- Home
- NG Hindi
- India
- World
- Culture
- Politics
- Lifestyle
- Entertainment
- Economy
- Sports
- Sp. Coverage
- Misc.
- NewsGram Exclusive
- Jobs / Internships
By Manoj Thakur
Yamunagar, Haryana: “The family changed their statement in court. I thought the rapist would walk free,” Assistant Sub Inspector Vedpal Singh (55) still remembers that moment inside the courtroom on June 14, 2019, like it was yesterday. “The judge kept looking at me, expecting an answer. I went blank for a minute,” Singh told 101Reporters.
The family of a 13-year-old minor rape victim had retracted their statement, leaving the judge, the prosecution, and Singh stunned. The case, already fragile, was on the verge of collapse.
“I went home that day and couldn’t sleep… I kept thinking about how I could get justice for the girl and the unborn foetus,” he said. The child was five months pregnant when the case was first reported in March 2019.
On June 15, 2019, Singh returned to the fast track court with an unusual appeal: a request for a DNA test on the preserved foetus to establish the identity of the rapist.
The judge accepted his request and ordered the DNA test to be conducted within 15 days.
When the results came back, they confirmed what Singh had known all along: the accused was the biological father of the unborn child—and the perpetrator of the crime.
On July 25, 2019, the court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 30,000.
Ordinarily, in cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the victim’s testimony is considered the most critical piece of evidence.
“This case was different,” Singh said. “It came with no confession, no eyewitnesses, no details from the victim, and no forensic evidence from the crime scene.”
The case came to light on March 15, 2019, when the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh informed the Yamunanagar police that a teenage girl from Jagadhri had come in seeking an abortion. As is standard in cases involving minors, the hospital alerted the police and referred the girl to a child counsellor.
“The girl was unable to provide a clear account of what had happened,” ASI Singh recalled. She did not identify her rapist and her family remained equally silent. Even the location of the assault was unclear. The case had gone cold before it could even properly begin.
That’s when Singh’s instincts took over.
“I felt there was one proof, the foetus,” he said.
At the time, Singh wasn’t even sure a foetus could be preserved as evidence. He approached his senior, Superintendent of Police Kanwaldeep Goyal, with the idea.
Goyal agreed and immediately looped in the Health Department and senior doctors at PGIMER. “It wasn’t an easy decision,” Goyal said. “But Vedpal remained in contact with everyone, and it was done.”
Vedpal admits he didn’t fully understand how the preserved foetus could eventually become such key evidence. But his gut told him it might be the only chance.
With the foetus preserved but no name provided by the victim, identifying the accused became the biggest challenge.
“During counselling the girl kept repeating that she met three young men on way back home who took her to a secluded spot where one of them raped her. She said she did not recognise any one of them,” Singh said
The police followed standard POCSO protocols—minimal questioning, trauma-informed communication, and full confidentiality—but the girl remained silent.
The counselling team sensed that the 13-year-old was under immense pressure and was intimidated. “Through her statements we could ascertain that it wasn’t a single incident of rape but a case of repeated sexual exploitation. The counsellors also suspected that she was deliberately giving false information to protect someone.”
“My experience was telling me that the accused in this case was a member of the family,” Singh said.
He began watching the movements of the girl’s close relatives, especially the men. By April 5, he had zeroed in on one person: her cousin, a 27-year-old man and the son of her maternal uncle.
“Wherever the victim went, he followed,” Singh explained. “He came to every counselling session, hung around trying to learn what was being said inside, and was visibly nervous the entire time.”
It was clear that any direct move to detain the man would backfire. The victim’s family, already reluctant to cooperate, might accuse the police of harassment. “We would need something concrete…evidence strong enough to justify questioning the cousin, even if the family turned against the investigation,” he said.
“We prepared a meticulous graph of the cousin’s movements,” Singh recalled.
The police also gathered mobile location data, tracking his movements in relation to the victim’s. A detailed report was prepared, outlining every instance where his behaviour raised red flags. The police brought the cousin in for routine questioning on April 15, 2019. As expected, the victim’s family immediately protested, accusing the police of targeting an innocent man.
“We knew formal interrogation wouldn’t be possible unless we had official custody,” Singh said. Using the location records and behaviour pattern as supporting evidence, the police submitted a formal application in the fast-track court to take the cousin into custody. Once the court approved it, he was arrested.
In custody, the 27-year-old confessed. “But, a confession made in police custody doesn’t hold up in court unless it’s supported by independent evidence,” he explained. “The defence can easily argue it was coerced. The accused can retract it at any time.”
Singh said: “However, once the victim’s family realised that the cousin was behind the crime, their stance shifted. They began cooperating with the police.”
On March 25, 2019, the victim finally gave her formal statement. With the case now appearing open-and-shut, the accused was sent to jail, and the full charge sheet was submitted to the fast-track court.
But things unraveled when the court proceedings began.
The defence accused the police of framing the accused. They claimed he was innocent and that the police had coerced the family into giving false statements. The victim’s family echoed this in court.
Explaining the legal roadblock in the case, government advocate Guldev Tandon said: “Solid evidence is something the defence cannot challenge, it must leave no room for doubt.” In rape cases, this typically means physical evidence like semen, hair, torn clothing, or injury marks. “That’s only possible when the case reaches the police immediately after the incident,” he said.
In this case, no such opportunity existed.
“Singh asked me to file an appeal for the test on foetus. We felt we could build the case on DNA,” Tandon said.
This single piece of evidence turned the entire case around proving that the cousin was guilty.
Singh said: “When the judgment was announced, I understood what it means to act with presence of mind. That decision—to preserve the foetus—was made on instinct, but it changed everything.”
This article is republished from 101 Reporters under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(101Reporters/NS)
Also Read:
