The SHO, who is currently under suspension and is facing a departmental inquiry, when cross-examined said desp... Read More

(This story originally appeared in on Jul 20, 2018)

PATHANKOT: A day after the body of the eight-year-old Kathua gang-rape victim was discovered outside her village in Jammu in January, a senior police official raised suspicion over the possible involvement of a ‘Devsthan’ (temple) in the area where it was later found that the girl was allegedly held in captivity.

However, the investigating officer of the case convinced his seniors that there was “nothing suspicious” about the private temple, the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Harinagar in Kathua, Suresh Gautam, told a Pathankot court where the rape and murder case is currently being tried. The former investigating officer, sub-inspector Anand Dutta, is facing trial on charges of destruction of evidence.

Gautam said he raised the doubt during a meeting on January 18 called by the senior superintendent of police. The reason for this was the Devsthan was found locked after the incident.

However, Dutta persuaded him and other seniors that he had visited the place on January 12 and found “certain ladies offering prayers”, the official said. The sub-inspector stopped them from examining the place because he had “full knowledge” that the nomad girl was “kept confined therein”, he said.

The SHO, who is currently under suspension and is facing a departmental inquiry, when cross-examined said despite the suspicion he did not instruct his subordinates to seal the place. He is facing the departmental inquiry for not making any efforts to search the missing girl from January 12 to January 17.

In his justification for this, Gautam said that he was “quite busy” in official meetings related to preparations for Republic Day celebrations and due to some shelling in the border areas. He conceded that he did not make any entry in the case diary pertaining to the case between January 13 (after receipt of complaint) and January 17 (the day the body was found).

Significantly, no entry was made with regard to the inquiries he made with the investigating officer. He claimed that his inquiries, about the progress of the case, were “all oral exchange of words” between him and Dutta.

When confronted by the defence, Gautam said he never visited the Devsthan between January 13 and 17. Though claiming that he kept himself abreast of the case by speaking to the investigation officer, the SHO admitted that he never called upon the sub-inspector to submit to him the case diaries for his perusal. This, he submitted, “was a duty cast upon me by virtue of my posting as SHO”.

He further agreed, when questioned by the defence, that the investigation of a case was to be “monitored daily” by the SHO.

He claimed that he was on leave on January 12 and returned the next day. He said he made no efforts to collect any information from the police station on law and order or other incidents during the period of his leave. When questioned by the defence if he was on an unauthorised leave, Gautam replied in the negative.

