Delhi: The Indian Supreme Court said on Tuesday ruled that the CBI investigation in the Hathras case will be monitored by the Allahabad high court.
The apex court said that all the aspects of the case, wherein a Dalit girl was brutally raped by 4 Thakur men and died of injuries – would be considered by the high court including monitoring the probe and providing security to the deceased’s family as well as the witnesses.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde said the plea for transfer of trial in the case from out of Uttar Pradesh would be considered after the CBI probe is over, according to a report by the Indian news agency, PTI.
The top court said that the CBI will file the status report in the case before the high court. It is imperative to note that it had also passed the verdict on a batch of pleas by activists and lawyers claiming that a fair trial is not possible in Uttar Pradesh as the probe has allegedly been ‘botched up’.
Considering the request of the Uttar Pradesh government, the bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian asked the Allahabad high court to delete the victim’s name from one of its orders on a PIL pending there.
The verdict on the pleas in the matter was reserved by the apex court on October 15th.
The lawyer appearing for the deceased’s family had told the top court that trial in the case is shifted out of Uttar Pradesh to a court in the national capital after completion of the investigation.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta had referred to the affidavit filed in the apex court by the Uttar Pradesh government which gave details about the security and protection provided to the victim’s family and witnesses in the case.
The state government, which has already transferred the case to the CBI and given consent to monitoring by the apex court, had filed the affidavit after the top court sought details on witness protection and whether the victim’s family has chosen a lawyer.
Referring to the compliance affidavit, Mehta had said that they have ‘engaged a lawyer’ and also requested that a government advocate should also ‘pursue the case on their behalf’.