Hyderabad (Telengana), September 23: A commission appointed by the Supreme court to probe veterinarian Disha’s rape and murder case pulled up the Station House Officer of Shadnagar police station on various derelictions and discrepancies in the case.

The missing CCTV footage from police station, discrepancy about arrest in remand diary, and addition of IPC sections were in focus during the hearing on Wednesday before the SC-appointed commission probing alleged encounter killings of four accused in veterinarian Disha’s rape and murder case. Shadnagar SHO A Sreedhar Kumar was also grilled on Wednesday by the commission on some of the sequence of events from arrest till the killings.

The police officer told the commission that the CCTVs at the PS were working but he did not think of preserving the footage. He said that on November 29, on the instructions of ACP V Surender, he along with six cops and two drivers went to Jaklair and Gudigandla villages to arrest the four suspects. He said that lorry owner P Srinivas Reddy met them at Jaklair and assisted in rounding up the four suspects.

When commission’s lawyer K Parameshwar said the arrest claim ran counter to the remand diary which showed that the four were brought to the station by the lorry owner, the SHO claimed it was a typing error, insisting that he himself presented the accused in front of the ACP at 5 pm on November 29. Quizzed on the absence of an arrest memo/panchnama on the spot, the SHO claimed that due to the presence of a mob, he could not execute the arrest memo.

The SHO admitted that he had not mentioned the mob either in the case diary or in his statement later recorded under CrPC section 161. The SHO came in the firing line over the addition of various IPC sections too.

He said that a case was registered under IPC sections 302 and 201 after Disha’s charred body was found on November 28. Subsequently at 10.20 pm on November 29, IPC sections, 376-D, 120-B, 392, 366, 506, and 34 were added after recording the confessional statements. When the commission pointed out that the said IPC sections were already mentioned in other documents prior to the recording of confessional statements, the SHO pleaded guilty admitting that it was a mistake.