E-Paper
Receptionist murder: Revenue official says ready to face punishment if guilty
The revenue official denied allegations that he didn’t act on the woman’s disappearance and said he didn’t file the missing FIR immediately because he didn’t have her family contact information
The Uttarakhand revenue sub-inspector, who was suspended for his suspicious role in Vanantara resort receptionist's murder case, has denied the allegations levelled against him and said he is “ready to face any punishment” if he is guilty.
Vaibhav Pratap Singh, the revenue sub inspector, said it is wrong to say that he didn’t act on the woman’s disappearance as he had posted the information about the missing woman in an official WhatsApp group.
The 19-year-old receptionist was allegedly killed by Pulkit Arya, the resort’s owner and the son of the now expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Vinod Arya, and two staff members of Vanantara after she resisted their attempts to force her into prostitution. Her body was recovered from the Chill canal in Pauri Garhwal district on September 24.
“As soon as I received information about the woman’s disappearance from Pulkit, I called him. My first question to him was have you informed her family? He said he didn’t have her family’s number. Then I asked him for her ID card, which I shared in an official WhatsApp group, asking all revenue officials to contact me if her native place is under their jurisdiction. I received her father’s contact number from the revenue official concerned. Before I could dial his number, I received a call from him. The woman’s father informed me that he had a word with Pulkit,” he said while speaking to a Hindi news channel.
Also Read | Uttarakhand cops recreate receptionist murder crime scene, quiz revenue official
The official, who is under the lens of the special investigation team and has been quizzed once, said he didn’t file the missing FIR immediately since he didn’t have the woman’s family contact information.
“How could I file the missing FIR without informing her family,” he said.
He said he has no personal links with key accused Pulkit Arya and met him sometimes just because of official reasons.
“I never stayed at the resort,” he said, adding that he had received no information or complaint about any type of illegal activities at the resort.
Some media reports on Friday claimed his arrest. However, director general of police Ashok Kumar refuted the reports.
“If required, we will again question the revenue official and confront him with the three accused,” a senior official said, adding that they couldn’t arrest him before collecting concrete evidence establishing his role in the case.
On September 27, Pauri Garhwal district magistrate Vijay Kumar Jogdande suspended the revenue official for “negligence in performing his duties” by not filing on time the complaint given by the father of the woman receptionist. He also ordered a departmental probe for his suspicious role in the case. It came to light during the preliminary investigation that the patwari didn’t act on a missing complaint filed by the receptionist’s family on September 19, but rather entertained a complaint from the accused who misled the police.
Two days after the receptionist’s disappearance on September 18, the patwari went on leave on September 20 for four days, without informing any senior official about the matter. He had cited his father’s ill health.
