Over a month after a Rewari teenager was gang-raped by three persons, a local court at Haryana’s Mahendergarh district on Wednesday framed charges against the eight accused in the high-profile case.
Three of the accused: Army jawan Pankaj, Nishu and Manish, will now face trial under the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt by means of poison, abduction and gang-rape. Quack Sanjeev and tubewell room owner Deen Dayal have been charged with concealing design to commit offence.
Manish’s brother-in-law Abhishek and another relative Manjit have been charged with harbouring offenders; another Army jawan Naveen will face trial for intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform.
‘Full faith in judiciary’
Deen Dayal’s counsel Rakesh Lamba said he had full faith in the judiciary and witnesses would be produced before the court to fight the charges levelled against his client.
The case is being heard at the court of Additional Sessions Judge Anil Kumar, a designated Special Court for crimes against women.
All the eight accused were present in the court at the time of framing of charges.
The Special Investigation Team, set up to investigate the matter, had filed the charge sheet in the case a fortnight ago.
Though SIT head Nazneen Bhasin had said during investigation that the police would request the setting up of a fast-track court for the trial, the case was committed to the Special Court since there is no notified fast-track court in the district.
“It is not a fast-track court, but the matter is being heard expeditiously. Almost a fortnight after the charge sheet was filed by the SIT, the charges have been framed. The next hearing is scheduled for November 5 to record the statements of the victim and her parents,” said ASI Ashwani Kumar, reader of SP (Narnaul).
Victim’s statement
The victim’s father said he had wanted the trial in a fast-track court but “had we insisted on a fast-track court, the case would have been transferred to Gurugram or Sonipat. It would have been very inconvenient for us”.
The complainant’s lawyer, Karan Singh Yadav, hired through Legal Services Authority, lamented that the police did not entertain the victim’s request for recording her statement again before the magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He is contesting the case pro-bono.
