Disha case: Probe panel finds lacunae in legal procedure
![On December 12, 2019, the four accused of raping and murdering Disha reportedly tried to escape from police custody while the police were reconstructing the crime scene at Chatanpally in Ranga Reddy district. (DC file image) On December 12, 2019, the four accused of raping and murdering Disha reportedly tried to escape from police custody while the police were reconstructing the crime scene at Chatanpally in Ranga Reddy district. (DC file image)](https://s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/images.deccanchronicle.com/dc-Cover-91rl3penorle42j74uoo8nc7e1-20210819223928.Medi.jpeg)
HYDERABAD: Police custody was given to the Cyberabad cops by the magistrate in Shadnagar without physically meeting the accused men, without talking to them and medically examining their condition, the commission formed by the Supreme Court to probe the alleged ‘encounter’ in the Disha case found out on Monday.
Further details about how the four accused, Mohammed Arif, Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Ch. Chennakesavulu (A1 to A4), were not even asked if they wanted an attorney to defend their case were revealed during the cross examining of the additional junior civil judge cum 1st class additional judicial magistrate, Shadnagar P. Shyamprasad on Monday.
The panel asked Shyamprasad how he could sign off the custodial petition without physically examining the four accused for a 15-day remand instead of seven days. He was also asked how did he ascertain that it was their signatures on the requisition, to which he responded that he tallied the same with their names and believed the jailor of Cherlapally Central Prison, who had attested the signatures.
The commission said as per the protocol, the remand requisition was signed after examining the witnesses under section 50 and 50 (A) of the CrPC, checking medical certificates, asking them about ill-treatment by police etc, which was not followed in the case.
The panel also found out that the notices were served to the accused by the police, without giving them a chance to request for a defence attorney. It was further revealed that the court did not record any confessions as per the rule.