New Delhi, Sept. 10: A pair of Hush Puppy shoes, a Sonata wristwatch, a Samsung S Duos mobile, Rs 1,000 in cash, a Metro smart card and a silver ring. The friend of the December 16 gang-rape victim doesn’t want only justice but these things too from additional sessions judge Yogesh Khanna.
The lone witness to the gang rape, who was beaten up and stripped during the incident, today moved court for a directive to police to return his belongings.
Asked why the petition was moved the day the judgment was delivered, his lawyer Anil Kumar Singh said this was because “the case was completed today”.
“He feels it’s his right to get his stuff back now that investigations are over. We waited this long because we didn’t want to (create the impression that) we were not cooperating with the investigating agencies.”
The application asks the judge to “pass an order thereby directing the investigating officers of police station Vasant Vihar to release the above said goods to the applicant in the interest of justice”.
Police sources said a robbery victim’s belongings are returned to the owner.
| The mother of one of the gang-rape accused breaks down at her home in a slum in New Delhi after hearing of the conviction on television. (Reuters)
The applicant, a software engineer, had visited the victim twice at a Delhi hospital. He had suffered fractures in the incident and wrote to the Union home ministry in April seeking a government job and compensation. The CV he had attached to the letter described him as the prime witness and sought security.
“It’s not about getting what he wants from the government. What he wants are his possessions, which were stolen from him. He has the right to ask for his belongings,” his lawyer said.
Asked if any of these possessions were of sentimental value on account of being linked to the gang-rape victim, Singh said: “They could have some emotional value.”
The applicant was not seen in the court today. He lives with his parents in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, and is on leave from his employer.
Conclusions of the court, based on the 240-page
judgment in the December
16 gang-rape case
The act of abducting the
victim by deceit, robbing, causing injuries and the act
of some accused in pinning the complainant (male friend) while others took their turns
in committing rape/unnatural
sex and while one of them continued driving the bus and lastly throwing them out of the moving bus, sharing booty,
destroying evidence thoroughly show illegal agreement
between them to commit
such illegal act and they
had knowledge of the same
Contradicting the claim of
the accused that they were
not in the bus at the time of
the incident, the judge said
their presence had been
established by mobile
If the accused had
participated in the incident, the question as to who
committed the rape or could not complete the act of rape becomes irrelevant for
conviction of gang rape
The judgment details the
convicts’ savagery, most
of which is too graphic to
be reproduced. A chilling
paragraph, which has legal implications as it establishes the intention to kill, is being published. The court said the circumstances “rule out the possibility of use of rods to overpower the girl. The acts
of inserting rods and pulling out internal organs and
committing the gang rape
can in no manner be seen
as acts done only to facilitate gang rape. Rather, the act
of pulling out the internal
organs of the victim to kill
her was intentional”
Yogesh Khanna, the
additional sessions judge who delivered the verdict
in the December 16 gang-rape case, pronounced on Tuesday the first guilty verdict in the rape cases he has been hearing for the past five years. The following are data on some of the cases Judge Khanna had heard
2009: No rape cases
2010: No rape cases
2011: Seven rape cases, none convicted of rape
2012: 10 rape cases, none convicted of rape
2013: 15 rape cases till
September 9, none convicted of rape
Sept. 10, 2013: All four
accused convicted of rape
MEDICAL CLEAN CHIT
The girl did not die of medical negligence as accused by the defence, the judge ruled.
The judge rejected the
argument that the girl died
because of septicaemia caused by infection caught from hospital. The judge said there was no delay in the first
operation that was performed on the same night the victim was brought to the hospital.
The court relied on the
testimony of a doctor who
The judge said: “Lastly, I also feel it necessary to mention
the professional acumen with which Delhi police investigated the case, especially the way they made use of the scientific tools. I hope this would be replicated in all other cases.”
DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis and odontology
(relating to bite marks) proved decisive. The bite marks on the victim’s body were matched with the teeth of the accused, based on the principle that alignment of teeth is unique
to every individual.