Missing victim reappears after court flays police | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 28, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Missing victim reappears after court flays police

The rape case involving Abhishek Kasliwal, son of Shriram Mills owner Ambuj Kasliwal, saw several interesting developments, including the victim going missing and then resurfacing after two-and-half years.

mumbai Updated: Mar 31, 2011 01:53 IST
Abhishek Dandekar

The rape case involving Abhishek Kasliwal, son of Shriram Mills owner Ambuj Kasliwal, saw several interesting developments, including the victim going missing and then resurfacing after two-and-half years.

In a twist to the case, for the first time on March 24, 2008, the police informed the City Civil and Sessions Court that the victim, a 52-year-old woman, had gone missing from October 2006 and could not be served with the summons so that her evidence could be recorded.

On that day, special public prosecutor Avadhut Chimalkar informed the court that the whereabouts of the victim were not known to the investigating agency, and the victim was not traceable at the addresses she had given while recording the complaint with the police.

This, incidentally, was after the Bombay high court in April 2006 directed the police to provide protection to the victim until the trial was over, while granting bail to Kasliwal.

The court then granted four weeks’ time — till April 21 — to the prosecution to locate the victim. The court also cautioned that in the event they failed to locate the victim, the court would issue a notice to the investigating officer and also report the same to the police commissioner.

Mysteriously, on June 5, 2009, after two-and half years, the victim was brought to the police station on June 3, 2009.

The case received a major jolt after the victim went missing and there was no independent witness to support the prosecution’s case.

A controversy took shape after special public prosecutor Avadhut Chimalkar withdrew from the case stating that without the victim, the case held no water, and that in the absence of co-operation from the police machinery, he would not be able to do justice to the case.