Probe in rape of trafficked minor stuck for want of evidence

The probe in alleged gangrape of a trafficked minor by six policemen is stuck for want of comprehensive statement of the victim, over two months after a Delhi court pulled up police for not taking steps to identify the accused in the case.
With the police still looking into the aspect of sexual assault, the court has framed charges of kidnapping against two persons who allegedly brought the girl from West Bengal to Delhi without the consent of her parents.
While framing charges in the case, the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate noted that, "As of now, there is nothing to relate the present accused persons with commission of the offence of rape. The police is still probing the role of other accused persons including the employer."

"The court has already taken note of the fact that for want of comprehensive statement�of�victim�to the magistrate, which could not be concluded in right earnest due to counselling sessions, the role of six police officials as well as of the present accused persons regarding sexual assault on the victim is unestablished," the ACMM said.
The case pertains to a minor girl hailing from Jalpaiguri in West Bengal who was allegedly trafficked to the capital by Geeta Lakra, 24, and Jawahar Lakra, 22 and allegedly raped by six policemen in a police station here.
She had reported the incident of alleged sexual assault to an NGO and doctors who were counselling her, but had failed to give a comprehensive statement to the police about the incident.

The court had in January pulled up the police for not making attempts to identify the accused police personnel.

As per the FIR, the Lakras had coerced the girl into coming to Delhi with them and handed her over to the third accused Gul Mohammed, 40, to be employed at his office here.
The FIR was registered under section 376 IPC (rape), but none of the accused was charge sheeted for the offence.
The police had booked two accused for kidnapping, concealment of the minor and also under the Juvenile Justice Act for forcing her into hazardous employment.