In Hathras case hearing, HC asked, "Who uploaded wrong picture of victim"
UP Hathras Rape Case 2020:
The Hathras incident of Uttar Pradesh adjoining the capital Delhi is once again in discussion. On 14 September 2020, a 19-year-old Dalit lady was assaulted in Hathras region, Uttar Pradesh, India, allegedly by four upper caste men. Subsequent to battling for her life for about fourteen days, she passed on in a Delhi emergency clinic. It involved a gang-rape of a young woman, who is undergoing trial in the CBI court. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court has asked the central government as well as Internet media platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter, who finally uploaded the wrong photo and video of the Hathras rape victim. On a petition, a bench of Justice Pratiba M Singh issued a notice to the media platform including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to file a reply in the sealed cover.
The Delhi High Court bench gave the above order on the application filed by the husband of the deceased woman on the main petition. The petitioner alleged that the picture of his dead wife was circulated on the media platform after revealing the picture of the Hathras victim.
In January, Facebook, Google and Twitter had told the court that they have blocked all the links which falsely refer to the photo of the deceased woman as Hathras. The petitioner's lawyers told the bench that a victim cannot be expected to provide links to it.
Significantly, the CBI has filed a chargesheet in the case of gang-rape of a Dalit girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The four accused in the charge sheet have been accused by the CBI of gangrape and murder. At the same time, according to the lawyer Munna Singh Pundir's the four accused, Sandeep, Lavkush, Ravi and Ramu, have been charged with rape and murder. The lawyer said that CBI has also made allegations against the accused under the SC / ST Act. Explain that the CBI has made the last statement of the victim as the basis of the charge sheet. The lawyer said that the CBI has filed a charge sheet against the four people accused in the case under sections 325-SC / ST Act, 302, 354, 376A and 376D of the IPC.