge Sheet In Hathras Rape Case Says Accused 'Frustrated' After Victim Rebuff

The CBI charge-sheet against the four men in the Hathras rape case has been filed in a court in Hathras under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 376 (D) (gangrape), 302 (murder) and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. The 19-year-old Dalit woman allegedly raped by four men after she rebuffed one of them, Sandeep. According to the CBI charge sheet, this "change in the relationship" "aggravated the feelings of the accused" and "frustrated him".

The charge sheet also reveals a critical allegation of the Uttar Pradesh Police. It states as per reports that despite the woman naming three people while recording her statement on September 19, the name of only one was mentioned in the statement. Furthermore, it states that "though the victim was allegedly molested, her medical examination regarding sexual assault was not conducted."

The charge sheet describes that the woman and Sandeep lived nearby and “he developed acquaintance with the victim two/three years back which gradually turned into a love affair." It states that "it also came on record" that they "used to meet in isolated places," and that "these facts are supported by many villagers."

But this was denied by the victims' brother when The Indian Express contacted him. He adds that Sandeep used to make prank calls pretending to be someone else. In fact, he had procured the deceased girl's number from somewhere else. Unfortunately, the girl's brother says that the entire village may be against them and might falsify the crime also. He insisted that no calls were exchanged other than the prank calls and a few missed calls.

Further details in the charge sheet

The charge sheet further states that Sandeep had three phone numbers and several calls were made from those to a phone number belonging to the deceased’s family. "However, all family members affirmed during their examination that they neither called nor spoke to Sandeep over the phone."

"Investigation further revealed that when a family member of the victim came to know about the mobile calls exchanged between victim and Sandeep, they had a wordy quarrel with Sandeep’s family in front of his house. This incident was witnessed by several villagers… Subsequently, the victim’s father also made an oral complaint to (the pradhan’s son) about the phone calls made by the accused to the victim, as confirmed by witnesses…" the charge sheet states.

Also Read: After CBI’s Chargesheet In Hathras Case, Will The Road To Justice Be As Long As It Was In 2016 Delhi Gangrape?

Analysing the call details, the charge sheet states that the relationship/affair between the deceased and accused Sandeep was in good form till March 2020. But after this, no calls were made from the victims' side to either of Sandeep's number. This indicated that the relation/affair was disturbed. The charge sheet says the relationship soured further when their family members got to know and that after March 20, Sandeep tried to contact the victim from various numbers of his friends and relatives.

On the allegations against the accused, the charge sheet states: "During her examination on September 22, the victim categorically stated that she was gang-raped by the four accused persons; she also named them in her dying declaration… It establishes that on September 14, the victim was gang-raped at the bajra field when she was alone. The investigation also revealed that all four accused were present in the village or nearby place, which corroborates the allegation of the victim."

The accused four men are Sandeep (20), his uncle Ravi (35), and their friends Ramu (26) and Luv Kush (23). The woman was assaulted allegedly by the four on September 14 and died a fortnight later at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. The four accused have been in judicial custody since their arrest in September.

The medical examinations

The charge sheet also states that a medical examination of the teen girl was carried out by a doctor from the Department of Forensic Medicine at AMU on September 22. The final opinion stated that 'there are no signs of vaginal/anal intercourse. There is evidence of physical assault (injuries over the neck and the back)."

But after CBI took over the case, a Multi-Institutional Board (MIMB) was constituted by the Forensic Department at AIIMS. The board identifies that the pattern of injuries sustained during an incident of sexual violence may show considerable variation from no injuries at all to grievous injuries. Since there was a delay in this case in a forensic examination for sexual assault, significantly visible signs of genital injury may not be identified.

 Also Read: Hathras Rape Survivor is Another Nirbhaya. Why You Should Know Her

Malavika M S is an intern with SheThePeople.TV