Dec 16 gang-rape probe not impartial: Accused to court
Two of the accused in December 16 gang-rape case alleged that the investigation as well as conduct of the authorities has not been impartial due to "political pressure".
New Delhi: Two of the accused in December 16 gang-rape case on Friday alleged that the investigation as well as conduct of the authorities has not been impartial due to "political pressure".
The counsel for accused Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur, in his final arguments before Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna alleged the probe in the case was "manipulated" and evidence was "planted" against his clients.
However, the proceedings were disrupted after the defence counsel, AP Singh, collapsed amidst arguments due to ill health.
"Investigation was manipulated. Evidence was planted. The conduct of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (who recorded the victim`s first statement) and the Metropolitan Magistrate (who conducted pre-trial proceedings) was also affected due to manipulation," Singh said during his brief arguments.
Advocate Singh alleged the authorities were expected to be impartial, but "they were not allowed to be, due to the political pressure" on them.
The lawyer also questioned the priority given to this particular case by the Metropolitan Magistrate during the initial stage of the proceedings, "as hearings were held after normal court hours without any specific instruction from any judicial authority".
Singh also alleged that evidences, like bloodstains, shoes of the victim`s male friend recovered from Vinay`s home, were "planted" in the case by the probe agency.
He said that forensic reports were prepared without analysis of the samples collected and were made to "suit" the demands of the prosecution due to the "political pressure" which was brought to bear upon the case.
The proceedings, however, were adjourned for tomorrow after Singh collapsed in the midst of arguments and none of the other lawyers representing the remaining accused Mukesh and Pawan Gupta were present in court.
Meanwhile, advocate Vivek Sharma, representing Pawan, moved an application through a colleague seeking time till September 2 to begin arguments.
However, the plea was rejected by the court.