Woman cop appears before SC, denies intimidating rape victim

Woman cop appears before SC, denies intimidating rape victim

A woman officer of Uttar Pradesh Police, facing contempt charges for closing a rape case in Muzaffarnagar riots, has denied the allegations before the Supreme Court.

While denying the allegation of intimidation made by a victim, the lady officer claimed that there were discrepancies in her victim’s) versions, leading to filing of closure report.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, police inspector Mala Yadav has vehemently denied pressurising the riot victim to work out a compromise with the accused persons.In fact, she claimed her fair investigation in other cases had resulted in filing of chargesheets against 25 persons relating to September 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots.

In a statement recorded before a woman magistrate on May 1 following the direction by the apex court, the victim named four persons in contrast to five as alleged in her previous version, she claimed.

During the investigation, it was found from call records of the three accused persons that they were present in their respective villages on the fateful day and were not at Burhan Chowrasta, where she alleged to have received threats, the officer said.

She claimed she inquired from people of both the communities and they denied the incident. 

“They said Burhan Chowrasta is a very crowded place and it is just not possible that the victim would be treated without a single witness,” she said.

Earlier, in a statement before judicial magistrate on December 11, 2013, she had denied the rape charges resulting into filing of closure report on January 23, last year.

Petition pending

At present, a protest petition against the closure report is also pending before the trial court.

The UP Police had first lodged an FIR on September 23, 2013 on a complaint by the victim’s son alleging robbery and missing of his parents during the communal violence on September 2013.

Two days later, the victim lodged a rape case against five persons but later made statements full of discrepancies before the police and the magistrate.