Family of Kathua victim drops lawyer, says she seldom came to court
Pathankot, Nov 15: The family of the eight-year-old girl who was raped and murdered in Kathua has removed lawyer Deepika Rajawat as their advocate on record, saying she seldom appeared for hearings in the case, officials informed Thursday.
The plea was moved Wednesday by the family before the court of district and sessions judge here which is hearing the case day-to-day following directions from the Supreme Court.
The court has issued notice to Rajawat, asking her to respond to the plea moved by her clients by November 20, officials said.
The father of the victim, who was identified and produced before the judge by advocate Mubeen Farooky, informed the court that he was withdrawing the agreement given in favour of Rajawat as she seldom appeared during the daily hearings which have been going on for the last five months.
The victim is already being represented by the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The case is being argued by two lawyers from the state and Pathankot District Attorney Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra.
The eight-year-old girl, belonging to a nomadic tribe, was allegedly kidnapped on January 10 and her body was found on January 17. It is alleged that she was gang-raped and later murdered.
The Jammu and Kashmir Crime Branch has arrested eight people, including a juvenile in the case.
The charge sheet has been filed against main accused Sanji Ram and his juvenile nephew, his son Vishal, special police officers Deepak Khajuria and Surender Verma and friend Parvesh Kumar alias Mannu. It also names head constable Tilak Raj and sub-inspector Anand Dutta -- who allegedly took Rs 4 lakh from Sanji Ram and destroyed crucial evidence.
The district and sessions court in Pathankot framed charges of rape and murder against seven accused (except the juvenile) in the case on June 8.
Sanji Ram is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy with the other accused for kidnapping the girl as part of a strategy to remove the minority nomadic community from the area.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'How can an accused seek police protection': Uttarakhand High Court asks 'Mohd Deepak'
_vb_44.jpeg)
Nainital (PTI): The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday reprimanded gym operator Deepak Kumar, who shot into the limelight as “Mohammad Deepak” for taking on Bajrang Dal activists allegedly harassing a Muslim shopkeeper, and asked how can an accused seek police protection.
A single-bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing Kumar's plea seeking quashing of the FIR, verbally reprimanded him, objecting to his inclusion of unnecessary requests like seeking police protection and action against police officers for alleged 'biased' conduct.
The bench termed such petitions as pressure tactics aimed at influencing the ongoing investigation and sensationalising the entire matter.
The court also questioned the petitioner's justification for seeking police protection when he himself is a "suspected accused."
The court on Tuesday directed the state authorities to file status reports on the action taken in all the FIRs related to the incident.
A case has been registered against Kumar for rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace in connection with an incident that occurred on January 26 in Kotdwar.
Deepak Kumar allegedly clashed with Bajrang Dal members who objected to a Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, naming his shop "Baba" in Kotdwar. A video of the incident went viral on social media.
Kumar has approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
In the petition, Kumar also requested the court direct the registration of an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS against those who allegedly made the hate speeches. The petition also requests police protection for Kumar and his family and a departmental inquiry against police officers allegedly responsible for partisan conduct.
During the hearing, the high court expressed concern about the validity of such petitions, saying they were a way to "pressure the investigating agency."
The investigating officer also stated that the petitioner was not in any danger.
The high court questioned the petitioner's rationale for requesting protection despite being a suspected accused himself.
The court remarked that the petitioner is a 'suspected accused' today, and how can a person who is under investigation and is a 'suspected accused' receive police protection.
The bench stated that such relief at this stage is completely unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to pressure the investigating agency.
The court also took a serious view of the request for a departmental inquiry against the police officers and remarked that in the absence of any evidence on record to prove the allegations, making such a request while the inquiry was pending was merely an attempt to influence the proceedings.
During the hearing, it was brought to the court's attention that two FIRs were registered based on the petitioner's complaint. If there is any such complaint, it will also be presented to the court on Friday.
During the hearing, the high court also inquired about the funds the petitioner allegedly received from his supporters following the incident.
According to Deepak, he received approximately Rs 80,000 in donations after the incident, following which he ceased all activity on the account.
_vb_42.jpeg)
