When the District Attorney's Office, Surkhet, filed a case against four teenagers on Chaitra 15 for the gang rape and murder of 16-year-old Inisha BK, the most decisive 'evidence' in such an incident had not yet been produced. 

Inisha's body, her clothes, the condom found at the scene, and samples collected from the bodies and clothes of the other four teenagers were sent to the Nepal Police Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Kathmandu for testing. The 41-page charge sheet filed in the district court listed 163 pieces of evidence. The final report of DNA and serology tests from the laboratory came about two months later on Jestha 19.

The reports received by Kantipur show that only the main accused, 'Birendranagar P', was involved in physical contact with Inisha. The other three teenagers - named 'Birendranagar F', 'Birendranagar Dha' and 'Birendranagar N', given by the police to keep their identities confidential as they are minors - appear to be unrelated. The samples collected from their bodies and clothes did not match those collected from Inisha's body and clothes. 

However, all four juveniles, who have been in custody since their arrest on 23 and 24 Falgun last year, are being held in the Nepalgunj-based juvenile reform home for trial by order of the District Court on 17 Chaitra of the same year.  The lawyer for these three juveniles, Uttam Acharya, claimed that the forensic report has confirmed the innocence of all three.  'The forensic report has made it clear who, how and to what extent was involved in the incident, it has proven that only one person was involved, while the other three were not involved,' he said.

The charge sheet states that Inisha was raped and then murdered by all four people inside the Janajagaran Community Forest in Surkhet on the morning of 23 Falgun. At that time, a case was filed against three of the four juveniles who were made defendants based on circumstantial evidence. The new fact that DNA and serology tests do not show the involvement of three of the four people charged with the rape and murder of Inisha BK has put the prosecution against them in question. 

On the morning of 23rd of Falgun, Inisha went to the Janajagaran Community Forest in Birendranagar-4, Surkhet with her alleged boyfriend ‘Birendranagar P’ and did not return alive. The post-mortem report states that the cause of her death was ‘excessive bleeding due to a deep injury to the internal part of the genitals’.  ‘Such an injury, which is consistent with the situation of forced sexual intercourse,’ the report said. 

The police immediately arrested ‘Birendranagar P’ from the scene, and the next day, their other three friends ‘Birendranagar F’, ‘Birendranagar Dha’ and ‘Birendranagar N’ were also arrested. Except for ‘Birendranagar F’, all of them were studying in class 11 with Inisha at Usha Kindergarten School. 

All four accused are between 16 and 17 years old. A case has been filed in the district court against all four for gang rape and murder. If convicted, those aged 16-18 years old will be sentenced to two-thirds of the sentence given to adults, so they can face a maximum sentence of 16 years and 8 months.

During his statement to the police, the main accused ‘Birendranagar P’ said that he called his friends for help after he fainted due to excessive bleeding during sexual intercourse. He has stated that he is solely responsible, and that the other three people are not involved. The three people also mentioned details in their separate statements that were consistent with the statement of ‘Birendranagar P’.

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police analyzed the time of the incident and the call detail records between the people allegedly involved, including the CCTV footage available at various places in Surkhet, and the time they reached the scene of the incident, and reported that the three teenagers did not reach the scene of the incident until long after Inisha fainted.

After the four were charged with gang rape and murder in the district court, Surkhet District Judge Deepak Dhakal, conducting a preliminary hearing on Chaitra 17, ordered that they be sent to a juvenile reform home until the final decision of the case was made, which was also upheld by Surkhet High Court Judges Hari Prasad Joshi and Khemraj Bhatta on Baisakh 24. After that, all three teenagers have filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that they be released on a regular date and the case process be continued. Although the hearing was scheduled for Ashar 16 before the bench of Justices Binod Sharma and Shantisingh Thapa, they were unable to attend, and the next hearing has been scheduled for Sharan 19.

The police had recommended charging ‘Birendranagar P’ with rape and murder and the remaining three with only reaching the scene but not playing a role in saving Inisha, but the government prosecutor’s office had demanded action against all four for gang rape and murder. The details of the forensic report that has come out now are consistent with the initial recommendation made by the police and the statement that the main accused ‘Birendranagar P’ has been giving since the beginning. They do not match the government prosecutor’s claim that gang rape took place. 

The Central Forensic Science Laboratory prepared the DNA profile report from the samples registered on 29 Falgun 2082 on 22 Baisakh and the serology report on 19 Jestha. By the time the latest report came, all four teenagers had been in custody for almost three months. Before those reports came out, the district court had already registered charges against them and sent them to custody, and the high court had also upheld the district court’s order. 

Inisha murder case: Four accused of rape, no evidence against three in the charge sheet

The laboratory has sent the samples collected from the scene of the crime, the bodies of the deceased and the accused and their reports back to the District Police Office, Surkhet.  Both these reports were prepared after a meticulous study of more than 40 pieces of evidence collected. Which included the vaginal swab and her clothes taken during Inisha's post-mortem, the condom found at the scene, the swabs, underwear, and clothes of the four teenagers, as well as their blood samples.  The results of the DNA test mentioned in the report have established that the main accused 'Birendranagar P' had physical contact with Inisha. Such a relationship, since Inisha is a minor, is rape according to the law. 

According to the DNA test, Inisha's DNA profile was found on 'P's' pubic hair, her shirt and white hair. In addition, the male DNA found on both the inner and outer surfaces of the condom found at the scene and in the sample inside Inisha's fingernails have also been confirmed to be 'P'. Similarly, the samples collected from 'P's' body and clothes also matched the samples collected from Inisha's body and clothes, so the report concluded that 'P's involvement 'cannot be ruled out'. 

According to the serology report, human blood was found in 'P's' penis swab, shirt, white hair, underwear and pubic hair. Of these, the DNA report confirmed that the part on the pubic hair, shirt and hair belonged to Inisha. The post-mortem report conducted at Bheri Hospital in Nepalgunj also stated that Inisha died due to excessive bleeding due to deep injuries to the inside of the vagina. 

The laboratory has also prepared the complete DNA profiles of the other three defendants, 'Birendranagar Dha', 'Birendranagar Na' and 'Birendranagar F'. The DNA profiles of the three did not match any samples collected from Inisha's body, the crime scene or the condom. The report states that the male DNA found inside the condom and Inisha's fingernails belonged to 'P' only and was completely different from the DNA of the other three. 

Similarly, no traces of blood were found on the swabs of the penis of the three co-accused teenagers and their underwear, unlike 'P'. 'We have been saying all along - all these three sons are innocent,' the father of one of the accused told Kantipur, 'The forensic reports that have come now have confirmed that.'

However, the findings of these reports are not the final verdict of the court. This report also does not answer some important legal questions. For example, they cannot distinguish whether the relationship was consensual or forced, as 'P' claims. Furthermore, the fact that no one's DNA was found does not mean that they had no role in the incident. The DNA report itself states in a note about its limitations - 'This result is related only to the samples tested.' Similarly, the serology report also mentions that due to lack of facilities in the laboratory, more detailed tests on vaginal secretions could not be conducted. 

Similarly, these forensic reports are mainly related to the rape charges. These forensic reports neither prove nor refute the charge that 'four people planned to rape and murder' against them. 

This new report has further questioned the government prosecutor's move to prosecute all of them for rape and murder, against the police recommendation to prosecute only 'P' for both rape and murder and the others on the basis that they did not play a role in saving Inisha even after reaching the scene. 

The then District Attorney Karna Bahadur Mahat had defended his decision at the time, calling the police report 'incomplete'. “The injuries in the medical report appear to be so serious that it raises the question of whether only one person can be responsible for it,” he told Kantipur. “If the police believe that these three were involved in the murder, how can they be separated from the rape? If there was no involvement in the sexual assault, how can the murder charges against those who came later be justified?”

Current District Attorney Tulsa Bhandari said that the forensic report had not been received when the charge sheet was filed and that the prosecution should be viewed in that context. When asked about the current report not showing the role of the three accused, she said, “That is for the district court to decide. We cannot speak now.” She said that she would not comment further on the matter that is pending in the court, adding, “The charge sheet cannot be amended based on the report. I do not know what the previous boss did,  why he did it.”

The then Surkhet police chief, SP Sudhir Raj Shahi, told Kantipur at the time that the police’s job was only to investigate and the right to decide the case belonged to the government prosecutor. The current District Police Chief Thakur Prasad Pokharel refused to comment on the new facts presented in the report. “I do not speak on matters that have already been presented in the district court,” he said.

So far, only the accused persons, their witnesses and those who have filed a police report claiming to have seen or heard the incident have come to court and given their statements. Inisha’s mother and other government witnesses have not yet been able to come to court and give their statements. The case will be presented for a full hearing only after the process, called the deposition in court parlance, is complete. 

Inisha’s mother Tila Bik complained that she and other witnesses have not been called for depositions yet. “I have heard that only a few people who were found at the scene were called and their statements were taken,” she said. “After I was called once, they have not contacted me again,” she said. 

On one hand, the family of the minor daughter who lost her minor daughter is waiting for justice. On the other hand, the family of the three teenagers is also waiting for justice, claiming that they were falsely accused. The father of one of the accused teenagers says, “It feels like they are being punished even though they did nothing wrong. The fathers are mentally disturbed.”