A doctor, who had examined the victim in the Uber cab rape case after the incident, today told a Delhi court that scratch marks were found...
A doctor, who had examined the victim in the Uber cab rape case after the incident, today told a Delhi court that scratch marks were found on her neck showing an attempt was made to strangulate her.
Deposing as a prosecution witness, Dr Kaveri of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital said the 25-year-old woman was brought to her on the evening of December 6 last year for a second medical opinion as she was already examined by another doctor.
During her examination by special public prosecutor Atul Shrivastava, the doctor told Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja that scratch marks were found on the victim’s neck, while other injuries found on her body were already mentioned in the medical report prepared by the other doctor earlier.
On being asked by the counsel for 32-year-old Shiv Kumar Yadav as to what was the nature of these scratch marks, the doctor said, “the said scratch marks suggested strangulation”.
She also said the redness found on the woman’s private parts was not due to some infection but because of the sexual assault on her.
During the day, the court also recorded statements of four other witnesses, including Dr Jitendra Nigotia who had examined the accused after his arrest, and P N Singh, an official of Sheikh Sarai Transport authority which had issued driving licence to Yadav.
Witness Gaurav Thakral who had given his mobile handset and SIM card to the accused when they were working in the same company and Delhi Police Inspector Mahesh Kumar were also examined by the court.
The court has now summoned four witnesses, including three Delhi Police officials, for recording their testimonies tomorrow.
Dr Jitendra, who is working at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital, deposed before the court that Yadav was brought by the police for his medical examination on December 8, 2014 at 4 AM and he had examined him.
He said multiple abrasions (scratch marks) were found on Yadav’s face which could have been caused by nails.
The court had earlier recorded the statement of the victim in the case and she had identified Yadav as the one who had raped her on the night of December 5, 2014 when she had hired the cab and was returning home in west Delhi’s Inderlok area.
The woman executive, who stood firm on her stand during her examination earlier, had deposed that the accused had forced upon her and it was not a “consensual” act and she was not able to open the door of the car.
The woman had told the court that on the night of the alleged incident on December 5, 2014, she had raised an alarm but could not save herself as Yadav had overpowered and raped her.
Meanwhile, Yadav, who was also present inside the courtroom, complained to the court that he was being threatened and attacked in the prison van by fellow inmates while being brought for the proceedings. The judge asked his counsel to move a proper application in this regard.
He had earlier also made a similar complaint to the court which had directed the Delhi Police and Tihar Jail authorities to provide security and separate enclosure to Yadav in the prison van.
The court had on January 15 commenced the trial on a daily basis.
The court had framed charges against Yadav under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for alleged offences of endangering a woman’s life while raping her, kidnapping her with an intent to compel her for marriage, criminally intimidating and causing hurt.
The police had filed the charge sheet 19 days after the incident when the victim, working for a finance company in Gurgaon, was headed back home.
Yadav had refused to undergo test identification parade (TIP), saying the woman had already seen his photograph in Uber’s website and she would definitely identify him. TIP is a process under the criminal law through which a victim of a crime identifies an accused.
Yadav was arrested on December 7 last year from Mathura in a joint operation by Delhi and Uttar Pradesh police.
Police had told the court that Yadav was hired by Uber, and claimed that the firm had not verified his particulars. Police has lodged a case of cheating against the firm.