Prosecution, defence debate over identity of victim’s father

DEFENCE COUNSEL TERMS IT A CASE OF IMPERSONATION AS HE IS NOT VICTIM’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER

PATHANKOT: The prosecution and the defence counsel in the Kathua rape and murder of an eight-year old nomadic girl debated over the identity of the victim’s father in the court of the district and sessions judge Tejwinder SIngh here on Saturday.

The defence counsel termed it a clear-cut case of impersonation as the victim’s father, appearing in the court, who also registered a missing case, in Hiranagar on January 17, was not a biological father of the victim.

Special public prosecutors, however, claimed that the prosecution was never in doubt about the identity of the father of the victim and claimed that the defence was needlessly trying to take the case off the track.

The defence counsel, while cross-examining the father of the victim, asked him if he was the biological parent or not. The father claimed that he had adopted the girl child and the girl was his brother’s daughter. “As it was not mentioned in the FIR that the victim was living with her adopted parents, so it means that it was a case was of impersonation as the real name of the father of the victim was Mohammad Akhtar, whose whereabouts are not known,” defence counsel AK Sawhney said. Special public prosecutor Santokh Singh Basra said that the defence was unnecessarily confusing things.

JK Chopra, the other special public prosecutor, claimed that the victim was adopted by the couple when it had lost three out of four children and were left with just one son.