Who Committed the Offence?

Sanji Ram was the architect of the conspiracy. SPO Deepak Khajuria, Head Constable Tilak Raj and Sub-Inspector Anand Dutta were aware of the planning of the offences and the cover up. The juvenile and Parvesh Kumar were to carry out the plans with the involvement of others when necessary.

Will the Charge Stand?

The reason why this crime is even more disturbing is that it allegedly involves a conspiracy to use the attack on the victim to drive the Bakarwals out of Rasana in fear. It is because of this that the whole crime allegedly occurred, and is how Sanji Ram is involved – he did not take part in any of the actual physical acts of kidnapping, rape or murder, though he gave instructions for all of these in pursuance of the conspiracy. If the charge of conspiracy can’t be shown, then to convict Sanji Ram, the prosecution will need to show common intention under Section 34 of the RPC – which may be more difficult.

Evidence Mentioned in Chargesheet

Statements of the juvenile and the other accused when arrested and questioned; Corroborations from statements made by other witnesses (more than 130 in total); Sanji Ram’s attempts to motivate members of the community not to provide the Bakarwals with land for grazing or any other assistance; Sanji Ram’s attempt to block sale of land from one Harnam Singh to a Bakarwal – failed after appeal to High Court; Seizure by Sanji Ram of goats of a Bakarwal herder, charged him Rs 1,000 to release the goats; Sanji Ram’s levy of a Rs 1,000 fine against victim’s father for grazing cattle in the forest pasture behind Sanji Ram’s house; Tilak Raj and Khajuria’s issues with Bakarwals over land occupation and crop damage, Khajuria’s previous “scuffles” with Bakarwals; Impression in the community that Bakarwals indulge in cow slaughter and drug trafficking; and Registration of FIRs and counter-FIRs between locals and Bakarwals.

Who Committed the Offence?

The juvenile and Parvesh Kumar kidnapped the victim, and took her to the Devisthan. Instructions were allegedly given by Sanji Ram. Deepak Khajuria is alleged to have induced the juvenile to commit the kidnapping in exchange for assistance in passing exams.

Likelihood of Success?

Again, the key evidence in relation to this is the testimony of the juvenile and the other accused. If the testimony of at least the juvenile remains unchanged at trial, this should be sufficient to prove that the juvenile kidnapped the victim.

Evidence Mentioned in Chargesheet

Statements of the juvenile and the other accused when arrested and questioned; Corroboration of elements of the story by witness Veena Devi, who had been approached by the victim regarding the whereabouts of her horses before the juvenile met her on the day.

Who Committed the Offence?

The juvenile and Deepak Khajuria administered the sedatives to the victim, and checked on her status. SPO Surinder Kumar allegedly provided Khajuria with information about the movement of Bakarwals near the Devisthan and the condition of the victim. Instructions to hide the girl in the Devisthan were allegedly given by Sanji Ram, who also provided misleading information to the search party. The juvenile, Khajuria and Vishal Jangotra gangraped the victim, Parvesh Kumar tried to do so but failed.

Likelihood of Success?

The post-mortem report clearly seems to show that the victim was raped (which busts the fake news being spread to claim that rape hasn’t been proved in the case), and the combination of lack of food and sedatives supports the theory of confinement. However, the chargesheet does not mention any forensic evidence of rape with reference to the accused.

Evidence Mentioned in Chargesheet

Statements of the juvenile and the other accused when arrested and questioned; Post-mortem report (conducted on 17 January, the same day the body was found) of the victim which said that her virginity was not intact, there were lacerations on her vulva, and there was blood-stained discharge inside her vagina – all of which are consistent with signs of rape; Post-mortem report also indicates that the victim was kept without food, and that she was given sedatives; Potency tests of the juvenile, Vishal and Pravesh were conducted, which showed that they were capable of performing sexual intercourse; Strands of hair were discovered in the Devisthan – DNA profiling experts in New Delhi confirmed these included hairs from the victim; DNA profiling established the victim’s blood on vaginal smears; Strip of sedative tablets recovered with two tablets remaining; Call Data Records of the accused persons’ mobile phones which prima facie indicate they were at the locations they were supposed to be as per the above account.

Who Committed the Offence?

SPO Deepak Khajuria attempted to strangle the victim, but failed. The juvenile killed the girl by pressing his knees down on her back while strangling her with her chunni. He then hit her twice on the head with a stone. Parvesh and Vishal were present for both attempts. Further to his original plan, instructions to kill the girl were allegedly given by Sanji Ram. The instructions were given when they were because he was concerned that there would be visitors to the Devisthan the next day.

Likelihood of Success?

The post-mortem report’s finding on cause of death is consistent with the alleged method by which the victim was killed. However, there is once again no mention of forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA from the dead body that would point to the accused, apart from the hair of the juvenile.

Evidence Mentioned in the Chargesheet

Statements of the juvenile and the other accused when arrested and questioned; Statements of friends of juvenile’s friend Amit; Post-mortem report says that the cause of death was asphyxia leading to cardio-pulmonary arrest; The Forensic Science Laboratory in Delhi was able to confirm the presence of blood stains on the frock/salwar of the victim, despite alleged attempts to clean up the clothes; Hair recovered from the site where the body was disposed has been found to belong to the juvenile by the FSL at Delhi.

Who Committed the Offence?

Sub-Inspector Anand Dutta agreed to cover up the crime and divert searches for the victim, in return for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs from Sanji Ram. Rs 4 lakhs were allegedly paid through Head Constable Tilak Raj. The juvenile provided a different version of events to the initial police investigation (headed by Dutta) in which he said he alone kidnapped and killed the girl, after keeping her in a cow shed. This version was allegedly given by him on the instructions of Sanji Ram and Dutta, who staged photographs to support it. Dutta and Tilak Raj allegedly washed the victim’s clothes with an intention to remove clay/blood/sperm from them. Other crucial pieces of evidence were either not seized or concealed/destroyed.

Likelihood of Success?

The failure to collect essential evidence presents compelling circumstantial evidence that SI Dutta and HC Tilak Raj were looking to conceal evidence, especially since they didn’t seize the chunni which was supposed to have been used to kill the victim even according to the initial story. The chunni and hairband were only seized later by the special investigation team. The attempt to wash the victim’s clothes is also a significant piece of evidence. The findings of the Delhi FSL also corroborate the narrative by the Crime Branch.

Evidence Mentioned in Chargesheet

Call data records, confessional statements and statements of officials of the P/S Hiranagar; Delhi FSL report which found that attempts were made to wash the victim’s clothes; SI Dutta is noted to have deliberately not seized the chunni/dupatta, hairband and necklace of the victim, as well as the clothes of the juvenile even after his initial confession (based on the earlier version of the story as allegedly concocted by Sanji Ram); Blood sample of the victim wasn’t collected from the doctors who conducted the autopsy.