Asaram Bapu's Request To Summon IPS officer Lamba In A Rape Case Is Denied By Supreme Court

The controversial godman Asaram Bapu was denied permission on Monday to call a senior police officer as an additional witness in a rape case in which he is serving a life sentence. The Supreme Court claimed that the move was intended to reopen the case in its entirety and seek a second chance for key witnesses, including the survivor who was a minor at the time of the crime.

The top court bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh overturned a Rajasthan high court decision allowing the godman to summon senior Indian Police Service officer Ajay Pal Lamba and stated that "the attempt is to reopen the entire case and seek re-examination of these witnesses at the appellate stage." reported Hindustan Times.

The Rajasthan High Court is currently hearing the godman's appeal contesting his 2018 conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, and the bench ordered that it be done quickly because Asaram had been in detention for almost ten years.

The court's decision was reached after the Rajasthan government appealed the High Court's decision allowing the godman to record Lamba's testimony under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2022. Lamba was assigned as the deputy commissioner of police (West), Jodhpur at the time of the relevant incident in August 2013.

The book Lamba wrote subsequently, "Gunning For The Godman: The TrueStory Behind Asaram Bapu's Conviction," which he claimed that he had filmed the entire crime scene while visiting the location of the purported rape, was the reason for his summons. The godman claimed that this was carried out a day before police created the site plan, and he suspected that the victim might have been tutored based on the crime scene footage.

Meanwhile, the state had argued that the book was a dramatised account of the events, and Lamba included a disclaimer to that effect in the book when the state objected to the godman's application. The SC overturned the HC ruling after determining that it was based on "mere conjectures" and failed to recognise the purpose and scope of Section 391 of the CrPC.