A nine-member fact-finding team on the Hathras rape and murder case has found that the state took elaborate steps to suppress the truth and close the case.
Members of the team, which released its report on Tuesday, included Narmada Bachchao Andolan activist Medha Patkar, Magsaysay awardee Sandeep Pandey, RTI activist and writer Mani Mala and two members of the Delhi solidarity group.
The government’s desperation to cover up the incident was clear when the victim’s father was called to the District Magistrate in Hathras and questioned.
“More than listening to his (victim’s father) replies, an unclear message given to him on the very next day of the incident that he and the family should convey to all about their being satisfied with the enquiry and the treatment both. This itself conveys the state was preparing to suppress the truth and close the case forever. Things changed after the civil society and a group of courageous media started raising the issue and bringing out the truth. No doubt the judiciary also had to hear, if not do justice, with due urgency, when the common citizens, not just activists also started reacting to the brutalities as well as the State’s misleading deeds and statements (sic),” the report read.
Medha Patekar called the chain of events and the twists and turns in the case “surprising” and “anger inducing”.
“The manner in which every organisation and official involved in the case was manipulated is a clear indication that the state government was committed to protecting the guilty,” she said.
Magsaysay awardee Sandeep Pandey said that the crime was symptomatic of the larger malaise in the state. “This state is ruled by a supremacist who thinks he knows everything. He is not ready to change even in light of his mistakes,” he said.
As per the report, the victim was not, as claimed by the accused, in any kind of relationship with one of them. “… it had come out that (the victim) was being harassed by the accused men from the family, Sandeep and others since past 6 months. She was once pulled by him near the field but had escaped. The family, however, was very categorical in refusing to accept the false story of some communication as also relation between Sandeep and (the victim) who were in touch through phones and therefore she was killed by her own family, which was honour killing! They, especially, the women…(in the victim’s family), appeared to be pained even when they had to hear the same and respond to questions from the media as well as supporters.”
The report condemns the behaviour of the state police.
“There is no doubt that the police of Uttar Pradesh behaved in a highly suspicious as well as vicious manner, beyond anyone’s expectation and they have, thereby created all doubts about their intentions. The reasoning, which the state government was compelled to present, when there was condemnation coming in from all quarters, was that they wished to avoid violence by getting rid of the body. None can believe this as the police can’t, themselves, declare their inability to protect the victim and to prevent any untoward incident. Rather such an awfully inhuman and criminal act on the part of the state with no repentance, nor any response to our serious questions or legal challenge, has proved that the state itself wanted to suppress the issue with casteist, manuvadi and inhuman anti-woman elements exposed through this and other incidences in Unnao, Balarampur, or Azamgarh cases, before and after (sic),” the report further read.
“All this and much more has brought out the violent to vulgar politics in Uttar Pradesh which is protecting and promoting all such sections of population such as the upper caste oppressive forces, that are blatantly violating legal, Constitutional and human rights. In this case too, the matter before the Court through various petitions, need to be taken up (sic),” it read.
Ehtesham Hashmi, an advocate who practices before the Supreme Court of India and a member of the fact-finding team, suggested that cases for destruction of evidence must be registered against officials.
“If it is proved that appropriate and timely investigation did not take place leading to destruction of evidence, then criminal cases should be filed against all such officials,” he said.
