Counsel: Chinmayanand would tear victim's clothes each time she resisted him

Shahjahanpur, Oct 1: Chinmayanand used to tear the clothes of the law student whenever she resisted his sexual advances.

The district government counsel Anuj Singh has said that according to the law student's statement, the former minister used to tear her clothes whenever she refused to remove them on her own, which is why they slapped IPC Section 354D (follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman) on Chinmayanand.

During the hearing of Chinmayanand's bail plea on Monday, the SIT also submitted that there were four persons, including the security guard of the BJP leader's ashram who confirmed that the law student used to often visit 'Divya Dhaam'.

According to the woman's complaint, she was repeatedly raped inside a room in Chinmayanand's ashram. The videos of the massage sessions were also shot in this room.

"In her complaint given to SIT via the Delhi Police and statement recorded under 161 and 164 CrPC, the complainant said many times that she was repeatedly raped by Chinmayanand. He used to tear her clothes whenever she refused to submit. There were several circumstantial evidence to support the allegations of the complainant, who was a student of the college and a faculty in the college's computer lab but she was asked to come to Divya Dhaam, which is not an educational facility," said Singh.

Singh further said, "We also objected to the bail application of the complainant, who is an accused in the extortion case. In both the cases, there were electronic evidence against both the parties which were verified by the forensic lab."

Meanwhile, an official in the SIT said that the probe was impartial and every person, against whom direct evidence was found, was made guilty. This is the reason that SIT slapped IPC Section 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion) which has maximum imprisonment of two years instead of 387 (putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion) which was there in original FIR in the extortion case.

The accused attempted to extort money without giving life threat. The investigation in both the cases is ongoing and further action is likely as there could be more persons involved in both the crimes.

It is noteworthy that the SIT has been accused by opposition parties of working at the behest of the ruling BJP to shield the main accused, Chinmayanand.