Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Clothes on the body of the victim, recovered by the police.

51. According to PW­1 “the victim was clad in frock, brief, salwar and vest. The frock was red coloured. The brief was green. The sandow vest was green coloured. The salwar was red coloured as well.”

52. PW­1 also claimed that “at the place of occurrence, the brief was torn and lying apart from her limbs”. He also stated that salwar was lying away from her and that there was blood stain in the salwar and brief. PW­1 claimed that he had taken the salwar.

53. PW­3 claimed that the police recovered and took away the salwar of the victim. Interestingly, PW­3 asserted that he went to the occurrence spot and he found that the victim was wearing a red colour frock and black colour spotted salwar.

54. The Investigation Officer stated during cross­examination that the deceased was wearing a brick colour sandow vest and a violet colour frock on the upper portion of her body. He confirmed that he recovered the salwar from the occurrence spot and that it was a green colour salwar. He further stated that though there was blood on the occurrence spot, no blood was stuck on the green colour salwar. Thus, there were 3 different versions, regarding the colour of the salwar, one by PW­1 that it was red, the second by PW­3 that it was black color spotted and the third by PW­6 that it was green colored. Similarly, there were two different versions regarding the presence of blood on the salwar, one by PW­1 and another by PW­6.

55. A letter dated 27.03.2012 purportedly sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, which formed part of the documents submitted by the police, presumably along with the final report, but which was not marked as Exhibit indicates that the salwar worn by the deceased, with stains of semen on it, was one of the few items sent for forensic examination. But there was no report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory.

56. Strangely, the aforesaid letter dated 27.03.2012 addressed to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, was not sent by the Investigation Officer but by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

“Vaginal smear prepared in two slides from the body of Km. Uma D/o Chhedam Lal, R/o Semgadha, PS Ikauna, Dist: Shravasti.”
70. The second is a Report dated 10.03.2012. It reads as follows:­ “Report­ In microscopic examination of supplied specimen, no spermatozoa seem alive or dead. No (unclear) seen.
71. Despite the fact that the author of the Memo dated 09.03.2012 was examined as PW­5, he never spoke about this. The Report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, to whom the salwar was forwarded, was also not obtained by the Investigating Officer.