Less than two weeks later, Moninder Singh Pandher allegedly confessed that he had asked his servant Surender to kill Payal.

All the while that Lal was fighting to ensure that his daughter got justice, a large part of the probe was investigating him. On December 17, sub inspector Simranjit Kaur of the Nithari police, who took charge n 18 September 2006, went to investigate Lal in his village.

“Simranjit Kaur visited us and even had tea in my house,” says Ashish Kumar Bala, pradhan of Pipalia. “In fact, I was busy with a nasbandi camp and was specially sent for. She said she was investigating Nand Lal and spent nearly 20 minutes in our house asking us about him.”

Accompanied by four people dressed in civvies and one policeman in uniform, Kaur reportedly drove into the village in a Bolero.

During her visit to Pipalia, Kaur reportedly made queries about where Nand Lal lived and what he did. “And when we asked her about Payal, she categorically told us that the girl had eloped and was in Mumbai,” adds Bala. “She even added that teams had gone to Mumbai and checked out her whereabouts.”

“After Kaur’s visit, my entire reputation in the village was ruined,” recalls Lal. “Everyone believed what the police said and were convinced that my daughter was wrong. Only after Moninder’s arrest and the confessions the truth unfolded. And now the village wants to know why they were misled.”

Kaur was suspended two days ago and dismissed this evening. And nearly a week after the skeletons were found, officials at the Nithari police chowki are tight-lipped about their visit to Pipalia. “There were many trips all over,” is all officials are willing to say. However, officials at the sector 20 police station confirm Kaur’s trip to Lal’s village.

The Pipalia trip came at a time when Nithari killings investigating officer Dinesh Yadav claims to have been looking at the case afresh.

When contacted, Simranjit was not available and a person claiming to be her sister said: “She has been working very hard on the case and went to many places to check facts.”

Chasing the Complainant

• August 24, 2006: Nand Lal sought the intervention of the CJM Court Gautham Buddha Nagar to get an FIR against Moninder Singh and his servant Surendra under section 363 and 366 under the IPC. Lal charged them with kidnapping his daughter Dipika alias Payal. He alleged that Surendra dialled Payal’s mobile (981115404) from a nearby PCO on May 6. Surendra, according to Lal, asked Payal to meet Moninder on May 7 with the biodata of her brother Amit. Lal added that Moninder had assured Payal that he would offer Amit a job at his factory. Lal said Payal had not returned home since she visited Moninder’s house. Lal asked the police to register an FIR in vain. Sector 20 Police Station could only register a case of missing person on May 29.

• October 6, 2006: The CJM court intervened and asked the police to file an FIR in Payal’s missing case. “It is just that the police should examine the case”, ruled the court.

• October 6, 2006: Moninder filed an affidavit in the CJM court, stating that he did not have any role in Payal’s kidnapping because he was even not in Delhi when Payal went missing. He said he stayed in Chandigarh from May 5 to June 10 because of his father’s illness and subsequent death. To corroborate his statement he attached his father death certificate, a toll tax slip and a diesel voucher of a petrol pump on the GT Karnal Road.

• December 6, 2006: In his affidavit in the Allahabad High Court, Nand Lal’s lawyer Pradeep Pandey stated: “That the deponent (Lal) is a poor person and Moninder Singh is a very rich person and has political links. Therefore the deponent does not have any faith in the present investigation and hence prays that the investigation be handed over to CBI.”