]A special court set up at Ahmednagar in western Maharashtra under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act on Saturday held all the three accused guilty and convicted them in the sensational 2016 Kopardi minor girl rape and murder case.
After the trial that lasted for nearly 11 months, district Sessions Judge (Mrs) Suvarna Keole held all the three accused --Jitendra alias Pappu Babulal Shinde (26), Santosh Gorkha Bhawal (30) and Nitin Gopinath Bhailume (28) – guilty of charges framed against them under various sections of Indian Penal Code and POSCO Act and convicted them for the rape and murder of a school girl at Kopardi village in Ahmednagar district.
On November 21, the special court will pronounce quantum of sentence on the three convicts after hearing arguments of both the Prosecution and defence lawyers.
A 15-year-old victim girl, who belonged to the dominant Maratha community, was brutally raped between 7.35 pm and 8.15 pm July 13, 2016 and later throttled to death. The victim girl was on her way to bring spice from her grandfather house at that time.
All the three accused in the case are Dalits. The incident, it may be recalled, had sparked widespread protests in the state, with various political parties and Maratha organisations rooting for capital punishment to the accused.
The fast-track court had on November 9 last year framed charges against three accused --- Jitendra Shinde, Santosh Bhawal and Nitin Bhailume --under various sections of POSCO Act and IPC for allegedly perpetrating a sexual assault on the victim girl and strangulating her.
The Prosecution’s case is that the prime accused Jitendra Shinde allegedly raped and murdered the girl, while two other accused Bhawal and Bhailume had “conspired” with Shinde in the heinous crime.
During the trial which began on December 20, 2016, the Prosecution examined 31 witnesses, while defence lawyer defence lawyer Vijayalaxmi Khopade – representing one of the three accused Bhawal in the case – examined one witness.
Expressing his satisfaction over the conviction in the case, Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said that there were no eyewitnesses in the case and that the entire case was based on “circumstantial evidence”, omissions and commissions made by the accused and forensic evidence”.
Nikam, it may be recalled, had -- during his final arguments in the case --adduced 24 pieces of circumstantial evidence built up the chain of events leading to the rape of the “homicidal death” of the victim girl who was studying in the ninth standard.
Talking to “The Pioneer” after the Ahmednagar court convicted all the three accused in the case, Nikam said: “There were no eyewitnesses in the case. The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and also the omissions and commissions committed by the accused which have been accepted by the court. Though the accused may lie, the circumstantial evidences cannot lie. Besides, other forensic evidences also helped clinch the case,” Nikam said.
According to Nikam, the medical evidence helped the Prosecution nail the prime accused in the case. “The dental imprints found on both the breasts of the victim girl matched with that of the accused number one (Jitendra Shinde). The blood group of the victim girl was “A”, while blood group of Shinde is `O’. The blood (group A) found on Shinde’s shirt matched that of the victim girl,” Nikam said.
Earlier, in his final arguments, Nikam had said that it was the prime accused Jitendra Shinde who had raped and throttled the victim girl to death. He had also told the court that though the two of the accused were not physically present at the crime scene, they had conspired with the prime accused in the commission of the heinous act.
Seeking to substantiate the Prosecution’s stand that Bhawal and Bhailume had “conspired” with the accused, Nikam had among other things told the court that the two accused were present along with the prime accused “eve-teased” the victim girl two days prior to the incident and that Shinde had given a “missed” call to Bhilume when the latter and Bhawal were allegedly in the neigbhourbood of the crime scene.
Reacting to the verdict, senior lawyer Balasaheb Khopade -- who had assisted his defence lawyer-daughter Vijayalaxmi Khopade in the case -- said: “Given the public sentiments involved in the case, we were expecting this kind of a verdict from the court. We will take a call on challenging the trial court’s order after going through the final judgement in the case”.
Expressing his “extreme disappointment” over the verdict, another defence lawyer Prakash Aher – who represented Bhailume (accused number three) in the case –said: “I still maintain that my client has been framed in the case. I have a strong reason to believe that the verdict is the result of immense social pressure and political interference in the case. I will reiterate my stand in the case when I argue on the quantum of punishment in the case on November 21”.
Earlier, seeking to demolish the Prosecution’s case, Vijayalaxmi– who represented Bhawal – had in her final arguments questioned the invocation of POSCO Act in the absence of oral or documentary evidence to prove the age of the victim and also contested the Prosecution’s very claim that the complainant – a cousin of the victim --had seen the prime accused Jitendra Shinde after the incident. She had also questioned the claim of another witness – a “purported” classmate whom she called a “ghost” witness – had seen the prime accused eve-teasing the victim girl in the presence of the two co-accused two days prior to the incident.
Vijayalaxmi had also questioned the veracity of the chain of events as narrated by the victim girl’s cousin who has told the court that he had seen the prime accused under a Neem tree near the crime on the night of the incident, that he had chased the prime accused to his residence after the incident, spoken to the mother of the accused and that he had along with other family taken the victim girl to the hospital.
Vijayalaxmi had questioned the admissibility of the site map and photographs of the victim girl and site.
She told the court that these documents were not part of the charge-sheet but were produced before the court during the course of the trial.
On his part, defence lawyer Aher had among other things told the court in his final arguments that he had strong reason to believe that his client had been “framed” in the case because of social pressure and political interference in the case. He had told the court that his client’s name did not figure either in FIR or supplementary statement of one of the witnesses. He had also demanded to know why the either the victim girl father who was in a nearby agricultural field at the time of incident or the grandmother to whose the victim girl was going to fetch spice, had not been examined.
“Hearing the purported shrieks of the victim girl, her father who was in the nearby agricultural field could have definitely come to her rescue. I would like to know as to why the grandmother of the victim girl was not examined despite the fact that the incident had happened when the victim girl was on her way to the old lady (grandmother’s) residence when the incident happened,” Aher had told the court.
Vijaylaxmi and Aher said that there was no medical evidence against their clients. They questioned the authenticity of the eve-teasing incident which, the Prosecution said, had taken place two days prior to the incident.