Speaking to The Indian Express, the girl’s mother questioned the police conclusion, saying, “If police have not taken any sample from my husband and me for DNA or forensic analysis, how did they conclude that the skeleton is my daughter’s?”
The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday raised questions over the police investigation in the case of an 18-year-old girl who was reported missing eight months ago. Last week, police found skeletal remains that they said were the girl’s, but the High Court has questioned the basis of their conclusion.
Hearing a writ petition filed by the girl’s mother, a Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad questioned the claim upon being informed that “skeleton of the corpus has been recovered”.
The petitioner’s counsel disputed the identification in the court, submitting that there was “serious doubt that the skeleton… appears to be not of the corpus”, and pointed to photographs placed on record in a supplementary affidavit.
Taking note, the court asked the state, “What is the basis to come to the conclusion that the skeleton… is of the corpus?” The court further sought to know “whether the sample(s) of the family member(s) has been collected… for DNA profiling”.
In response, the state counsel submitted that such details were “lacking in the affidavit which is to be filed”.
The court also noted that the Director General of Police, appearing virtually, stated that she had “no authentic idea” about whether samples had been collected or about the forensic steps taken in the case. It further noted that while “something has been sent to the FSL”, the DGP was unaware of what exactly had been forwarded.
Speaking to The Indian Express, the girl’s mother questioned the police conclusion, saying, “If police have not taken any sample from my husband and me for DNA or forensic analysis, how did they conclude that the skeleton is my daughter’s?”
Story continues below this ad
She also raised doubts about the condition and location of the remains. “The photos we have seen do not look like remains that are eight to nine months old. They seem older than a year. The bones were found scattered in different areas; even the jaw was separated. How is that possible?” she asked.
Questioning the recovery site, she added, “The skeleton was not found buried inside the soil. It was lying above the ground, behind trees. In the last eight to nine months, how did no one see it?”
Petitioner’s counsel Vincent Rohit Marki told The Indian Express that these concerns are serious and that the investigation should be conducted properly. “What is the basis of concluding that the remains are of the girl?” he asked.
On April 9, while hearing a habeas corpus plea, the High Court had flagged police inaction in connection with the missing person case, observing that there was no “sincere endeavour” to trace the girl and terming the police approach “contemptuous” and an interference with the administration of justice. It had also taken note of allegations that family members of the girl were harassed, threatened and coerced during the investigation.
Story continues below this ad
Two days later, police claimed to have recovered skeletal remains from a forested area behind a local college, purportedly after being informed by the main accused, Dinesh Mahto. The Bokaro SP had said the accused confessed during interrogation.
Following this, the district police suspended 28 personnel, from constables to the officer-in-charge of the local police station, citing negligence in the earlier investigation and suspicion of attempts to benefit the accused.
Taking a serious view of the matter, the High Court directed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, along with the IG, Bokaro, DIG Bokaro, SP, Bokaro, and the SIT to be present physically before it with the entire case record and updated case diary.
The court also summoned the director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, noting the lack of clarity on what had been sent for examination.
Story continues below this ad
Further, it ordered that the entire record pertaining to the local police station be produced before it through a special messenger.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 16.
