Kotkhai custodial death case: Experts stand by observation that crime committed by more than one

They stood by the “observation” in their report, that the crime against the 16-year-old victim had been committed by more than one person

During the cross-questioning of the two forensic experts who conducted tests on those accused in the ‘Gudiya rape and murder’ case at the special court of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), they stood by the “observation” in their report, that the crime against the 16-year-old victim had been committed by more than one person.

HT Image

In July 2017, a schoolgirl, was raped and murdered at Kothkai in Shimla district. Police had arrested the six accused 10 days after the crime.

One of the suspects,Suraj Singh, was found dead in custody at the Kotkhai police station on July 18, 2017.

The case was handed over to the CBI, who discharged all six accused of the allegations. As per CBI’s investigation, it was not a gangrape but a rape and murder committed by one person.

This week, two forensic experts - Dr HV Acharya, assistant director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat ; and Hemangi Shah, assistant director, Forensic Psychological Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat were cross examined by defence counsels.

In September 2017, Shah had conducted a polygraph test on five accused in the ‘Gudiya rape and murder’- Ashish Chauhan, Rajinder Singh, Lokjan, Deepak and Subhash Singh. Acharya had conducted narco and BEOSP tests.

The two doctors, then jointly prepared the comprehensive forensic psychological report comprising the findings of the tests that were conducted on the accused.

As per the findings of the report, the role of the five accused in the rape and murder of Gudia is “not observed” and even the role of Rajinder Singh in killing Suraj in police custody is “not observed” (the police had accused Rajinder of killing Suraj).

The report concluded that without any substantial evidence, the local police took harsh steps during interrogation against the five subjects. However, “The results of the tests conducted shall be corroborated with the available evidence and witnesses for further investigation,” it adds.

This week, in the CBI court, the two doctors were cross-questioned regarding the findings of their report, wherein they stood by their observation that the crime was committed by more than one person.

When defence counsel, Matvinder Singh, asked Dr Acharya if he stood by his observation that the crime against Gudiya had been committed by more than one person, he answered “yes”.

Dr Shah complied with Acharya’s opinion.

Another observation of the doctors was “definite police effort to defend someone”. When asked “Do you stand by your observation that the immediate arrest of these six subjects without any direct evidence by a local police, torturing and threatening them to accept the crime implies a definite effort to defend someone.”

The doctors said “Yes”.