Rano
VIP
Chandigarh, July 7
Haryana’s Director-General of Police SPS Rathore today tried to take advantage of non-examination of “witnesses” in the Ruchika molestation case.
As the appeal against the conviction and 18-month sentence awarded to Rathore in the case came up for hearing before Justice Jitendra Chauhan this afternoon, his wife-cum-counsel Abha Rathore claimed non-examination of the persons present at the time of the alleged incident was fatal to the prosecution’s case and sought his acquittal on this very “short ground”.
Abha, assisted by her advocate daughter Priyanjali Rathore, said so many persons were present at the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association office in Panchkula on August 12, 1990, when the alleged incident took place. Yet, they were not made to depose before the trial court. Their testimony was vital for corroborating the testimony of Ruchika’s friend Aradhana, around which the whole case was spun by the prosecution.
The prosecution had failed to even establish Aradhana’s attendance at the time of the alleged incident by not examining her, she insisted in the presence of her father Anand Prakash and their counsel Pankaj Bhardwaj. Ruchika’s father SC Girhotra also attended the hearing in the relatively empty courtroom. Also present was CBI counsel Ajay Kaushik.
Elaborating, Abha said ball boy Paltu, the coach and another person had been left out though they could have come out with the whole truth. Their deposition would have thrown light on the nature of incident. It would have also established whether Aradhana was ever there, for how long she was there, and if she was ever asked to call the coach.
The prosecution should have identified all persons present and gone ahead with their examination, she suggested. The hearing also saw Abha asking the court to draw “adverse inference” in the matter. “Adverse inference” is a legal term suggesting the drawing of “unfavorable deduction by the fact-finder from the failure of a party to produce a normally expected witness”.
By suggesting “adverse inference”, Abha made it clear that the court should take it that the witnesses, if produced, would not have supported the prosecution version. She quoted an apex court judgment to support her contention.
The issue of adverse inference was also raised in the high-profile molestation case involving Punjab’ former DGP KPS Gill. The case will now come up for further hearing on Thursday.
Haryana’s Director-General of Police SPS Rathore today tried to take advantage of non-examination of “witnesses” in the Ruchika molestation case.
As the appeal against the conviction and 18-month sentence awarded to Rathore in the case came up for hearing before Justice Jitendra Chauhan this afternoon, his wife-cum-counsel Abha Rathore claimed non-examination of the persons present at the time of the alleged incident was fatal to the prosecution’s case and sought his acquittal on this very “short ground”.
Abha, assisted by her advocate daughter Priyanjali Rathore, said so many persons were present at the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association office in Panchkula on August 12, 1990, when the alleged incident took place. Yet, they were not made to depose before the trial court. Their testimony was vital for corroborating the testimony of Ruchika’s friend Aradhana, around which the whole case was spun by the prosecution.
The prosecution had failed to even establish Aradhana’s attendance at the time of the alleged incident by not examining her, she insisted in the presence of her father Anand Prakash and their counsel Pankaj Bhardwaj. Ruchika’s father SC Girhotra also attended the hearing in the relatively empty courtroom. Also present was CBI counsel Ajay Kaushik.
Elaborating, Abha said ball boy Paltu, the coach and another person had been left out though they could have come out with the whole truth. Their deposition would have thrown light on the nature of incident. It would have also established whether Aradhana was ever there, for how long she was there, and if she was ever asked to call the coach.
The prosecution should have identified all persons present and gone ahead with their examination, she suggested. The hearing also saw Abha asking the court to draw “adverse inference” in the matter. “Adverse inference” is a legal term suggesting the drawing of “unfavorable deduction by the fact-finder from the failure of a party to produce a normally expected witness”.
By suggesting “adverse inference”, Abha made it clear that the court should take it that the witnesses, if produced, would not have supported the prosecution version. She quoted an apex court judgment to support her contention.
The issue of adverse inference was also raised in the high-profile molestation case involving Punjab’ former DGP KPS Gill. The case will now come up for further hearing on Thursday.
