Aafreen's husband, Najeeb told The Quint, "We wanted the case to move out of Muzaffarnagar. We knew there was no way we could get a fair trial here. But no one listened."

"The lawyers knew we were settling and asked us not to. But they live in Delhi and we live in Muzaffarnagar. They do not understand the pressure we live under," Haji Ali added.

As early as in March 2014, six months after the riots, the SC's directions pointed towards early concerns in the investigation. The top court directed the Special Investigation Cell to arrest and produce before the court all persons in a time-bound manner, to compensate rape survivors with Rs 5 lakh each, and to record the statement of the victims under Section 164 before a lady magistrate even if the statement has been recorded before. The court also directed the state to provide other schemes applicable for their betterment and to continue their normal occupation.

While the compensation was given and statements were re-recorded, these women continued to live in the same vicinity as their alleged rapists.

"Witness protection has to be formulated and implemented in a holistic manner so the most marginalised and vulnerable are able to withstand coercion and pressure. As the counsel for these victims of gang rape in 2015 and 2016, on the first two occasions that Aafreen appeared before the Court to give her evidence, I had accompanied her, but on both occasions, the Court granted adjournments sought by the accused. On the second occasion, I filed an application opposing the adjournments along with an affidavit by Aafreen where she clearly and categorically stated that she was extremely fearful that the delay being caused by the accused would enable them to pressurise and intimidate her.”

It was within a year of submitting this document in 2015 that she changed her statement.