Hathras case: UP court says no medical evidence of gang rape; possible that victim was tutored to change statement

In its judgment on the killing of a 19-year-old Dalit woman at Hathras in 2020, a special court in Uttar Pradesh found that there was no medical evidence of her gang-rape, and that she did not disclose the commission of the offence in her initial statement to the police [State v. Sandeep & Ors]..In a detailed 167-page judgment, Special Judge Trilok Pal Singh opined that since the case had assumed political undertones, there was a possibility that the victim was tutored to change her statement to later say that she was gang-raped by four men..On Thursday, the court had acquitted three persons and convicted one in the case. Accused Ramu, Lavkush and Ravi were acquitted, while accused Sandeep was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000, making it clear that ₹40,000 will be given to the victim's mother..The victim was allegedly gang-raped in Hathras on September 14, 2020 and the accused also attempted to kill her. Thereafter, on September 29, she succumbed to her injuries at Delhi's Safdarjung Hospital.When her mortal remains were taken to her native place, the UP Police and administration allegedly cremated her body forcefully without the family's consent or their presence, in the dead of the night..Below are the court's findings on the alleged murder of the Dalit woman, which sparked a furore across the country at the time..Culpable homicide, not murder.The judge said that on the basis of the evidence, it was completely proved without any doubt that on September 14, 2020, the accused Sandeep had pulled the victim by the dupatta wrapped around her neck, due to which she fainted on the spot and later died on September 29 during treatment.Further, relying on the statement of the medical expert, the judge observed that if the strangulation was done with a dupatta, then a ligature mark would appear around the neck, and there would be no gap in it. If the strangulation was done with an intention to kill her, then the mark would appear all around the neck."PW-33 Prof. Adarsh Kumar, Chairman MIMB also said that the team of MIMB has given a definite opinion regarding the death of the deceased that normally during Strangulation the victim dies within a few minutes," read the order..The court noted that the death of the victim, which occurred due to a severe blow to her neck, was due to the subsequent variations in her cervical fracture, which took place over time.Moreover, since the victim was talking for eight days after the incident, it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was definitely to kill her.It is also true that the injuries on the victim's body are most likely to have been caused by only one person, the court noted.Therefore, the act of accused Sandeep comes under the category of an offence punishable under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 (murder) IPC.The Court also noted that there were no evidence on record to show that the other accused were a part of incident, owing to which they were acquitted..No evidence of gang-rape.The court noted that videos of the victim at Police Station, Hathras were taken by journalists only on the date of the incident, that is on September 14, 2020. The statement of the victim was given to a female constable on September 19, five days after the incident.Therefore, if the offence was committed against the victim by four persons, she would have given the names of all the four accused and also informed the police and the media about the gang-rape on the date of the incident, the court said.Even after five days, in her statement given to the female constable, she named only one accused Sandeep, and did not mention the gang-rape, the court added."Therefore, on 22.09.2020, in front of PW-7 Sarla Devi and PW6 Naib Tehsildar Manish Kumar, the names of the four accused named by the victim, apart from the accused Sandeep, cannot be said to be credible among those who caused the incident and nor can the statement of the victim being raped be called credible because after taking the statement of the victim by Sarla Devi, the statement of the victim was taken by Naib Tehsildar Manish Kumar on the same day in the evening. The victim has not stated in this statement that she was raped," the order stated.Further, the court said that it is significant that none of the medical examinations of the victim showed that she was raped..Political angle to case, statements were tutored.The court opined that the case had assumed a political form and that many people were coming to meet the victim and as well as her family members.Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that after being taught by other people or family members, apart from accused Sandeep, the names of other accused were mentioned by the victim in her statement given to police officials eight days after the alleged incident, the Court added..The victim's mother has also said in her statement that after two-three days of the alleged incident, the victim had told her the names of all the four accused and revealed that she was raped, the court added.However, the court observed that the evidence is unreliable because five-days after the incident, on September 9, female constable Rashmi took the victim's statement, in which the she had named only one accused Sandeep..[Read Order]