'Step-mom' Generates New Controversy in Ruchika Case


Panchkula (Haryana), Jan 11 (IANS) A new controversy has emerged in the Ruchika Girhotra molestation case involving former Haryana police chief S.P.S. Rathore, with a 'mystery' woman, Veena, claiming that she was married to Ruchika's father, S.C. Girhotra. The claim has been dismissed by the lawyer and friends of the Girhotra family.

Veena has told the special investigation team (SIT) of the Haryana police that she was married to Ruchika's father, S.C. Girhotra, between November 1990 and 1995.

SIT sources said that Veena, who is now married to another person and lives in Sector 10 here, had told them during questioning that she was married to Girhotra in November 1990, just three months after Ruchika's molestation by Rathore here Aug 12, 1990, and separated from him in 1995.

Ruchika had committed suicide Dec 28, 1993 three years after the molestation incident.

But the fresh development about Veena coming on to the scene after many years was quickly dismissed by Anand Prakash, father of Ruchika's friend Aradhana who has been fighting the case against Rathore for over 19 years, and by Pankaj Bhardwaj, the victim's lawyer.

"As far as I know, Girhotra was never married to Veena. This character has been brought into this case by Rathore. I don't know under what pressure or allurement she is saying all this. If she was his (Girhotra's) wife, she should come out with proof of the marriage or their divorce," Anand Prakash said.

Pankaj Bhardwaj said: "Her coming on the scene and claiming that she was married to Girhotra will not impact the case, particularly the charge of abetment to suicide against Rathore."

Girhotra had all along claimed that he was never married to Veena. He claimed that she was a governess in his house.

However, his statement before a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Patiala and another statement to a Haryana police deputy inspector general of police (DIG) earlier had said that he was married to Veena.

Veena had signed the police inquest report into Ruchika's death in 1993 as 'Veena Girhotra'.

Rathore's counsel and wife Abha Rathore had told a court here, while seeking anticipatory bail for him, that Girhotra was making false charges against Rathore and was hiding facts about his marriage to Veena.

SIT chief S.S. Kapoor told IANS that the Girhotra family was not cooperating with the SIT investigations into the fresh cases against Rathore.


 

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • Raj, Mangalore

    Mon, Jan 11 2010

    ha ha if anybody has to suicide in this case because of the 2nd marraige it should have been the Mother of Ruchika and not Ruchika.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Ravindranath Shetty, Mangalore/Sharjah

    Mon, Jan 11 2010

    New controversy!!! It took 19years for giving judgment on the case. The judgment and punishment awarded made mockery of our legal system and does not require a legal degree to know that. These days with advanced media coverage more and more cases will come to light and unless our political leadership acts appropriately, it is not very far that public in every city and villages may take the law into their hand.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Lydia Lobo, Kadri

    Mon, Jan 11 2010

    Being another woman in Ruchika's father's life or not does not differ the case of Rathore molesting Ruchika in anyway ! Rathore fell short of raping Ruchika just because her friend Aradhana happen to return just in time. Does Rathore claim to be a saint because he has only ONE wife while Girhotra may or may not have married the second time ? Come to the point man - you are a rapist - that is the least !

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: 'Step-mom' Generates New Controversy in Ruchika Case



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.