HC raps SIT for dropping gang rape charge

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 3

Looking into the alleged sexual assault on women in the fields of Murthal by 30-odd goons during the Jat reservation agitation, the special investigating team was today pulled up by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for not only dropping gang rape charge, but presenting a dual face as well.

Not too satisfied with the developments, the High Court verbally asked the agency not to submit the final report or challan under Section 173 of the CrPC without first bringing it to the High Court’s notice.

At the very onset, the Division Bench of Justices SS Saron and Arun Palli admonished the SIT by asserting that it had all along been telling the High Court that the investigations into the allegations of rape were on and a case of rape under Section 376-D was made out.

At the same time, a SIT member, DSP Bharti Dabas, had filed a cancellation report for dropping gang rape charge under Section 376-D.

“Did you not record the statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that an offence under Section 376 was not made out?” the Bench questioned the SIT. “How many statements did you record under Section 164? Was the incident of rape denied by all of them? Are you filing challan under Section 376?” asked the Bench.

Present in the court, Dabas claimed that a cancellation report had not been filed. Appearing for the state, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that the probe under Section 376 had not been closed.

The challan under this section was not being filed against five accused as their DNA samples did not match with the garments found strewn in the fields of Murthal.

Not too convinced, the Bench referred to a report in the matter by a Sonepat Additional Sessions Judge. The Bench asserted that Judge Gagan Geet Kaur had minced no words to say the probe was an eyewash and the chapter of gang rape had been closed.

Virtually indicting the SIT for inconsistent stands in the High Court and before the Additional Sessions Judge, the Bench added that the team was saying one thing here and another thing there.

Terming it as unfortunate, the Bench said, “You have filed a cancellation report that no offence under Section 376-D is made out. What could be more disturbing?”

The Bench further said, “First, you file an affidavit saying the High Court is not letting you investigate. Then, SIT says something else before the Additional Sessions Judge and something else in the High Court. The Judge has recorded what they (SIT members) said. Bring the investigation in line with this.”

Responding to Mehta’s claim that there was no victim and no accused, the Bench added that Prakash Singh panel report provided the source of information. “The investigation has gone haywire,” the Bench added.