Chandigarh, December 25
The Ruchika molestation case is different from the Jessica murder case and the Priyadarshini Mattoo case in one respect. While in the Jessica murder case and the Mattu murder case, justice to the families of the victims came from the higher judiciary, when the accused were set free by the trial courts, in the Ruchika molestation case, the higher judiciary provided relief to former Haryana DGP Shambhu Pratap Singh Rathore, the accused, from time to time, by quashing the orders of the lower courts.

Taking suo moto notice of a Tribune report on how Ruchika’s brother Ashu was harassed and implicated in false cases by the Ambala police, Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered the then District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, S.N. Aggarwal (who was later elevated to the Bench) to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.

After recording statements of all witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by a leading criminal lawyer Ajay Jain on behalf of Rathore, Aggarwal submitted his report in a sealed cover to the High Court.

But before the report could become public, the Supreme Court accepted a plea of Rathore and quashed the High Court order asking Aggarwal to enquire into the harassment of Ashu. The Aggarwal report remains wrapped in the sealed cover till date.

Those who are now demanding an inquiry into the harassment of Ashu and action against those policemen, who implicated him in false cases, should move the apex court urging it to review its decision of quashing the order of Mr Justice Gill.

Similarly, the CBI judge at Ambala Jagdev Singh Dhanjal had added Section 306, IPC (abetment to suicide) against Rathore, even though the CBI had not pressed this charge against the former DGP in its challan.

However, the High Court quashed the trial court’s order and, hence, Rathore was tried only on the charge of molestation (Section 354, IPC).

The High Court repeatedly transferred the Ruchika molestation trial from Ambala to Patiala and then to Chandigarh on the request of Rathore, who always expressed an apprehension that he would not get a fair trial. The repeated transfer applications added to the delay in the outcome of the trial.