Hathras case: Family wants trial moved out of Uttar Pradesh, lawyer tells Allahabad High Court
The family asked that they be provided security and that the investigation report not be made public, advocate Seema Khushwaha told reporters
Lucknow: Family members of the Hathras woman who died after being allegedly gang-raped maintained before the Allahabad High Court Monday that she was cremated in the middle of the night without their consent and their lawyer said they wanted the trial shifted out of the state.
Hathras District Magistrate Praveen Kumar Laxar and Superintendent of Police Vineet Jaiswal told the court that the decision on the cremation was taken by the local administration and police, and there were no instructions or pressure from the state government.
Senior Uttar Pradesh administration and police officials, also summoned by the court, said the late-night cremation was due to law and order considerations.
Justices Pankaj Mithal and Rajan Roy fixed 2 November as the next date of hearing.
The 19-year-old Dalit woman died at a Delhi hospital a fortnight after she was allegedly raped by four upper-caste men at her village in UP's Hathras district on 14 September.
There was outrage over her hurried cremation at her village with her family claiming that it was against their wishes and they were not even allowed to bring the woman's body home one last time.
The high court had then summoned top UP administration and police officials as well as the victim's family to depose before it on the issue.
Her parents and three brothers were brought amid tight security to Lucknow on Monday, over an hour before the hearing was to begin.
UP Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Awanish Awasthi, Director General of Police HC Awasthy and Additional Director General (Law and Order) Prashant Kumar also appeared before the court, which had said it was shocked by the episode when it issued the summons.
Senior advocate JN Mathur, who was appointed amicus curie by the court, pleaded that every citizen had the right to be cremated with dignity by the family members as per their religious practices. He cited Article 25 of the Constitution on the right to practice one's religion freely.
Family's counsel Seema Kushwaha asked the court to transfer the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial to Delhi.
Additional Advocate General V K Shahi, who represented the state government, said the investigation has already been handed over to the CBI.
"The family wants the case to be transferred to Delhi or Mumbai", Kushwaha told reporters outside the court. The family also asked that they should be provided security, she said. They did not want the report of the investigation to be made public, according to the lawyer.
VK Shahi told reporters that the next date of hearing has been fixed for 2 November.
"On behalf of the government, we have filed our affidavit. All family members of the victim appeared in court, and the court questioned them. The court questioned Additional Chief Secretary (Home), ADG Law and Order and District Magistrate of Hathras," he said.
On the last rites of the victim, he said, "The family members of the victim have presented their side. We have presented our side."
The family's lawyer said the state authorities were asked about the hurried cremation and they cited law and order as the reason. She claimed that there were only 50-60 relatives and villagers around compared to the 300-400 police personnel deployed there, arguing that they could have controlled any situation.
The lawyer said the district's borders were also sealed and there was no law and order issue.
From 2005 Naval War Room leak to 2021's submarine leak: Recounting Indian Navy's major security breaches
A naval commander and two retired officers have been arrested for allegedly leaking classified information in lieu of illegal gratification
Ram Rahim and four others were convicted on 8 October for the murder of Ram Rahim's former manager Ranjit Singh in 2002
The court said the CBI's investigation was akin to 'babu-dom' as the charge sheet filed could not substantiate the charges made against the accused