Delhi Police on Friday asserted before a court here that scientific, medical and other evidence showed beyond doubt that it was the driver of US-based cab service provider, Uber, who had raped a 25-year-old woman executive and also tried to commit unnatural sex with her.
"Scientific, medical and all other evidence showed that this (rape) was done only by this man (Yadav)," Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava argued before Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja who reserved for January 13 the order on framing of charges against accused Shiv Kumar Yadav in the case. The SPP, who was arguing before a special fast track court exclusively set up to deal with cases of sexual offences against women, said even the forensic experts have confirmed that the woman was raped.
He also told the court Yadav, who is now lodged in jail under judicial custody, had tried for committing unnatural sex with the woman but under the 2013 amended provisions of the IPC, it would be covered under the offence of rape. The prosecutor argued that 32-year-old Yadav had changed the route and taken away the woman to a lonely place where he raped her and he is liable to be charged for the offences of abduction and rape. Srivastava said there were injuries on various body parts of the woman and DNA of the accused has also been found on the clothes and body of the victim and at this stage, even on suspicion, the court can frame charges against Yadav.
The counsel appearing for Yadav, however, claimed that as per the medical report of the victim no injury was found on her body and she was tutored before recording of her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before a magistrate. Yadav, who was driving the cab, had allegedly raped the woman on the night of December 5, last year when the victim, who worked for a finance company in Gurgaon, was headed back to her home in Delhi's Inderlok area.
The police had filed the charge sheet against Yadav on December 24, 19 days after the incident, for alleged offences punishable under sections 376(2)(m) (while committing rape causing grievous bodily harm or endangering life of a woman), 366 (kidnapping or abducting woman with an intent to compel her for marriage), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) under the IPC. The defence counsel argued that the woman had told the police that Yadav had threatened to insert a rod if she resisted or raised an alarm, but the investigators have not recovered any iron rod as yet.
To this, the judge said that the woman had nowhere stated in her statement that Yadav had threatened to insert iron rod after showing it to her. Arguing that offence of abduction was not made out against Yadav, the defence counsel said the woman was not forced to sit in the cab and she booked and boarded the taxi of her own. Yadav was arrested on December 7 from Mathura in a joint operation by Delhi and Uttar Pradesh police and produced before the court on December 8.
A metropolitan magistrate on January 5 had taken cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the Delhi Police in the case and committed it to the sessions court for further proceedings. In the charge sheet, the police have said the woman identified Yadav as the one who raped her when she was coming out of a court room in Tis Hazari District courts after recording her statement before a magistrate and saw the accused. It said that on December 8, the victim had gone to record her statement under section 164 of CrPC before Metropolitan Magistrate Riya Guha and saw Yadav while he was coming out from another court where he was produced after his arrest.
It said that Yadav, who was in muffled face, was feeling suffocated and removed the cloth while coming out of the court room and the woman, who, at the same time was coming out from another court room, noticed and identified him. In the charge sheet, the police relied on the forensic evidence and also placed on record the route map of the car in which the offence was committed.
Yadav had refused to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP), saying the woman had already seen his photograph in Uber's website and she would definitely identify him. TIP is a process under the criminal law through which a victim of a crime identifies an accused. The police had also told the court that Yadav was hired by Uber and it had not verified his particulars and they have lodged a case of cheating against the firm.
){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}