It is not just the allegations of rape that self-styled godman Asaram faces. In the charge sheet filed against him before the chief judicial magistrate in Gandhinagar on January 9, he has been charged with having unnatural sex in the form of oral sex (under section 377 of Indian Penal Code) with the Surat-based victim (who lodged the case) and six other girls.
The charge sheet mentions that the victim was taken to Asaram in 2001 when the accused had engaged in oral sex with her. It also mentions a similar incident of 2005. “In 2005, Asaram had called the victim and six other girls to Modasa ashram where he performed oral sex with the victim and the other girls,” the charge sheet mentions.
The summary of the charge sheet mentions the criminal act by the main accused with the help of Bharti (daughter of Asaram), Laxmi (his wife), Nirmala alias Dhel, Mira alias Baglo, Dhruvi and Jashuben alias Jassi in the case.
The investigating team has filed a 1,000-page charge sheet against Asaram and six others in the alleged rape case of a Surat-based girl. According to the police, they have statements of around 100 witnesses to support the case of rape and conspiracy to rape against the godman.
In the charge sheet, police also submitted that Asaram has changed the room of the first incident — at Shanit Vatika or farm house. “As per the estate records, approved plan and personal visit to the room of the farm house, it appears that the accused has changed it to destroy evidences.
Therefore, he is also charged under section 201 of IPC,” states the charge sheet.
According to the charge sheet, between 2001 and 2007, Asaram repeatedly sexually abused the victim with the help of other accused in the case. Complainant also mentioned that because of influential personality and repeated threats to kill her, she was not able to narrate or complain about this earlier.
Meanwhile, the court on Wednesday fixed January 29 as further date of hearing the case to provide facility of a chartered flight to Asaram. The police, however, are opposing the application stating that the Gandhinagar court does not have the power and jurisdiction to extend such a facility as the accused is under the custody of Jodhpur police.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}