Taking serious exception to the mention of the victim girl in a recent order passed the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court has ordered the High Court bench to delete the victim’s name from its recent order passed in the much-discussed Kopardi girl gang rape and murder case.
While dismissing a Special leave Petition (SlP) challenging the August 3, 2018 order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, a SC Bench of Justices AK Goel and Justice UU lalit — in its oral order — disapproved the mention of the names of the victim, informant and the name of the village in the order of the lower court bench. It directed the Aurangabad bench of the high court to modify its order.
“We direct that the impugned order be placed before the bench of the high court which passed the impugned order for necessary correction by directing deletion of the names of the victims,” the two-member SC bench noted in its order passed on Thursday last.
However, while dismissing the SlP) challenging the high court’s August 3, 2017 order, the judges ruled: “We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Special leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed”.
In their SlP, defence lawyers in the Kopardi girl gang rape and murder case, had urged the apex court to stay the proceedings against their client Santosh Bhawal, one of the three accused in the case. They had also stated in their prayer: “… the trial would be concluded in case the proceedings are not stayed. … the Petitioner has been charged with the aid of Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and the evidence adduced by the prosecution are only circumstantial evidence and in the circumstances of a prejudiced environment, the non examination of defence witness shall vitiate the trial”.
Earlier on August 3, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday extended the ongoing trial in the Kopardi girl gang rape and murder case till August 11, after partly admitting a criminal revision petition moved by defence lawyers representing of the three accused in the case.
After partly allowing a plea by defence lawyers Vijayalaxmi Khopade and Rakesh Rathod challenging the “legality, validity and propriety” of the lower court’s July 10 order, Justice K K Sonawane of the high court’s Aurangabad bench had directed the trial court not to go ahead with the proceedings in the ongoing trial till August 11, to facilitate the defence advocates to move the Supreme Court.
In his order on the criminal revision petition filed by the two defence advocates, the Judge had directed the Ahmednagar Special Court (POCSO Act) to issue process to make one Rajendra Chavan as a defence witness in the case.
“The trial court is hereby directed to secure presence of defence witness Rajendra Chavan for adducing evidence on the legal aspect of the certificate issued under section 65-B of the Evidence Act in this matter in support of the accused/applicant,” the Judge had ruled.
The judge had, however, rejected the defence lawyers' plea to make five others ---Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, Dr Rajabahu J Thorat, Director, State Bureau of Health Intelligence, Pune, Dr Uday Nirgudkar, a senior journalist, Director, Forensic Sciences, Nashik and District Collector of Ahmednagar Abhay Mahajan as defence witnesses in the case.
In their SlP, the defence lawyers had urged the Supreme Court to make five persons including SPP Ujjwal Nikam, as the defence witnesses in the ongoing trial.
The 15-year-old victim girl, who belonged to the Maratha community, was brutally raped on July 13, 2016 allegedly by three Dalits who inflicted injuries all over her body and broke her limbs before throttling her at Kopardi village in Ahmednagar district.
The fast-track court had on November 9 last year framed charges against three accused --- Jitendra alias Pappu Babulal Shinde (26), Santosh Gorkha Bhaval (30) and Nitin Gopinath Bhailume (28) --under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act for allegedly perpetrating a sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl and strangulating her in July 2016.
Among the documents and material which the lower court had refused to admit as evidence, there are CDs prepared by Chavan. They contain the speeches of State chief minister telecast on a Marathi television channel, the news item of a meeting between Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, the family members of the victim girl and one Bhayuji Maharaj, the interview of State Education Minister Vinod Tawde.
Finding substance in the argument made by the defence lawyers that “the Prosecution has no authority to cause interference during the course of investigation”, the high court judge observed that the participation or indulgence of public prosecutor during the course of investigation is “injudicious” and “pernicious” one.
It may be recalled that Ahmednagar district Sessions Judge (Mrs) Suvarna Keole had in her July 10 order rejected the defence lawyer’s plea seeking to make Public Prosecutor Nikam and five others defence witnesses in the case.
The trial court judge had also rejected the documents and electronic evidence submitted by the defeence lawyer in support of her case.
Vijayalaxmi, who is representing who is representing one of the three accused in the case Santosh Bhaval, had stated in her petition that the rejection of her applications seeking to make Nikam and others as defence witness resulted in “miscarriage of justice”.
In her plea before the trial court, the defence lawyer had strongly rooted for the examination of Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam under section 313 of Cr. PC in view of his “active participation” in the investigations in the case.
Contending that Caesar’s wife “must be above suspicion”, Vijayalaxmi had contended that “there is a high probability of finding incriminating evidence (against him) with respect to such active role of the Prosecution in the investigation procedure of the case”.