HYDERABAD: A judicial magistrate has admitted before the SC-appointed inquiry commission, probing the alleged encounter killing of four accused in the veterinary doctor gang-rape and murder case, that he gave custody of the four to police “without seeing the accused and without talking to them”.
The case relates to the gang-rape and murder of a young veterinary doctor in November 2019. Her burnt body was found on the outskirts of Hyderabad leading to widespread outrage.
Deposing before the inquiry commission on Monday, first additional junior civil judge-cum-first additional judicial first class magistrate of Shadnagar, P Shyam Prasad, stated that though the accused were not produced before him in person, he presumed that they did not seek legal aid as no prison official had turned up before him when he heard the police custody plea.
The four accused were later killed in an alleged encounter at Chattanpally on December 6, 2019, while they were in police custody.
The judicial magistrate was asked several questions about the procedure followed by him while granting police custody of the accused on December 2, 2019.
The commission’s advocate and members based their questions on the affidavit filed by the judicial magistrate before them, where it was stated the accused were issued notices pertaining to the requisition filed by the Shadnagar ACP seeking their custody. The magistrate answered, “Police had only served the notices upon the four accused.” Answering another question, the magistrate said that the accused were not produced before him by police while seeking custody and he did not ask ask them the reasons for not doing so.
Referring to another point in the affidavit, the magistrate was asked how did he state that the accused neither filed any counter to the custody notice nor engaged any counsel to oppose the custody petition when they were not produced before him. Shyam Prasad stated: “If the accused intend to file a counter, they generally send a jailor. As I did not receive any counter through the jailor, I presumed that no counter was filed.”
As the final question, the panel asked the magistrate “how many times did you give police custody without seeing the accused, without talking to them and without any reports being brought regarding them”, the magistrate answered, “One or two times.”
On a question about intimating the family about the custody petition, the magistrate said he went by the judicial remand report of the executive magistrate (tehsildar) in which it was stated family members were informed under CrPC Section 50-A.
HYDERABAD: A judicial magistrate has admitted before the SC-appointed inquiry commission, probing the alleged encounter killing of four accused in the veterinary doctor gang-rape and murder case, that he gave custody of the four to police “without seeing the accused and without talking to them”. The case relates to the gang-rape and murder of a young veterinary doctor in November 2019. Her burnt body was found on the outskirts of Hyderabad leading to widespread outrage. Deposing before the inquiry commission on Monday, first additional junior civil judge-cum-first additional judicial first class magistrate of Shadnagar, P Shyam Prasad, stated that though the accused were not produced before him in person, he presumed that they did not seek legal aid as no prison official had turned up before him when he heard the police custody plea. The four accused were later killed in an alleged encounter at Chattanpally on December 6, 2019, while they were in police custody. The judicial magistrate was asked several questions about the procedure followed by him while granting police custody of the accused on December 2, 2019. The commission’s advocate and members based their questions on the affidavit filed by the judicial magistrate before them, where it was stated the accused were issued notices pertaining to the requisition filed by the Shadnagar ACP seeking their custody. The magistrate answered, “Police had only served the notices upon the four accused.” Answering another question, the magistrate said that the accused were not produced before him by police while seeking custody and he did not ask ask them the reasons for not doing so. Referring to another point in the affidavit, the magistrate was asked how did he state that the accused neither filed any counter to the custody notice nor engaged any counsel to oppose the custody petition when they were not produced before him. Shyam Prasad stated: “If the accused intend to file a counter, they generally send a jailor. As I did not receive any counter through the jailor, I presumed that no counter was filed.” As the final question, the panel asked the magistrate “how many times did you give police custody without seeing the accused, without talking to them and without any reports being brought regarding them”, the magistrate answered, “One or two times.” On a question about intimating the family about the custody petition, the magistrate said he went by the judicial remand report of the executive magistrate (tehsildar) in which it was stated family members were informed under CrPC Section 50-A.