Plea for shifting Delhi gangrape accused: Tihar official told to reply

New Delhi: A special court on Monday asked Tihar authorities as to why two of the 16 December gangrape accused should not be shifted to any other jail following allegations of torture and directed it to submit its prison manual. The court also expressed its desire to go through the CCTV surveillance footage of accused Vinay Sharma’s cell, submitted by the Tihar Jail authorities. While Vinay had claimed that he suffered a hand fracture after he was beaten by cell mates, police claimed he had a fight with a co-accused in the police van while returning from court. [caption id=“attachment_691102” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  AFP[/caption] Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna gave the direction to the jail officials after Vinay and co-accused Akshay Singh alleged that they were tortured inside the Tihar Jail and prayed to be shifted from there to Rohini Jail. The judge said that Tihar Jail superintendent’s reply on accused Vinay’s application stated that he cannot be transferred from Tihar jail to Rohini Jail as he did not meet the age criteria. “However, reply on accused Akshay’s application is not given. Let the jail superintendent file his reply on Akshay’s application also,” the court said, while directing authorities to submit their jail manual by Tuesday. The Superintendent of Jail No. 7 in Tihar, Lokesh Chandra, who was directed by the court on 5 April to explain how Vinay suffered a hand fracture, had alleged that the accused was injured during a fight with co-accused Akshay in the police van while returning to the prison from court. However, the duo’s counsel AP Singh opposed the officer’s submissions saying the report itself has contradictory versions in which the jail inmates, who were said to be witness to this incident, had said that Vinay’s hand was broken as he fell down, which shows it is “totally false” and based on “planted witness”. Rejecting Vinay’s charges, the jail report had said, “In the light of contradictory statements by the patient prisoner (Vinay) in various hospitals, the allegations levelled in the application are totally false, mischievous, unfounded and for ulterior motive.” The court also expressed unhappiness over the request of advocate M L Sharma, appearing for Mukesh, that he be given some time to cross-examine the witness as he is “exhausted” after the prosecution accused him of resorting delaying tactis. The other two co-accused Pawan Gupta and Mukesh have said that they do not wish to be shifted from Tihar jail. Vinay had requested the court not to send him back to Tihar alleging that the jail staff have again issued death threats to him. Chandra, however, had said, “After accused Ram Singh’s death, we have taken several precautions. They are being lodged in a cell with CCTV surveillance and 24-hour watch by prison guards. They are being kept in barracks with under-trial prisoners with only minor offences against them. They are being kept away from hardened criminals.” On advocate Sharma’s request that he be given some time, the court said that it is giving them a last chance and refused to hear such requests from Tuesday. Special Public Prosecutor Dayan Krishnan raised an objection to the request of Sharma that the proceedings in the case not be listed for tomorrow as he would be busy in the Supreme Court. Krishnan said, “I cannot call the witnesses like this and send them back without being cross examined by the defence.” “He (Sharma) is delaying and diverting the proceedings. It’s done purely to delay the proceedings.” “Everyday he has a problem. He takes out his diary and seeks adjournment in the case,” Krishnan said, while asking the court to disallow Sharma’s request. The judge said, “Though as a matter of last chance, I am deferring the cross on behalf of accused Mukesh. But from tomorrow the counsel will not be allowed to do so. “If witness is here, then defence counsel will have to cross-examine them,” the judge said. PTI