December 16 gang-rape: IO denies claims of accused
The investigating officer (IO) in the December 16 gangrape case on Saturday denied the claims of an accused that the site plan was prepared at the police station and not at the actual scene of crime.
New Delhi: The investigating officer (IO) in the December 16 gangrape case on Saturday denied the claims of an accused that the site plan was prepared at the police station and not at the actual scene of crime.
The woman IO, who had initially probed the case, told Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna that the male friend of a 23-year-old girl had visited the spot and pointed out the place of occurrence.
"The site plans were prepared at the instance of the complainant (the victim`s friend). He was physically present with me when the site plans were prepared at his pointing out.
"It is wrong to suggest that the youth had not visited the places or that the site plans were prepared not at his instance. It is wrong to suggest that site plans were prepared on the basis of the statements of the complainant while sitting in the police station," the IO said, during her cross-examination by the counsel accused Mukesh.
According to the police, on the night of the incident, a female physiotherapy intern was beaten and gang-raped in a bus in which she was travelling with her friend.
Besides the two, there were six others in the bus, including the driver, Ram Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh all of whom had raped the girl, it said.
The victim died of her injuries on December 29 last year while undergoing emergency treatment at a Singapore Hospital.
During the trial, Ram Singh, was found dead in Tihar jail in March and court proceedings against him stand abated.
The sixth accused, a juvenile, is facing the inquiry before the juvenile justice board here.
The officer also refuted the defence counsel`s allegation that she has not investigated the matter and had not recorded the statement of accused Mukesh.
"It is wrong to suggest that the statement of accused Mukesh is not recorded under my supervision or that we had not investigated the matter or that I had not examined the complainant (the victim`s friend) on December 17, 2012 for recording his second supplementary statement,"
"I had recorded the disclosure statements of all accused persons except accused Akshay," the IO said.
She also deposed before the court that after the arrest of Mukesh he has also pointed out the place of occurrence and at his instance only we have recovered the articles stolen from the possessions of the victim`s and her friend after the offence was committed.
"It is wrong to suggest that accused Mukesh did not point out any place or that his signature was forcibly obtained on the site plan.
"It is wrong to suggest that accused Mukesh did not lead us to Anupam Apartment or that he had not got recovered any of the case property from there or that he had not made any disclosure or that I have recorded his disclosure on my own," the official said.
During the proceedings, the counsel for Akshay told the court that his client is been given a high doses of medicine inside the jail premises, due to which he is unable to sleep.
The court directed the Tihar jail Superintendent to file a status report on the complaint by Monday.