What Are the Three Contradictions in the IIM-Calcutta Rape Case?

Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- The case involves serious allegations of rape on a university campus.
- Conflicting statements from the victim and her father complicate the investigation.
- The victim has not provided evidence of her professional claims.
- Police are focusing on resolving the discrepancies in statements.
- Legal proceedings are ongoing, with the accused in custody.
Kolkata, July 14 (NationPress) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Kolkata Police is currently investigating a rape case involving a woman on the premises of the renowned Indian Institute of Management–Calcutta (IIM-C), located in Joka on the southern outskirts of Kolkata. They are facing challenges in resolving three major contradictions that have emerged during their inquiry.
The first point of contention revolves around inconsistent statements regarding the victim's entry and exit timings on campus. Insiders reveal that the timings provided by the victim do not align with those given by several staff members who reportedly observed her arriving via an app-cab with the sole suspect and leaving the campus later in another app-cab.
Moreover, the victim's original statement to the police did not mention the app-cabs at all.
The second area of confusion pertains to the victim’s assertion that she is a professional psychological counsellor. She claimed to have been invited to IIM-C on Friday in this capacity by the sole accused, Parmanand Mahaveer Toppannavar, also known as Parmanand Jain, a second-year student at the institute. Insiders stated that the victim has not provided any documentary proof of her qualifications as a counsellor.
The third and most critical contradiction involves differing statements from the victim and her father. The victim asserts that the accused summoned her to the boys' hostel for counselling, where he allegedly served her pizza and cold drinks laced with sedatives, causing her to lose consciousness. She claims that the accused then raped her while she was incapacitated.
Conversely, the victim's father has publicly stated that his daughter did not experience any such incident, asserting instead that she lost consciousness after falling from a vehicle. He has maintained this stance even as a trial court has remanded the accused to police custody until July 19.