M A I N   N E W S

Gang-rape accused to appear in court on Jan 7
Court takes cognisance of chargesheet
Police refutes allegations of victim’s friend, says it had responded in time
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 5
A Delhi court today took cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the police in the alleged gang rape case of a 23-year-old trainee physiotherapist. The police has been told to produce five of the six accused, excluding the juvenile, in court on January 7.

Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Namrita Aggarwal perused the case’s chargesheet that was filed by the Delhi Police on January 3. Strangely, the police failed to add the murder section to certain pages in the document.

The MM said: “Prima facie offence under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 376 2(g) (gangrape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 396 (murder in dacoity), 394 (hurting in dacoity), 201 (destruction of evidence), 120-B (conspiracy), 34 (common intention) and 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out against the accused.”

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rajiv Mohan, who is representing the police, requested the court that the documents containing the name and identity of the victim be kept in a sealed cover to protect her identity. The MM ordered that the case file containing the hard copy of the chargesheet, the e-chargesheet and the FIR be kept under the court’s seal.

The APP also informed the court that the investigators are relying on the statements of the girl and her male friend, Awindra Pratap Pandey.

Pandey, who is the lone eyewitness in the case, had criticised the police during an interview to a TV channel last night for delay in taking the victim to the hospital. The Delhi Police today refuted his claims. After registering a case against the channel, Zee News, under the Section 228 A (disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc) of the IPC, the police has sent a notice to Zee News editor, Sudhir Chaudhary, asking him to join the probe in the case.

Pandey alleged that the police took two-and-a-half hours to transport the victim to the Safdarjung Hospital from Mahipalpur flyover, where the duo was dumped by the accused.

Pandey said three Police Control Room (PCR) vehicles had reached the site but the policemen squabbled over the jurisdiction of crime for half an hour instead of helping him and the girl.

Joint Commissioner of Police (South West Range), Vivek Gogia, today told reporters that two PCR vehicles had reached the site within minutes. The police control room received a call regarding the crime at 10.21 pm. The call was transferred to PCR vehicle, codenamed Z-54, at 10.24 pm. Another PCR vehicle, codenamed E-47, which was patrolling at Mahipalpur reached the site at 10.27 pm. Z-54 too arrived at 0.29 pm.

Gogia said, “After wrapping a bedsheet around the woman and her male friend, the PCR staff put them in a vehicle and left for the Safdarjung Hospital at 10.39 pm. They reached the hospital at 10.55 pm.”

Replying to jurisdiction row, Gogia said: “The PCR vans do not work for a police station and the staff on duty is not concerned about the jurisdiction. Their job is to respond to a victim’s call and take him or her to a nearby hospital.”

Pandey claimed that the victim would have probably survived had she been taken to a private hospital “better” than the Safdarjung facility. “There are only some notified and designated multi-disciplinary hospitals for admitting medico-legal cases. So the PCR vehicle took the two victims to the Safdarjung Hospital, which doesn’t have a dearth of medical experts and doctors,” said Gogia.





HOME PAGE | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Opinions |
| Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi |
| Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |