Delhi gangrape victim died earlier, dying declaration is planted: Defence

The dying declaration of the 23-year student recorded by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) on 21 December, five days after she was gangraped, is “an afterthought, a fabrication, a plant” by the Delhi Police, argued the defence in court today. The trial in the 16 December gang-rape case, which began in a fast-track court in February, is in its final stage. The defence began its final arguments on Wednesday (27 August). Questioning the authenticity of the prosecution’s strongest piece of evidence — the victim’s dying declaration — A P Singh, defence lawyer for accused Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur, said in court that the victim had passed away before her statement could be recorded by the SDM. “She was not alive on 21 December,” Singh told the court. Relying on the widely reported controversy surrounding the circumstances under which the victim’s statement was recorded by the SDM, Singh said, “Why was there a dispute between the SDM and the Delhi Police? What led the chief minister to complain against the Delhi Police to the Home Ministry? The dispute arose because the SDM refused to sign a statement that was prepared by the police.” [caption id=“attachment_1070245” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Delhi gangrape accused are bought to court in a police van in this file photo. AFP[/caption] The SDM, however, in her testimony in court denied any interference by the police in recording of the victim’s statement. Raising doubts about the conduct of the Police, the defence asked why an SDM from the East Delhi district had been called when the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Vasant Vihar (South Delhi). Singh further questioned the probability of a patient in the intensive care unit, who was breathing through an oxygen mask, making a four-page long statement, which was the length of the victim’s statement. Also, the signature of the victim at the end of that statement, added Singh, had not been verified. He drew the court’s attention to the over-writing on the date mentioned on the SDM’s report of the victim’s statement, arguing that it was prepared in advance. Singh argued that the difference in the statements made by the victim to the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital on the night of the attack and the one given to the SDM five days later, by which time the bus was impounded, the accused were arrested and their disclosures recorded, showed that the second statement was doctored. “The statement of the victim recorded by the doctor at the hospital on the night of 16 December makes no mention of the names of the accused, their description, the colour of the bus, its interiors or the use of an iron rod as a weapon. But victim’s statement to the magistrate, recorded after the accused and the bus were picked up, has all the details,” Singh told the court. He further argued that there were inconsistencies in the SDM’s testimony with regard to the medical condition of the victim when the statement was recorded and the number of people who were present in the ICU cabin at that time. Questioning the Delhi Police’s version of the circumstances in which the victim and her friend were found after they had been attacked and thrown off the bus, Singh told the court, “When the PCR van arrived, according to the head constable, there about 40 people who had gathered. Why didn’t the prosecution make any one of them public witnesses?” Singh argued that the DNA evidence and recoveries made from the accused of the items robbed from the victims — clothes, ATM card, phones — were planted by the Delhi police to falsely implicate the accused. “The real culprits are walking free,” Singh told the court. He also raised questions about the Delhi Police’s hurry in conducting the investigation and filing the chargesheet. “As per the criminal procedure code (CrPC), the police is given 90 days to file the chargesheet in such cases. Why then was the chargesheet in this case filed within 16 days. If the case had been properly investigated the outcome would have been different,” Singh told the court. During the last hearing, Singh had argued that the victim’s friend, who is a complainant in the case and a key witness, was a “tutored” witness and that he should have been made an accused in the case. (Read full report here. ) Final arguments by the Defence will continue tomorrow. Accused Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh are on trial for the gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old student and the attack on her friend on the night of 16 December. A verdict is expected by mid-September.