Delhi gangrape: Victim's friend should've been made accused, says defence

Raising questions over the credibility of the victim’s friend, who was with her on the night they were brutally attacked, the defence in its final arguments today called him a ’tutored’ witness. Contesting the testimony of the victim’s friend, who is a key prosecution witness and a complainant in the case, defence lawyer AP Singh told the court the witness’s selective recollection of the details of the night of 16 December implied that “true facts of the case have not come out.” Singh, who is representing accused Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur, went even further and told the court the victim’s friend should have been made an accused. Attempts to call into question character of the witness were thwarted by the judge who directed the defence lawyer Singh to limit himself facts relevant to the case. [caption id=“attachment_1064529” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File photo of lawyer Ajay Prakash Singh (C), who represents defendants Akshay Thakur and Vinay Sharma. AFP[/caption] 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. In his final arguments, Singh questioned the basis of prosecution’s case and termed it a ‘fabrication’ and accused the Delhi Police of planting evidence against the accused. Arguing his case, Singh said that the victim’s statement that was recorded at the hospital (MLC) immediately after the attack had made no mention of an iron rod being used as a weapon. “The biggest plant of the police is the iron rod. While the victim (in her MLC) has recorded every detail of the attack, including of being slapped and bitten by the attackers, she has made no mention of something as gruesome and brutal as being attacked by an iron rod.” He further argued that the victim’s statement to the doctors had made no mention of any descriptions of the accused, their clothes, their names or the interior of the bus. Again, quoting from the victim’s friend’s statement to the doctors at Safdarjung hospital on the intervening night of 16-17 December, Singh argued that it too had no details or description of either the attackers or the bus. “Up until the night of 16-17 December, the details were not available. But once a bus was found, all the details started to emerge…Why was this story created, why was no impartial investigation conducted,” Singh told the court. In response to the Singh argument that prosecution’s case is fabricated and the evidence on the accused planted, the judge asked, “What is your counter-argument. Who according to you was responsible? What about the DNA evidence, the dental reports?” To which Singh said, “Only to escape the immense pressure on them, the Police picked up the first bus they could get their hands on with ‘Yadav’ painted on it. The CCTV footage that shows a bus, with ‘Yadav’ painted on it, spotted along that route at the time the crime was committed does not show the registration number.” Final arguments by the defence will continue on Thursday. The trial in the Delhi gangrape case is now in its final stage. The prosecution concluded its final arguments on Monday. A verdict is expected by mid-September.