HYDERABAD: The Supreme Court lawyer appearing for Telangana before the SC-appointed inquiry commission referred to certain details sought by the panel as irrelevant to the inquiry.
According to the state’s counsel Lata Krishnamurti , details such as time of arrival of police at Chattanpally, mention of the word ‘scene reconstruction’ by the state in GO referring to formation of SIT, number of cops affected by soil allegedly thrown by the accused and if the injured cop was attacked with an iron rod or a stick were irrelevant as the purpose of the commission was to find if the death of the four accused was due to deliberate act by the police on December 6, 2019.
When the commission asked if accused Md Arif managed to throw soil in the eyes of all cops, Krishnamurti responded that how many were affected was not relevant as even a spec of dust in eye could incapacitate a person. On constable Aravindh Goud being hit with an iron rod or stick, the senior lawyer dismissed the commission’s query and said the fact that he was injured was important and not the weapon used.
After it was argued that police team took the accused to Chattanpally on December 6 for recovery of Disha’s articles, commission chairman V S Sirpurkar asked the advocate why the words reconstruction of crime scene appeared in the GO issued for formation of SIT. The advocate claimed that it had no relevance to the events of December 6. But when the commission asked her to read investigating officer (IO) ACP V Surender’s petition before the local court seeking police custody of the accused which mentions crime scene reconstruction, the state’s counsel again claimed that ‘scene reconstruction’ did not mean anything and that the IO had gone there to recover the articles.
Responding to commission’s question on whether the police arrived at Chattanpally at 4.40 am as stated in NHRC statements or at 5.30 am as per the depositions, the advocate said that some may have arrived earlier and others later, adding that such nitty-gritty was suited for trial and was not in the scope of commission formed to inquire into the circumstances in which the four accused were killed.
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
