The Justice PK Mohanty Commission of Inquiry probing the sensational Pipili gang-rape and murder case on Friday indicated that it would look into political interference, for which the victim was initially not given proper treatment at Government hospitals.
Turning down a strong objection from the Government advocate, the commission issued a notice to the State Government asking it to file a counter with call details of the then Pipili police station in-charge-officer Amulya Kumar Champatiray from November 28, 2011 to January 10, 2012.
The notice was issued in response to an application filed by advocate Nishikanta Mishra, who is appearing for some relatives of the victim. Mishra has alleged that the FIR filed by the victim’s relatives had alleged that due to political interference, the local doctors and doctors at the Capital Hospital in Bhubaneswar did not treat the victim properly when she was initially taken to these hospitals.
“Despite specific allegations of political interference in the FIR, the investigating police officers did not examine any political leader during the course of investigation,” Mishra has alleged, questioning whether political leaders are above law or do they enjoy immunity from coming under police investigations in a criminal matter.
Mishra said political interference in the matter would be established if the call detail records of telephones of the former inspector and the police station are examined. Allowing the application of Mishra, the commission issued the notice to the Government asking it to file its counter within four weeks.
Meanwhile, at least five key witnesses, including the tractor drivers and helpers who first saw the victim lying seminude and unconscious at a deserted place on the ill-fated day of November 28, 2011, appeared before the commission on the day to give their depositions. Four out of the five witnesses told the commission that they had not written or read the affidavits that were submitted on their behalves before the commission.
“A particular influential person of the locality had asked them to sign on the affidavits and they had not met any advocate or notary public in making the affidavits,” the witnesses told the commission.