A Delhi court today continued hearing final arguments in the Uber cab rape case in which a cab driver is facing trial for allegedly raping a 25-year-old woman in his car, with the accused claiming that the police has fabricated the evidence.
Continuing final arguments, accused driver Shiv Kumar Yadav's counsel argued that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution version and even the woman has made various improvements in her statements before the court and police.
"The woman had told the PCR officials that she came to know about the driver's mobile number through the cab service provider company. But she made improvements in her statement and deposed before the court that the driver had given a missed call on her mobile through which she came to know his number," Yadav's counsel D K Mishra told Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja.
He further said the woman had told the police that the driver had threatened her at the time of incident but she testified in the court that he had attempted to kill her.
The advocate alleged there were several missing links in the prosecution story which showed that the police had fabricated evidence to implicate the driver in the case.
The counsel had earlier alleged that the police had conducted a "shoddy and botched up" probe in the case.
The prosecutor, while advancing final arguments, had earlier said an accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the victim if it is trustworthy.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of December 5 last year when the 25-year-old victim, a finance executive working in Gurgaon, was heading back home.
Yadav was arrested on December 7, 2014 from Mathura and is currently under judicial custody.
The court has framed charges against Yadav under IPC for alleged offences of endangering a woman's life while raping her, abducting with an intent to compel her for marriage and criminally intimidating and causing hurt.
The court had also recorded the testimony of the accused in which he termed the charge against him as "false".Suggest a correction