A fact-finding team has pointed to several “irregularities” in the investigation into the death of a young receptionist at an Uttarakhand resort run by a now-suspended BJP leader’s son.

The 30-member team, consisting of mostly women activists, demanded that the BJP-ruled state’s tourism policy include provisions for witness protection and prevention of sexual harassment.

The 19-year-old receptionist of Vanantara Resort in Pauri Garhwal district was allegedly assaulted and thrown into a canal in Rishikesh in September last year by Pulkit Arya, resort owner and son of now-suspended BJP leader Vinod Arya, and his two aides after she refused to offer sexual favours to a “VIP guest”.

The death led to widespread protests in the state last year. Several former employees came forward to allege that the resort had been a den of drugs and prostitution.

Pulkit and his aides were arrested following the protests and police filed the chargesheet in December. Uttarakhand High Court has since dismissed a plea to transfer the probe to the CBI.

The team led by the Uttarakhand Mahila Manch has said in its report: “Several irregularities were committed with malicious intent from the 19th, when Pulkit falsely reported that (the receptionist) had gone missing, after in fact having allegedly killed her. In collusion with the killers, the revenue police delayed the registering of the report, which was done 48 hours after her death, on the 20th. And then for another 48 hours nothing happened and only on the 4th day the case was transferred to the regular police in Lakshman Jhula on the 22nd. The arrests only happened on the 5th day, which was on the 23rd, and the body of (the receptionist) was recovered from the canal where it was stuck near the barrage gate only on the 24th of September, the 6th day after she was killed.”

The revenue police, a rural policing force, has since been disbanded in Uttarakhand. A revenue sub-inspector had been suspended on the charge of negligence in handling the receptionist’s case.

“Precious evidence, including the scene of crime, was allowed to be destroyed on the 23th September night led by a sitting BJP MLA Renu Bisht, showing criminal negligence and mala fide on the part of the police,” the report added, referring to the demolition of the resort.

If added: “The conclusion arrived upon by the police, based on just the medical opinion that (the receptionist) was not raped, and that the violence was of the category of sexual assault (section 354) raises the question whether rape can be ruled out merely on the basis of medical evidence, when testimonial, circumstantial and electronic evidence speak differently.

“According to the post-mortem report the medical team has opined that, ‘there was no evidence of injuries suggestive of forceful penetrative sexual assault. However, the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out’.

In fact, it was surprising that using this as evidence the police issued a statement that rape was ruled out.

In matters of sexual violence, it is well established that medical evidence is not the only substantive evidence to conclude whether forceful penetrative sexual assault has happened.

In this case it is important to see all the other evidence including eyewitness accounts, social media chats and the circumstantial evidence.”

The demands made in the report include: “The Uttarakhand SIT must probe the murder objectively in order to clear the suspicion of the general public that a powerful political person is being shielded.”

Also, “the staffers of the resort Abhinav, Kush and others and Pushp, the friend of (the receptionist) are the main witnesses in the case…. The witnesses should be provided with 24 hours police protection, till they depose in court.”

The report said: “Disciplinary action must be taken against the three police stations located in Pauri Garhwal district and Rishikesh who delayed action in a matter of life and liberty…. Action also needs to be taken against the Collector, Pauri Garhwal, as it is a failure of due diligence that the missing report filed with the Patwari (revenue) police went unattended for three days…”

Slamming the inaction of the state women’s commission and calling for policy changes, the report said: “Virtually none of the resorts seemed to know of this (The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013) safeguard for working women and therefore had no internal complaints committees (ICC). The Chief Secretary (CS), Additional Secretary Tourism had no response for the current lack of compliance with this law by the hotel industry.”