How could they fire guns, when they couldn't even stand', asks wife of accused in 2019 Hyderabad rape:

The wife of Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu, one of the four accused in the rape and murder of a veterinarian in 2019, who was killed in an encounter, deposed before the Inquiry Commission appointed to probe the alleged encounter. 

The girl, who is now 17 and the mother of an infant, asked how the accused persons could fire guns at the police when they couldn't even stand on their own.

She was responding to a query by a counsel for the police party involved in the alleged encounter, where she was asked on what basis had she stated that the encounter was fake, and asserted that it was actually a murder, during the cross-examination.

Further, when the counsel asked her to identify the persons in walking position from the screengrabs of CCTV footage shown to her, she identified them as her husband Chennakeshavulu and other accused persons.

She also responded saying, "Nobody told me," when she was questioned about her affidavit stating that she learnt that the police influenced medical officers to give the postmortem examination report in the favour of police, in order to show the murder as an encounter.

Further, during cross-examination



by the State’s counsel, she said that she had told her advocate that persons in civilian clothes took away her husband, but the same wasn’t mentioned in her affidavit submitted to the Commission.

She said she might have forgotten to mention in the affidavit about the lorry owner Srinivas Reddy taking her husband away before the rape and murder of the veterinarian, saying that it was to show Arif’s house.

Counsel of kin wants to quiz witnesses

PV Krishnamachary, independent counsel for the families of the four accused killed in the encounter, sought to examine the witnesses appearing before the Commission. The Commission reserved orders on the request.

Krishnamachary filed a petition before the Commission also seeking documents related to the depositions of witnesses and investigation in the encounter case. The counsels for the State and the police party involved in the firing, objected to this, stating that he is not an affected party.

However, the counsel for the Commission opined that the Commission can decide on giving limited access to the details of the arrest of the accused, post encounter inquest panchnama