Hathras case: Accused was frustrated after victim’s rebuff, UP Police not recorded victim’s correct statement

The CBI chargesheet filed in the Hathras gangrape case says that the Dalit woman was gangraped and subsequently died after she rebuffed one of them, Sandeep. This “aggravated his feelings” and “frustrated him”, the CBI stated in its chargesheet in the case.

According to the CBI chargesheet Sandeep was having an affair with the victim which went sour after their family members came to know about it and the victim started avoiding Sandeep, adding that Sandeep also suspected of her having “an affair” with someone else. This all together furstrated him and aggravated his feelings.

According to a report in The Indian Express, the chargesheet also points out clearly that despite the woman naming three people when her statement was recorded on September 19, the name of only one was mentioned in the statement taken by the UP Police, thus strongly indicting the Uttar Pradesh Police. It further states that “though victim alleged molestation, her medical examination regarding sexual assault was not conducted”.

In its findings submitted before the competent court in Hathras, the agency has slapped Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections pertaining to rape, murder and gangrape apart from those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the four accused men from the village. 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 victim and Sandeep lived nearby and he developed acquaintance with the victim two/three years back which gradually turned into love affair. It also came on record. They used to meet in isolated places, and that these facts are supported by many villagers,” the CBI mentioned in the chargesheet

The chargesheet also states that Sandeep had three phone numbers and several calls were made from those to a phone number belonging to the victim’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 family members 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 oral complaint to (the pradhan’s son) about the phone calls made by the accused to the victim, as confirmed by witnesses…” the chargesheet read.

Talking to the Indian Express, the victim’s brother said, “There was absolutely no acquaintance between my sister and the accused, Sandeep. He had obtained our number from somewhere and would make prank calls, pretending to be someone else. A couple of missed calls as well. Besides that, no calls had been exchanged. The entire village is against us and I believe they would say anything to falsify the crime that took place.”

“the analysis of call detail records of accused and victim and mobile calls pattern from October 2019 to March 2020 indicates that there were short duration (signal) calls from the side of victim to Sandeep, which were followed by long duration calls from accused Sandeep to victim’s family number. This established that the relationship/affair between victim and accused Sandeep was in good form till March 2020,” the chargesheet said.