The controversy over the ages of three of four accused who allegedly gang-raped and murdered Disha, a 27-year-old veterinary doctor, is now a settled matter after the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Sirpurkar Commission concluded that they were minors at the time of their arrest and death in an exchange of fire in the wee hours of December 6, 2019. It also said that the police were well aware of their ages.
“As regards the claim of juvenility of the four deceased suspects, it is claimed by their relatives that they were minors at the time of their arrest and death. As per the available records, it can be conclusively stated that Mohammed Arif was aged 26 on December 06, 2019, and therefore, the question of him being a minor at the relevant point does not arise,” the Commission’s report read.
During their inquiry, the panel went through various documents, including Bonafide certificates and school admission registers of Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Ch. Chennakeshavalu. “In our considered view, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Head Master and other witnesses who not only identified the relevant entries pertaining to the deceased but also have deposed that they knew the family of the deceased persons,” it read.
The commission stated that even police knew that the three were minors as they went to the school, and checked the admission registers. “This clearly suggests that the police were well aware of the school records of Shiva and Chennakeshavulu and yet have not recorded their ages according to the admission registers at any given point of time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at the relevant time, Naveen, Shiva, and Chennakeshavulu were minors,” the report read.
The Sirpurkar Commission also mentioned that several lapses were there from the arrest of the accused to their death and there seem to have been deliberate attempts to suppress the truth.
It also took a dig at the lower judiciary for serious violations of law at the time of granting police custody of the accused.
“The order granting police custody by CW-37 (P. Shyam Prasad, the Additional Civil Judge, Shadnagar) leaves much to be desired. He seems to have come to a conclusion to grant police custody without perusing any documents apart from the petition of police custody. In fact, he does not even insist for the production of relevant documents by the police, especially those collected between November 30, 2019, and December 2, 2019,” the members told SC in their report.
More importantly, the deceased suspects were neither produced before CW-37 nor were they represented by a counsel. This should have raised questions whether the deceased suspects were even served notice, however, CW-37 fails to satisfy himself on this front, the Commission members stated in their report.
Further, there was neither a public prosecutor nor a police officer present during the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, it read. “Strangely, in the absence of any lawyers appearing in the petition, the order records ‘heard arguments’. Thus it is evident that there are several irregularities,” the report added.
