IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY

SESSIONS CASE NO.317 OF 2010

(S.C.Nos.510/2010,673/2010,781/2010)
The State of Maharashtra. )
(at the instance of SIT (Versova )
Police station, C.R.No.246/2009) )..Complainant.
CC Nos.886/PW/2010, 1555/PW/2010, )
2300/PW/2010 & 2728/PW/2010 )
Versus. )
1. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma )
Age :49 years, )
R/o :-6
th
Floor, Bhagwan Bhawan, )
J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), )
Mumbai. )
2. Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai, )
Age : 42 years, )
R.o :- A/77, Worli Police Camp, )
Mumbai 400 025. )
3. Ratnakar Gautam Kamble@ Rattu, )
Age : 38 years, )
R/o :- E/103, Bandra Police Line, )
R.K. Patkar Marg, Bandra(W), )
Mumbai 400 050. )
4. Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey )
@ Pinky, )
Age : 37 years, )
R/o :- Room No.31, Vazir Glass )
Chawl Committee, Opp.Natraj Studio, )
Andheri (E), Mumbai. )
...2/-
Exh.1124 2 (J-SC 317/10)
5. Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, )
Age : 41 years, )
R/o :-Shardabai Chawl, Room No.1, )
Prabhat Colony, Vakola, )
Santacruz, Mumbai. )
6. Akhil Shirin Khan @ Bobby, )
Age : 42 years, )
R/o :- Flat No.604, Priyadarshini )
Park Society, Om Nagar,J.B.Nagar, )
Sahar Road, Andheri (E), )
7. Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, )
Age : 41 years, )
R/o:-Plot No.2, Gold Sunit Co-op. )
Housing society, Kalwa Naka, )
Opp. Akash Bar, Kalwa Road, )
District Thane. )
8. Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, )
Age : 41 years, )
R/o :- Noor Mohammed Chawl, )
Young Committee,Gundavli Gaothan, )
Andheri(E), Mumbai. )
9. Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana)
Age :- 57 years, )
R/o :- Ravi Kiran Co-op. Housing )
Society, 2
nd
Floor, Room No.202, )
Opp. Sayali International school, )
Gorai Road, Borivali (W),Mumbai. )
...3/-
Exh.1124 3 (J-SC 317/10)
10. Sunil Ramesh Solanki, )
Age : 30 years, )
R/o :- B.M.C. Workers Quarters, )
B/12 Akurli Road, Samata Nagar, )
Kandivali(E), Mumbai. )
11. Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape, )
Age : 46 years, )
R/o :- U/14, Hanjur Nagar, )
Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai. )
12. Mohamad Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka )
Moiddin Shaikh )
Age : 41 years, )
R/o.: B-13, Room No.303,Sector-11, )
Shanti Nagar, Mira Road, Thane. )
13. Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal, )
Age : 45 years, )
R/o :- 48/06, Worli Police Camp, )
Mumbai 400 025. )
14. Janardan Tukaram Bhanage, )
Age : 56 years, )
R/o :- F-9,Sector-9, CBD Belapur, )
Navi Mumbai. )
15. Dilip Sitaram Palande, )
Age : 50 years, )
R/o :- 19/604, Sanskruti CHS, )
Thakur Complex, Kandivali(E), )
Mumbai. )
...4/-
Exh.1124 4 (J-SC 317/10)
16. Prakash Ganpat Kadam, )
Age : 53 years, )
R/o :- A-26, Police Quarters, )
S.V. Road, Kandivali, )
Mumbai. )
17. Ganesh Ankush Harpude, )
Age : 49 years, )
R/o :- 6/114, Police Quarters, )
D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W), )
Mumbai. )
18. Anand Balaji Patade, )
Age : 39 years, )
R/o :-Miskita House, First Floor, )
Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), )
Mumbai. )
19. Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, )
Age : 49 years, )
R/o :-E-2/5, Mira Gaothan Mandir )
Road, Gaodevi Compound,Mira Road, )
Thane. )
20. Sandip Hemraj Sardar, )
Age : 37 years, )
R/o :- 131, Building No.4, )
Aram Nagar, Police Quarters, )
Seven Bungalow, Andheri(W), )
Mumbai. )
...5/-
Exh.1124 5 (J-SC 317/10)
21. Suresh Manjunath Shetty, )
Age : 40 years, )
R/o :- C/704, Shanti Vidya Nagar, )
Hatkesh, Mira Road (E), )
Thane. )
22. Arvind Arjun Sarvankar, )
Age : 47 years, )
R/o :- S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), )
Mumbai. ).. Accused.
CORAM:- V.D.JADHAVAR,
AD-HOC ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
(Court Room No.40).
DATE :- 12.07.2013.

Ms. Vidya Kasle, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Bane,Ld.Advocate Mr.Pasbola, Ld.Advocate
Mr.Ponda, Ld. Advocate Mr.Vanjara for accused No.1.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Bhanushali for accused nos.2,8,12,20&21.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Vanjara for accused nos.3,4 and 5,
Ld.Advocate Mr.Iayaz Khan for accused nos.6,7 & 10.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Nangre,Ld.Advocate Mr.Dhairyasheel Patil
and Ld.Advocate Mr.S.M.Deshmukh for accused no.9.
Ld.Advocates Mr.Pendse and Mr.Arote for accused nos.
11 and 18.
Ld. Advocates Mr. Rajeev Sawant and Mr. Tushar Sharma
for accused nos. 13, 16 and 19.
Ld. Advocate Mr.Praksash Shetty for accused no.14.
Ld. Advocates Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Parab for
accused nos.15 and 22.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Hemant Vadke for accused no.17.
...6/-
Exh.1124 6 (J-SC 317/10)
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Accused Nos.1 to 22 stand charged for offences
punishable under Sections 364, 365, 368, 302, 120-B
r/w. 364, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 r/w. 364, 149 r/w.
365, 364 r/w. 149, 365 r/w. 149, 368, 364 r/w.109 r/w.
120(B) and 365 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B), 368 r/w.109 r/w.
120(B), 344 r/w. 34, 344 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B), 302 r/w.
34, 302 r/w. 109 r/w. 120 (B), 201 r/w. 34, 201 r/w.
109 r/w. 120(B), 201, 201 r/w. 109 r/w. 120 (B), 174
(A) of the Indian Penal Code. (Charges Exh.46, Exh.46A
and Exh.88 in C.R.No.246/2009 of Versova police station
(at the instance of Special Investigation Team)).
2. Before going into details of the present case
(C.R.No.246/2009 - Versova police station), it would be
justifiable to go to the root of the matter and for
that purpose, one must know the initial happenings as
narrated in C.R.No.302 of 2006 of Versova police
station.
3. In C.R.No.302 of 2006 under Sections 307, 353
of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,25,27 of the Indian
Arms Act, registered in Versova police station, it was
alleged in the First Information Report (FIR) by
informant Mr.Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi (accused no.
9 in C.R.No.246/2009, Versova police station), then
Police Inspector of D.N. Nagar police station that, on
...7/-
Exh.1124 7 (J-SC 317/10)
11.11.2006, he received an information from his special
informant that, one Ramnarayan @ Lakhan Bhaiya
Vishwanath Gupta, aged about 38 years, who was wanted
in many cases of murder, dacoity, theft and extortion
was to arrive at Nana Nani Park, Seven Bungalow,
Andheri (West), Mumbai to meet his associates and that
the said criminal was rancorous.
4. On receipt of this information, Mr.Pradeep
Pandurang Suryawanshi transmitted this information to
his superior officers, who, in turn, told him to take
assistance of police personnel from Versova police
station. As per the directions of the superior
officers, API Mr. Sartape, PSI Mr. Harpude, P.N. Buckle
No.26645 came to Dadadbhai Naoroji Nagar (D.N.Nagar)
Police Station and reported to him.
5. At about 18.20 hours, Pradeep Suryawanshi
called API Mr.Dilip Palande, API Mr.Arvind Sarwankar,
PSI Mr.Anand Patade, P.C. Mr.Sakpal and other staff in
his cabin in D.N. Nagar police station and briefed them
about the information that he had received. Thereafter,
all of them chalked out a plan to arrest the said
person i.e. Ramnarayan@ Lakhan Bhaiya Vishwanath Gupta.
6. On 11.11.2006, at about 18.55 hours, all the
above-named officers and staff, along with the special
...8/-
Exh.1124 8 (J-SC 317/10)
informant, left D.N. Nagar police station for Nana Nani
Park. Before proceeding, they carried arms and
ammunitions with them. On 11.11.2006, at about 19.10
hours, all police officers and staff, through available
vehicles, went to Nana Nani Park, Seven Bungalow, Juhu-
Versova Link Road. On reaching there, the police
officers and the staff inspected the said place.
Thereafter, they made two groups and concealed
themselves at two different places. Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi informed the officers and the staff to wait
for his signal. They also parked their vehicles at some
distance from the said place.
7. Group No.1 consisted of Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi, the special informant, API Mr.Sartape, PSI
Mr.Patade, Police H.C.Buckle No.18839, Police Naik
Buckle No.26645, Police Constable Buckle No.10502,
which stayed at the compound in front of Magnum Opus
Building, situated at Western Side of Nana Nani Park.
Group No.2 consisted of API Mr.Palande, API
Mr.Sarwankar, PSI Mr. Harpude, Police Constables Buckle
Nos.31963,31241 and 33492, which stayed in front of
Trishul Building and near the compound of Nana Nani
Park.
8. On 11.11.2006, at about 20.10 hours, one auto-
rickshaw came there from Versova side and stopped near
...9/-
Exh.1124 9 (J-SC 317/10)
an electric pole, which was towards southern side of
Nana Nani Park. One person alighted from the said auto-
rickshaw and then the auto-rickshaw went away towards
Versova. The person, who got down from the auto-
rickshaw, was loitering at the said place. The special
informant identified him to be the wanted accused
Ramnarayan @ Lakhan Bhaiya Vishwanath Gupta and
accordingly, informed to Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi.
Thereafter, Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi gave signal to the
police officers and staff from both the groups and
cautiously proceeded ahead to arrest the said person.
The officers from Group No.2 also proceeded forward to
effect arrest of the said person. At the same time,
the said person came to know about movements of the
police officers and the staff from both the groups and
immediately took out a revolver which was kept at his
waist and pointed at the complainant, whereupon the
complainant shouted loudly saying that, they were
policemen and he should not fire at them, but should
surrender before them (==|+ r= +||=n|= r, +| = +|, nc r|
=| !). The said person did not pay heed and fired one
round at Mr.Suryawanshi, but he evaded the bullet.
Thereafter, API Mr.Sarwankar also shouted at him saying
that, Lakhan should surrender and that they were
policemen (==|+ nc r| =|, r= +||=n|= r !). Again the said
person did not pay heed and fired one round at the
second group of policemen and staff.
...10/-
Exh.1124 10 (J-SC 317/10)
9. Due to indiscriminate firing by the said
person, the officers from the first and the second
group smelt danger to their lives, also to that of the
persons going by that road, and also to protect their
own lives and that of the people and as no alternative
was left before them except that of opening fire in
retaliation, Mr.Suryawanshi fired two rounds from his
service revolver at the said accused. Other officers
also fired rounds from their service revolvers and
pistols, due to which the said person was injured and
fell down. The weapon with him also fell near him. The
said exchange of fire took place between 20.11 hours to
20.13 hours. Thereafter, complainant Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi, the police officers and the staff
cautiously reached near the said person, who had
sustained bleeding injuries on his chest and head. A
revolver was lying near the said accused.
10. Mr. Suryawanshi immediately informed this fact
to the West Control Room and requested to send
assistance to remove the injured person to the
hospital. At the same time, Mr.Suryawanshi along with
the police officers and the staff stopped the vehicles
passing by the road and requested to take the injured
to the hospital, but no one came forward to help them.
After sometime, Versova-1 Mobile reached at the spot
...11/-
Exh.1124 11 (J-SC 317/10)
and the injured was removed for treatment to Doctor
Cooper Hospital. API Mr.Sarwankar and Mr.Sartape were
informed by Mr.Suryawanshi to take the injured to the
hospital. Mr.Suryawanshi also informed API Mr.Palande,
PSI Mr.Patade and staff to protect the spot of
incident. Thereafter, Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi went to
Versova police station to lodge report and while his
report was being reduced into writing, he received a
call from API Mr.Sarwankar from Cooper Hospital stating
that, injured Ramnarayan @ Lakhan Bhaiya Vishwanath
Gupta was declared dead before admission by doctors in
Cooper Hospital.
11. During the said incident, Mr.Suryawanshi
fired two rounds from his .38 service revolver and he
produced the empties. API Mr.Sartape fired one round
from his pistol. APIs Mr.Sarwankar and Mr.Palande fired
one round each from their service revolvers.
Mr.Suryawanshi alleged that, the rancorous criminal
Ramnarayan @ Lakhan Bhaiya Vishwanath Gupta, aged about
38 years, attempted to kill him and other police
officers and staff by firing from his illegal revolver
while Mr.Suryawanshi, the police officers and the staff
were discharging their official duties.
12. On the basis of the report, a crime bearing
No.302 of 2006 under Sections 307, 353 of the Indian
...12/-
Exh.1124 12 (J-SC 317/10)
Penal Code and Sections 3,25,27 of the Arms Act was
registered in Versova police station against deceased
Ramnarayan@ Lakhan Bhaiya Vishwanath Gupta by Police
Inspector Mr.Mohandas Narayan Sankhe (PW-39). (The FIR
Exh.278). Thereafter, he directed PSI Mr.Jadhav who had
already left for the spot to go to Cooper Hospital to
carry out Inquest Panchanama. Then, Mr.Sankhe called
two panchas and seized two bullets' shells produced by
PI Mr.Suryawanshi under panchanama (Exh.279). He made
entries about the seizure of empties in station diary
at Sr. No.41 (Exh.282 copy Exh.282A).
13. Thereafter, he went to the spot of incident
near Nana Nani Park, on Link Road, opposite Magnum Opus
Building, and, along with panchas, inspected the place
of incident. There was an electric pole bearing No.KBU
13-061 near the place of incident. There was pool of
blood near the said pole. One revolver was lying near
the said pool of blood. One empty bullet shell was
lying between the pool of blood and gate of Magnum Opus
Building. He took photographs of the place of incident
with the help of a private photographer by name
Mr.Sharma. He took measurements of the place of
incident and position of the pool of blood and other
places. He carefully checked cylinder of the revolver
which was lying at the spot. He found two cartridges
and two empties' shells in the cylinder. One Finger
...13/-
Exh.1124 13 (J-SC 317/10)
Print Expert Mr.Sawant examined the revolver for prints
but could not find any finger prints and accordingly,
he submitted report.
14. PW-39 Mr.Mohandas Sankhe inspected the
revolver, seized and sealed it. Two live bullets in the
said revolver had hammer marks. The said bullets had
marks .32 KF S & WL. He seized the bullets and packed
the bullets separately and also sealed the packet. The
empties also had hammer marks and those empties also
had marks .32 KF S & WL. He seized the same, packed
and sealed the empties in different packets. Then he
seized the empty shell which was lying at the place of
incident. It had marks KF 94 9 MM 22. He seized the
same and packed and sealed empty shells separately.
15. He collected blood sample from the pool of
blood, bloodstained soil and plain soil from the place
of incident in different bottles. Each of those bottles
were packed and sealed separately. The packets had
labels with his signatures and that of panchas. He
recorded panchanama dated 11.11.2006 at 23.00 hours and
completed it on 12.11.2006 at 01.35 hours (Exh.283). He
collected report of the finger print expert (Exh.284),
made entries in the station diary at Sr. No.1 (Exh.285
its copy is at Exh.285A). He seized empty shells from
the revolver of API Mr. Sarvankar and from the revolver
...14/-
Exh.1124 14 (J-SC 317/10)
of API Mr. Palande, having marks 'KF 98 380 2' and 'KF
01 380 2' respectively, under panchanama recorded in
presence of panchas (Exh.286). The station diary entry
of the said muddemal articles was entered at Sr.No.2
(Exh.287 and Exh.287A).
16. Thereafter, he recorded statements of members
of the raiding team viz. API Mr.Palande, API Mr.
Sarvankar, API Mr.Sartape, PSI Mr.Patade, PSI Mr.
Harpude, constables Mr.Kamble, Mr.Kadam, Mr.Kokam,
Mr.Sakpal, Mr.Sardar and Mr.Desai. He also recorded
statements of inquest panchas Rohidas Shinde and Birju
Deonath and that of photographer Mr.Vinayak Raundal,
that of Ramrajpal Singh and Manohar Kulpe and other
witnesses. He forwarded body of the deceased to JJ P.M.
Center from Cooper Hospital, along with ADR Form (Exh.
288) and request form of postmortem (Exh.289). He
received viscera from P.M. Center.
17. He sent five letters Exhs.290, 291, 292, 293
and 294 to F.S.L., Kalina on 13.11.2006 and also
recorded statements of other witnesses. On 13.11.2006,
he forwarded F.I.R and documents to learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. On 14.11.2006 and 15.11.2006,
he made inquiries. He continued investigation till
15.11.2006. Thereafter, he handed over further
investigation to Mr.Dilip Patil of Oshiwara police
...15/-
Exh.1124 15 (J-SC 317/10)
station, as per directions of his superior officers.
(As the alleged encounter had taken place within the
jurisdiction of Versova police station, the
investigation was handed over to Oshiwara police
station). Mr. Dilip Patil of Oshiwara police station
investigated C.R.No.302 of 2006 since 17.11.2006 till
01.01.2008 and then he was transferred. In absence of
Mr.Dilip Patil, PI Mr.Phadtare carried out
investigation for three months and on 01.01.2008, PI
Mr.Dattatray Sankhe (PW-31) received investigation of
this crime. Entire investigation was carried out by PI
Mr.Dilip Patil and he had prepared abated summary of
the said offence. Sr.PI Mr.K.T.Sonone signed the said
report. A.C.P did not sign the report, but had called
for opinion of the D.C.P.
18. Criminal Writ Petition bearing No.2473 of 2006
filed by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta was pending before Hon'ble
High Court, therefore, he did not think it proper to
continue with the investigation. He attended the
hearing of the writ petition and accordingly, made
entries in the case diary and station diary. Initially,
inquiry was directed to be made by a District
Magistrate. The Hon'ble High Court did not accept
report submitted by District Magistrate and directed
the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to hand over
inquiry to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and accordingly,
...16/-
Exh.1124 16 (J-SC 317/10)
the inquiry was handed over to the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate made inquiry and submitted
report of inquiry on 11.08.2008.

19. On 13.08.2009, the Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to direct the petitioner in W.P.No.2473 of 2006
(Mr.Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta) to approach immediately
to the S.I.T appointed by the Hon'ble High Court and to
submit a copy of his complaint dated 14.11.2006,
addressed to Shri A.N.Roy, then Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai and to request the S.I.T. Officer to record his
statement afresh, which should be treated as an F.I.R,
to be registered by the said Investigating Officer. The
petitioner was also directed to submit a list of
witnesses to the Investigating Officer. The
Investigating Officer was directed to record statements
of witnesses and also to conduct lie-detection test, of
the petitioner, his friend Mr.Ganesh Iyyer, an
advocate, Anil Jethalal Bheda and his wife Aruna Bheda.
The Hon'ble High Court also directed to submit Progress
Report of the investigation from time to time.
20. On 09.09.2009, the S.I.T submitted First
Progress Report, on 08.10.2009 Second Progress Report,
on 05.11.2009 Third Progress Report, on 04.01.2010,
Fourth Progress Report, on 08.02.2010, Fifth Progress
...17/-
Exh.1124 17 (J-SC 317/10)
Report, on 03.04.2010 Sixth Progress Report, on
05.07.2010 Seventh Progress Report, on 19.07.2010
Eight Progress Report, on 16.08.2010 Ninth Progress
Report and on 17.09.2010 Tenth and last Progress Report
of the case to the Hon'ble High Court, Judicature at
Bombay. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose
off Cri.W.P.No.2473 of 2006.
21. In pursuance to the order passed by the The
Collector, District Magistrate Mumbai Suburban District
vide letter No.C/DeskVIID/PF/SR-10/06 dated
30.11.2006, The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.4
(the SLAO-IV) was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who
conducted the enquiry and recorded statements of
witnesses viz. Mr.Ramrachpal Singh(R.P.Singh), Mr.Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, Mr.Ganesh Ankush Harpude,
Mr.Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, Mr.Prakash Ganpat Kadam,
Mr.Dilip Sitaram Palande, Mr.Pandurang Ganpat Kokam,
Mr.Ratnakar Gautam Kamble, Mr.Ganesh Rangayya Iyer (an
advocate), Mr.Sandip Hemraj Sardar, Mr.Tanaji Bhausaheb
Desai, Mr.Devidas Gangaram Sakpal, Mr.Manohar Pandurang
Kulpe, Mr.Bhaskar Ravji Kelkar, Mr.Anil Mahadev Kadam,
Mr.Pravin Sairoba Rane, Mr.Madhukar Abaji Chavan,
Mr.Jayendra Mahadev Rane, Mr.Mohammad Bhanu Maqbool
Haq, Mr.Rohidas Dattu Shinde, Mr.Birju Tarani Devnath,
Mr.Mohandas Narayan Sankhe, Mr.Vinayak Raundal,
Mr.Dattatray Bhagwan Koyte, Mr.Shankar Timmegauda,
...18/-
Exh.1124 18 (J-SC 317/10)
Smt.Aruna Anil Bheda, Dr.Dhaneshwar Namdeorao Lanjevar,
Mr.Anil Jethalal Bheda, Mr.Dagadu Bandu Patil,
Mr.Gangadhar Tukaram Sawant, Mr.Mohammad Iqbar Abdul
Sattar Furniturwala, Dr.M.S. Chavan, Mr.Shekhar Dinesh
Sharma, Mr.Jayesh Kanji Kesariya, Mr.Gautam Natha
Ghadge, Mr.D.T.Patil, Mr.Anand Balaji Patade, Mr.Arvind
Arjun Sarvankar and Mr.Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi.
The Ld.Executive Magistrate also perused some
documents, including certain documents produced by the
witnesses mainly by Mr. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta.
22. On 27.10.2007, Executive Magistrate, SLAO-IV,
submitted his report. As the Hon'ble High Court was not
satisfied with the said report, was pleased to direct
an inquiry by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai and accordingly an
inquiry was conducted by the Ld.Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. The Hon'ble
High Court was pleased to direct the Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai to form a Special Investigation Team
(SIT) and accordingly, the S.I.T was formed. It was
headed by Mr. K.M.M. Prasanna, then D.C.P., Zone-IX.
23. In pursuance to the order passed by Hon'ble
High Court dated 13.02.2008, Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri(E), Mumbai, conducted inquiry of the police
firing dated 11.11.2006 as per provisions of Section
...19/-
Exh.1124 19 (J-SC 317/10)
176 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
said inquiry was directed to be conducted by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, on perusal of report dated 27
th
October, 2007, submitted by the Executive Magistrate,
wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed that necessary
inquiry/ investigation would be required to arrive at
final decision of this aspect. Therefore, there would
be a need for inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate within
whose local jurisdiction the alleged incident had
occurred. In short, the Hon'ble High Court did not
accept and rely upon the inquiry report submitted by
the S.L.A.OIV. Hence, this inquiry by Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, was directed
by the Hon'ble High Court.
24. During the said inquiry, witnesses;
Mr.Shyamsunder Vishwanath Gupta, Mr.Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta, Mr.Ganesh R. Iyer, Mr.Amit Ashok
Jambotkar, Mr.Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi, Mr. Arvind
Arjun Sarvankar, Mr.Arun Satyaprakash Kaushik, Mr.Dilip
Sitaram Palande, Mr. Anil Jethalal Bheda, Mr.Ramrachpal
Singh (R.P.Singh), Mr.Ashok Tukaram Duraphe,
Mr.Chandroday Narayan Bhokare and Mr.Shantanu Madan
Chavan filed their affidavits, and statement of Smt.
Subbalaxmi Ramnarayan Gupta was also recorded during
the course of the inquiry. On the basis of the
affidavits/ statements and documents before it, the Ld.
...20/-
Exh.1124 20 (J-SC 317/10)
Metropolitan Magistrate, submitted her report to the
Hon'ble High Court on 11.08.2008.
25. The inquiry was conducted by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri
on three issues viz. (1) whether the alleged encounter
had taken place while the deceased was in the custody
of the police (2) whether he had disappeared after the
deceased was taken into custody by the police (3) or
otherwise. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concluded
that, the death of Ramnarayan Gupta was caused while
he was in the police custody. His death did not take
place on the spot as alleged by the police and that the
deceased did not disappear from the police custody
before he was done to death, but that the deceased was
abducted by the police. As per learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, the deceased was killed somewhere else and
the police had shown that as an encounter had taken
place at Nana Nani Park.
26. Statements of various witnesses were recorded
as per provisions of Sec.164(5) of Cr.P.C. at the
instance of the S.I.T. Those were; Mr.Sumant Ramchandra
Bhosale, Mr.Milind Subhash More, Mr. Ramrajpal Ramjadas
Singh, Mr.Subhash Ramjibhai Patel, Mr.Anant Tukaram
Patil, Mr.Pundalik Amrutrao Kaling, Mr.Shankar @ Girish
Dal Singh, Mr.Shaikh Yunus Azi Abdul Gabbar Shaikh,
...21/-
Exh.1124 21 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Madan Tanaji More, Mr.Shersingh Sheetal Yadav,
Mr.Krupashankar Budhilal Yadav, Mr.Rajkumar @ Lallan
Jagdish Narayan Shukla, Mr.Pitambarlal Ramshwar Yadav,
Mr.Manohar Pandurang Kulpe, Mr.Anil Jethalal Bheda, Mr.
Mahendra Govind Tatkare, Mr.Umesh Yashwant Revandkar,
Mr.Santosh Chandan Shettiyar, Mr.Shankar Vimme Gauda,
Mr.Avdhoot Shivaji Chavan, Mr.Dattatray Ganpat Sankhe,
Mr.Tanaji Maruti Daddekar, Mr.Pramod Shridhar Sawant,
Mr.Dhiraj Ugamraj Mehta (two statements), Mr.Anil
Laxman More, Mr.Jayesh Kanji Kesariya, Mr.Sujit
Ramchandra Mhatre, Smt.Aruna Anil Bheda and Mr.
Mohandas Narayan Sankhe.
27. Following telegrams and fax messages dated
11.11.2006 were sent by PW-1 and PW-2 :-
(1) Telegram sent to the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai at about 4.08 pm on 11.11.2006 vide
Exh.116.
(2) Telegram sent to the Commissioner of Police,
Thane at 4.08 pm, on 11.11.2006 vide Exh.114.
(3) Telegram sent to the Commissioner of Police,
Navi Mumbai at 4.08 pm on 11.11.2006 vide Exh.
115.
(4) Fax message sent to the Commissioner of
Police, Thane to number 25346660 at about 4.43
pm on 11.11.2006.
(5) Fax message sent to the Commissioner of
...22/-
Exh.1124 22 (J-SC 317/10)
Police, Navi Mumbai to telephone no.275749 at
about 4.4.5 pm on 11.11.2006.
(6) Delivery reports of fax messages.
(7) Telegram sent to the Chief Minister,
Maharashtra State at about 6.28 pm on
11.11.2006 vide Exh.117.
(8) Telegram sent to Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Maharashtra State at about 06.28 pm on
11.11.2006 vide Exh.118.
28. Mr.Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (Complainant))
also sent a complaint to the President, National Human
Rights Commission, Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110 001 on 16.11.2006 vide Exh.128 (colly.),
wherein it was alleged that, Ramnarayan Vishwanath
Gupta was killed in a fake and false encounter and it
was posed to be a genuine encounter. On 08.02.2007, the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to give directions to
the N.H.R.C to complete its enquiry within a period of
four months. The said directions were issued in Cr.
W.P.No.2473 of 2006. The N.H.R.C. gave findings as
follows:-
We see no reason to differ with the
magisterial findings. We are convinced that Ramnarayan
Vishwanath Gupta was killed in a genuine encounter and
the action of the police is protected by law.
...23/-
Exh.1124 23 (J-SC 317/10)
29. In short, the claim of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
(complainant) stood rejected before the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) vide Exh.928-A (colly.). So
also, on 14.11.2006, the complainant sent complaint to
State Human Rights Commission. The complainant Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta also filed Cri. W.P. No.2473/06.
30. It would not be out of place to mention here
that, there is a separate episode of Anil Jethalal
Bheda (who is dead), a star witness in this case.
Initially, on the day of the alleged encounter dated
11.11.2006, the wife of Anil Bheda by name Smt. Aruna
Anil Bheda lodged a missing complaint about her husband
Anil Bheda. It was alleged that, on 11.11.2006, at
about 10.30 am, her husband Anil Bheda left the house
for refilling his mobile, but did not return home and
mobiles with him i.e. 9324378877 and 9323053863 were
shown switched off, when contacted by her from P.C.O.
She also learned that, the Control Room received a fax
in her name, wherein it was mentioned that Anil Bheda
and his friend Ramnarayan Gupta were picked up by
plainclothes policemen through a silver coloured Qualis
vehicle. Aruna Bheda gave description of her husband
and his photograph. On the basis of the said complaint,
an adult missing complaint bearing No. 51 of 2006 was
registered in Vashi police station at 18.40 hours. It
is to be noted that, on 12.11.2006, at 5.00 pm, Anil
...24/-
Exh.1124 24 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda returned home and told that he had been to Shirdi
for offering prayers and accordingly, statements of
Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda were recorded and the
missing complaint was disposed off accordingly. Again
on 08.01.2007, statement of Aruna Anil Bheda (Article
126), that of Anil Jethalal Bheda (Article 127) dated
07.01.2007, Sharda@ Yashoda Shetty dated 07.01.2007
(Article 128), Jayesh K. Kesariya (Article 129) dated
08.01.2007, were recorded.
31. There was correspondence in this behalf from
the ACP, Vashi Division to Mr.D.B. Patil, PI, Crime,
Vashi police station (Exh.996), station diary entry
(Exh.974 and Exh.997) of Vashi police station in
respect of Adult Missing Complaint filed by Aruna Anil
Bheda. There was again police station diary entry (Exh.
975) about safe return of Anil Bheda at his home and in
respect of fax message sent in the name of Aruna Anil
Bheda. There is report from Mr.D.B.Patil, PI Crime,
Vashi police station to Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Vashi Division, Navi Mumbai at Exh.983. The copy of
fax message sent in the name of Aruna Anil Bheda is at
Exh.986 and a letter from DCP, Crime to Sr. PI, Vashi
police station in respect of telegram sent in the name
of Aruna Anil Bheda is at Exh.987. The telegram is at
Exh.988. The letter by DCP to the Sr.PI, Vashi police
station is at Exh.989. The telegram is at Exh.990. The
...25/-
Exh.1124 25 (J-SC 317/10)
copy of letter by DCP, Crime, Navi Mumbai to the Sr.
PI, Vashi police station is at Exh.991. Wireless
message in respect of N.C. 51 of 2006 is at Exh.993.
32. It is to be noted that, again on 13.03.2011,
Anil Bheda was abducted and Aruna Anil Bheda filed a
complaint of abduction alleging that, on 13.03.2011,
Anil Bheda left home through his Alto Car bearing No.
MH 04 AY 7966 and he was having a mobile phone bearing
No.9833673651 with him from the address of Sector-15,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai at 2 pm on on 13.03.2011. On the
basis of the report lodged by Smt. Aruna Anil Bheda, a
Crime no.1
st
24/11 punishable under Section 363 of the
Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown
persons. It was further revealed that, a burnt dead
body was discovered by Manor police station in the
vicinity of farm of Manor, Dist. Thane and later on, it
was confirmed that, the burnt dead body was of Anil
Bheda. A crime bearing No.22 of 2011 was registered at
Manor police station and already Vashi police station
had registered C.R.No.24/11(Exh.312). Both these cases
were directed to be merged and further investigation
was directed to be transferred to State C.I.D., who
renumbered the cases as C.R.No.97/Investigation/2011.
In this manner, initially, there was a missing
complaint in respect of Anil Bheda, which was
subsequently closed on 12.11.2006 and subsequently
...26/-
Exh.1124 26 (J-SC 317/10)
there was a complaint of abduction and murder, which is
still under investigation with State C.I.D. A Criminal
Writ Petition (habeas corpus) No.754 of 2011 was filed
by Smt.Aruna Anil Bheda against the Director General of
Police, Maharashtra State and others in the Hon'ble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
33. On 21.01.2011, the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.5283-85
and 5303-4 of 2010 was pleased to cancel Bail
Applications of accused persons, wherein the accused
persons filed Special Leave Petition (Cri.)Nos. 3865-69
of 2011. Initially, the accused were released on bail
by the Sessions Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to dismiss the S.L.Ps filed by the accused
persons. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that,
the High Court was perfectly justified in cancelling
the bail of the appellants/ accused.
34. Accused filed Intervention Applications in
Writ Petition No.2473/2006. As discussed earlier, in
W.P. No.2473/06 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to form a
Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the head of
Investigating Officer Mr. K.M.M. Prasanna. The SIT, on
20.09.2009, recorded fresh statement of complainant Mr.
Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and on its basis a crime
...27/-
Exh.1124 27 (J-SC 317/10)
bearing No.246 of 2009 in Versova police station was
registered and the SIT carried out further
investigation, submitted its ten Progress Reports to
the Hon'ble High Court and submitted charge-sheet
against 22 accused persons. In view of this, the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose off Criminal
Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006. Cri. Application No.282
of 2008 in the W.P. was filed by Pradeep Suryawanshi
(Exh.850). Application No.283 of 2008 was filed by (1)
Ganesh Harpude, (2) Anand Patade, (3) Ratnakar Kamble
and (4) Tanaji Desai- Exh.851. Application No.284 of
2008 was filed by (1) Arvind Sarvankar, (2) Nitin
Sartape, (3) Dilip Palande, Exh.852. Application No.181
of 2009 was filed by Nitin Sartape Exh.848. Exh.854 is
the order.
35. It would not be out of place to mention here
that, there was suo moto contempt petition initiated by
the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of a letter
addressed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, imputing certain allegations
against Contemptnor i.e. PI Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi,
then attached to Andheri police station. The Hon'ble
High Court was pleased to direct Magisterial Enquiry
under Section 178(1-A) of the Cr.P.C. The said enquiry
was conducted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court Smt.R.K.Shaikh. The Ld.
...28/-
Exh.1124 28 (J-SC 317/10)
Metropolitan Magistrate, by a letter dated 26.02.2009,
submitted to the Hon'ble High Court stated that, she
had given a report to the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mumbai, complaining that, after she gave a
report against Mr.Suryawanshi, he had been pressurizing
people to make complaints against her. She also
mentioned that, she was given threats on telephone and
telephone of the Ld. APP was used for that purpose.
She was allegedly told I will see her and her
children. She also mentioned that, the President of
Andheri Bar Association Mr.Bapla told her that, Mr.
Suryawanshi had put up a blank paper before him and
asked him to sign it so that he could make complaint
against the Magistrate. The Hon'ble High Court, after
hearing the contemnor, was pleased to hold the
contemnor guilty of committing criminal contempt and
directed him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. (Suo Moto Cri.
Contempt Petition No.10 of 2010 dated 04.02.2011).
36. Test Identification Parade (TIP) dated
20.01.2010 between 16.10 hours to 17.15 hours in Thane
Central Prison was conducted by SEM Mr. Satish Rane
about Akil Khan (accused no.6) and Hitesh Solanki
(accused no.5). Anil Bheda identified both the accused
and Smt.Aruna Anil Bheda identified only Hitesh Solanki
(accused no.5), but could not identify Akil Khan
...29/-
Exh.1124 29 (J-SC 317/10)
(accused no.6). In second part of the Test
Identification Parade conducted by SEM Mr.Satish Rane,
Anil Bheda identified Shailendra Pandey (accused no.4),
Ratnakar Kamble(accused no.3) and Tanaji Desai (accused
no.2). Witness Aruna Bheda identified Ratnakar Kamble
(accused no.3) and Tanaji Desai(accused no.2), but
could not identify Shailendra Pandey (accused no.4).
The SIT recorded statements of both the witnesses i.e.
Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda outside Thane Central
Prison.The Test Identification Parade panchanama is at
Exh.346.
37. On 30.01.2010, SMM Mr. Satish Rane issued a
letter (Exh.640) to Central Prison, Thane and on the
same day, conducted test Identification Parade of
Vinayak Shinde between 17.05 hours to 17.50 hours.
Accused Vinayak Shinde (accused no.7) was identified by
Anil Bheda. Test Identification Parade panchanama is at
Exh.641. On 23.03.2010, SEO Mr.Satish Rane issued a
letter(Exh.642) to the Thane Central Prison and on the
same day, conducted test Identification Parade of Manoj
@ Mannu (accused no.8) and Sunil Solanki (accused no.
10) between 17.15 hours to 18.05 hours. Anil Bheda
identified both the accused. On 26.06.2010, SEO Mr.
Satish Rane issued a letter to the Central Prison,
Arthur Road, Mumbai (Exh.644) and on the same day,
conducted Test Identification Parade of Devidas Sakpal
...30/-
Exh.1124 30 (J-SC 317/10)
(accused no.13) and Mohd.Shaikh (accused no.12) between
13.25 hours to 13.46 hours. Anil Bheda identified both
the accused. SMM Mr. Satish Rane issued a letter (Exh.
646) to the Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai and on
17.8.2010 conducted test Identification Parade of
accused Prakash Kadam (accused no.16) during 09.23
hours to 09.46 hours. Anil Bheda identified the
accused. On 15.04.2011, accused Ratnakar Gautam Kamble
issued a letter to the Central Prison, Thane, for
getting copy of Inward/ Outward Register. It is at Exh.
648.
38. On 11.11.2006, while the complainant was at
home, his brother Mr.Shyamsunder Gupta by his mobile
no.9867016540 called him on his mobile bearing no.
9821376490 at 01.55 pm and told him that, one person
informed him 2 to 3 times on telephone that, Ramnarayan
Gupta and Anil Bheda were forcibly taken in a Qualis
Car by four-five persons like officers from in front of
his shop (shop of the person, who gave information to
Shyamsunder). At 01.59 pm, complainant Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta called from his mobile no.9821376490
to his friend Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer on his mobile no.
9820135384 and informed him about the incident and told
him to meet him immediately. Then the complainant went
to the shop of his brother Shyamsunder situated at
Building No.T-4/004, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Koliwada.
...31/-
Exh.1124 31 (J-SC 317/10)
When he was at the shop of Shyamsunder he received a
call on his mobile from one person. The complainant
took mobile of Shyamsunder and talked to that person by
name Dhiraj. His mobile no. was 9324349531. Dhiraj told
the complainant that, he did not know the persons who
they were. Then the complainant told him to go to Aruna
Bheda, wife of Anil Bheda, and let her talk to him.
Then he went to the office of Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer
at Jai Society, Sion by his motor cycle bearing
registration No.MH-01-TA-117. He met Mr.Ganesh Iyer at
2.45 pm at his office at 74B, Vijay Cottage, 25
th
Road,
behind SIES College, Jain Society, Sion, Mumbai 22. The
complainant informed Mr.Ganesh Iyer about the
communication he had received. At about 03.00 pm, the
complainant contacted Subbhalaxmi, the wife of
Ramnarayan, on her mobile bearing no.09845275138 and
asked her whether Ramnarayan had done any crime and
whether she knew about it. Subbhalaxmi did not know
anything about it. Subbhalaxmi informed the complainant
that, she received a telephone call from her brother
Babu Murgan Shetty about Anil Bheda and Ramnarayan
Gupta being forcibly taken away.
39. Then the complainant contacted Dhiraj on his
mobile number from his Reliance Mobile bearing No.
9324280012. At that time, Dhiraj was in the house of
Aruna Bheda. The complainant inquired with Aruna on
...32/-
Exh.1124 32 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile as to whether any police officers had visited
her home and whether she knew anything. Aruna told him
that, she did not know anything. Then Ganesh Iyer
talked to Aruna from mobile of the complainant and
asked her address. She gave her address as
Sector 29, Diamond Apartment, Plot No.C-41 Vashi, Navi
Mumbai. It is alleged that, the story of encounter
dated 11.11.2006 is totally false and concocted,
prepared with a view to kill his elder brother
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta. In fact, he was picked up
at about 01.00 pm from Sector-9, Vashi, while he, along
with his friend Anil Bheda was standing in front of his
mobile shop. At that time, some policemen in
plainclothes came there in a silver coloured Qualis
Jeep, assaulted both of them and forcibly took them in
the said jeep.
40. At the request of Aruna Bheda, the complainant
and Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer sent telegrams to the
Commissioners of Police, Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai
at 04.08 pm from Matunga Post Office and also sent
telegrams to then Chief Minister Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh
and then Dy. Chief Minister Shri R.R.Patil at 06.28 pm.
Meantime, the complainant and Advocate Mr. Ganesh Iyer
sent fax messages to the Commissioners of Police,
Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai. They succeeded in
sending fax messages to the Commissioners of Police,
...33/-
Exh.1124 33 (J-SC 317/10)
Navi Mumbai and Thane, but could not succeed in sending
fax message to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, as
fax of the Commissioner of Police did not give fax
tone.
41. At the instance of the complainant, Aruna
Bheda went to Vashi police station for lodging
complaint of abduction of her husband, along with
Ramnarayan Gupta, but somehow only missing complaint as
regards to her husband was recorded by the officer of
Vashi police station vide N.C.No.51 of 2006 at about
05.30 pm.
42. The complainant learned from T.V. Channels
about the false and fake encounter. The complainant,
along-with Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer went to the alleged
spot of encounter and inquired about it. He found some
men present nearby and they made inquiry and on
inquiry, they told the complainant and Advocate
Mr.Ganesh Iyer that, at about 08.15 pm, police had
already brought a dead man and pushed him from the
jeep. Thereafter, at about 15-20 police officers opened
fire. On further inquiry, they also said that if a man
was killed in an encounter at that place at least he
should have shown some signs of pain, shouts and
movement in his body, but there was no movement at all
in the body of the man, who was allegedly killed in the
...34/-
Exh.1124 34 (J-SC 317/10)
said encounter. The said persons requested the
complainant and his friend that, they should not
disclose their names as they were afraid of their lives
and liberty.
43. It is further alleged that, his brother was
murdered by the said policemen, who participated in the
false and fake encounter in a preplanned manner. The
police had prepared a false story to hide the
preplanned murder of his brother Ramprasad Vishwanath
Gupta by giving colour of false and fake encounter. It
is further alleged that, whereabouts of Anil Bheda were
not still known and he suspected and he had doubt that,
Anil Bheda might have been killed by the same police
officers by giving colour of accident, might be road,
railway or water or by giving colour of suicide or
murder by some unknown persons. In spite of such a
ghastly act, the police authorities did not officially
or formally inform him and/ or any of his family member
about the matter. Therefore, in a letter dated
14.11.2006, addressed to Mr.A.N.Roy, then the
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the complainant
requested to, (1) immediately look into the matter and
save life of Anil Bheda, (2) suspend the responsible
police officers involved in the said fake encounter,
(3) register case under Sections 302, 144, 143, 144,
147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,
...35/-
Exh.1124 35 (J-SC 317/10)
25 of the Arms Act against the officers involved in the
said fake encounter and then to conduct an enquiry
through investigating agency, (4) carry out Narco
Analysis Test of the officers concerned who
participated in the fake and false encounter, shop
owner in whose presence Anil Bheda and Rampnarayan
Gupta were picked up from Vashi and the people who had
seen the fake and false encounter, (5) to take
necessary action and steps to bring the real facts of
the case and so as to avoid killing of innocents in
false and fake encounter, (6) to take action against
police officer who deliberately did not give fax tone
from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
The complainant also expressed fear to his life in the
said complaint dated 14.11.2006.
44. In pursuance to the directions by the Hon'ble
High Court in Cr.W.P.No.2473 of 2006, the Special
Investigation Team (SIT) was formed and Mr.K.M.M.
Prasanna, D.C.P., Zone-IX, Mumbai was appointed as the
Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the said S.I.T. The
team consisted of DCP Mr. K.M.M. Prasanna, PI Mr. Sunil
Gaonkar, API Mr.Vinay Ghorpade, PSI Mr. Manoj Chalke
and other staff. On 20.08.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded fresh statement of Mr.Ramprasad Vishwanth
Gupta and registered C.R. No.246 of 2009 under Sections
302, 364 r/w.34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code in
...36/-
Exh.1124 36 (J-SC 317/10)
Versova police station. The complainant produced photo
copies of some documents, including the complaint sent
to then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, that of
telegrams and fax messages. Complainant Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta (an advocate) alleged that, on 11.11.2006, his
brother Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiya was
killed in a fake encounter.
45. On 15.11.2006, he filed Cri.Writ Petition No.
2473 of 2006. In pursuance of the order dated
13.08.2009 in the W.P., he remained present before DCP
Mr.K.M.M.Prasanna on 20.08.2009 and made a fresh
statement before him alleging that, on 11.11.2006, his
brother Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in a fake encounter
on 11.11.2006. His brother Bhagwandas worked as a clerk
in Clearing and Forwarding Agency and he, along with
his family, resided at Building No.T/25, Pratiksha
Nagar, Sion Koliwada. His brother Shyamsunder Gupta did
the work of making gold ornaments and he, along with
his wife and children resided at T-1, Room No.406,
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion - Koliwada. Deceased Ramnarayan
Gupta worked as an Estate Agent since 1995. Prior to
that, he had a criminal background. In 1993, he was
arrested in a case of attempt to commit dacoity by
Thane City Police. Thereafter, he was arrested by
Deonar police station in a robbery case. He was also
arrested by Wagle Estate Police Station in a robbery
...37/-
Exh.1124 37 (J-SC 317/10)
case. In the year 1995, Chembur, Unit No.6, Detection
Crime Branch, arrested him in a case of attempt to
commit robbery. Then he was arrested by Lokmanya Tilak
Nagar police station in a dacoity case. Thereafter, he
was released on bail after six months. After Ramnarayan
Gupta was killed in the said encounter, the complainant
came to know that, he was associated with Chhota Rajan
Gang. The complainant made inquiry and found that, he
was absconding in pending dormant cases and he was
wanted in five more cases.
46. In the year 1995, complainant's mother died.
Then Ramnarayan was released on bail and was residing
with the complainant. Meantime, Antop Hill police
station took him to the police station on many
occasions in respect of one murder case. Thereafter,
Ramnarayan left house of the complainant and went away
and did not meet complainant thereafter. On 19.03.1998,
Ramnaryan Gupta married Subbhalaxmi Shetty. It was an
inter-caste marriage. Then the deceased started
residing as a tenant in Thane. The complainant did not
know his address and did not meet him anymore.
47. On 05.11.2006, Shyamsunder Gupta came to the
complainant between 15.00 to 16.00 hours and told the
complainant that, Ramnarayan had called him.
Therefore, he, along with Shyamsunder went to the S.T.
...38/-
Exh.1124 38 (J-SC 317/10)
Bus stop near Cadbury Company, Thane. Within 5-7
minutes, Ramnarayan and his friend Anil Bheda came
there through an auto-rickshaw. There were 3-4 cases
against Anil Bheda in Esplanade Court. Those were cases
of cheating and forgery. The complainant went to
represent Anil Bheda in his cases during 2004-2005. But
when he went to the Court, he came to know that some
other advocate was engaged by the family of Anil Bheda.
Since then, he came to know Anil Bheda. Ramnarayan
Gupta, Anil Bheda and the complainant went to a
building at Upavan. There Ramnarayan Gupta introduced
him to a person, who was a worker of N.C.P.
(Nationalist Congress Party), who asked the complainant
as to whether he was ready to work as a Youth Block
President for Pratiksha Nagar, whereupon the
complainant told him that, he was not interested in
doing the said work. Then the complainant and
Shyamsunder went away.
48. On 11.11.2006, it was second Saturday,
therefore, the complainant was at home. At about 13.55
hours, he received a phone call from Shyamsunder from
mobile no.9867016540 on the mobile of the complainant
bearing No.9821376490, who told the complainant that,
he received three-four phone calls from a person who
told him that, while Ramnarayan Gupta and his friend
Anil Bheda were standing in front of a shop at about
...39/-
Exh.1124 39 (J-SC 317/10)
01.00 pm, suddenly one silver coloured Qualis Jeep came
there. Four-five stout persons appearing like policemen
beat both of them, pushed them in a vehicle and took
them away.
49. Thereafter, the complainant, while coming out
of the house, rang to his friend Advocate Mr.Ganesh
Iyer at 13.59 hours on his mobile bearing No.
9820135384 and gave him information that he had
received from Shyamsunder. The complainant also told
Advocate Mr.Iyer that, Mr.Iyer should meet him, upon
which Adv. Mr.Ganesh Iyer told the complainant to see
him in his office at Sion. Thereafter, the complainant
went to the shop of Rajeshri Lottery Center-T-4/004,
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion. After reaching there, brother
Shyamsunder received a phone call of a friend of
Ramnarayan Gupta. The complainant talked to the said
friend and heard about the same incident. His name was
Dhiraj and was having mobile bearing No.9324349531. The
complainant asked him whether he was able to tell as to
who were the policemen and from where they had taken,
upon which Dhiraj told him that, those were not from
local police. The complainant told him to go to the
house of Anil Bheda and to arrange talks between him
and wife of Anil Bheda. Thereafter, the complainant
took his Motor Cycle Bajaj Citi-100 bearing
registration No.MH-01-TA-117 and at about 14.45 hours
...40/-
Exh.1124 40 (J-SC 317/10)
went to the office of Adv. Mr. Ganesh Iyer, situated
at 74/B, Vijay Cottage, 25
th
Road, behind SIES College,
Jain Society, Sion, Mumbai-22. After five minutes,
Mr.Ganesh Iyer also came there.
50. Then at about 15.00 hours, the complainant
rang from his mobile to mobile No.9845275138 of sister
in law Subbhalaxmi and asked her as to whether she knew
whereabouts of Ramnarayan Gupta and as to whether
Ramnarayan Gupta did anything, upon which Subbhalaxmi
informed him that she did not know anything but that
she received a call from her brother Babu Murgan Shetty
stating that, Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil Bheda were
taken away. She started crying, as she was admitted in
a hospital in Mangalore. Thereafter, he rang to Dhiraj
from his Reliance Mobile bearing No.9324280012 and
asked him as to whether he knew anything and who took
away and where did they take away. He told the
complainant that, he did not know as to who took away
and where did they take away. At that time, Dhiraj was
at the house of Anil Bheda. Therefore, the complainant
talked to Aruna Bheda and asked her as to whether any
policemen had come to her house prior to that day and
as to whether those people had done anything. Aruna
told him that, she did not know anything. At that time,
Mr. Ganesh Iyer took the phone and asked address of
Aruna. She told her address as Flat No.1, Diamond
...41/-
Exh.1124 41 (J-SC 317/10)
Apartment, Sector-29, Navi Mumbai. Dhiraj told address
of his shop as Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Aruna was
crying and she said that, the complainant should do
something to find out and to save his life. Then the
complainant and Advocate Mr. Ganesh Iyer rang to some
police officers by name Arun Chavan, Property Cell,
Mumbai, API Mr.Sakpal, Rabale police station, constable
Narendra Bisth, Antop Hill police station and to
Advocate Mr.Mahesh Mule, on mobile no.9820078646 to
Advocate Mr.Shrirang Shrimane, on mobile no.9820044302
to Advocate Mr.Amit Jambotkar, on mobile no.9867588555
to Advocate Mr.Vijay Desai, on mobile no.9869109875 and
informed them about the incident. He asked them as to
whether they knew anything. He also asked Advocate Mr.
Shrirang Shrimane and Advocate Mr. Mule as regards to
fax numbers of Thane, Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Police
Commissionerate. From them he received fax numbers.
51. Thereafter, at about 16.00 hours, the
complainant and Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer went to Matunga
Telegraph office and from there, they sent telegrams to
the Commissioner of Police, Thane, Commissioner of
Police, Navi Mumbai and the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai. From there they tried to send fax, but there
was engage tone and they could not send the fax.
Therefore, they came to the office of Ganesh Iyer.
Thereafter they went to Ratnadeep Stores, in front of
...42/-
Exh.1124 42 (J-SC 317/10)
SIES College, Sion, Mumbai22 and from there, they sent
fax messages to Thane Police Commissioner bearing Fax
No. 25346660, Navi Mumbai Commissioner bearing Fax No.
2757 4929 Fax contained following message :-
RESPECTED SIR, THIS IS TO BRING TO YOUR KIND
NOTICE THAT MY HUSBAND ANIL BHEDA AND HIS
FRIEND RAMNARAYAN VISHVANATH GUPTA HAS BEEN
PICKED UP BY PLAIN CLOTHES POLICE MEN FROM
SEC.9, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI. THAT THE SAID
POLICE MEN WERE IN A SILVER COLOUR QUALIS CAR.
I SUSPECT THAT THEY WILL KILL THEM IN A FAKE
ENCOUNTER, PLEASE SAVE THEIR LIFE.
52. Name of sender was mentioned as Aruna Bheda,
along with her address. They tried to send fax to
Mumbai Police Commissioner bearing fax No.22613552, but
they did not get fax tone, therefore, could not send
the fax. From there, he rang to Dhiraj on his mobile
and told him to take wife of Anil Bheda to Vashi police
station and to make a complaint of kidnapping. If those
were policemen they would come to know and some action
would be taken. After sometime, Aruna Bheda and Dhiraj
went to Vashi police station. At about 18.30 hours, an
Adult Missing Complaint bearing No.51 of 2006 was
registered in Vashi police station, on the basis of the
complaint made by Aruna Bheda.
53. At about 17.40 hours, the complainant received
a call from a mobile of unknown person, who told the
complainant that, he was friend of Ramnarayan Gupta and
...43/-
Exh.1124 43 (J-SC 317/10)
that, Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil Bheda were taken away
by API Mr.Prakash Bhandari to Belapur Crime Branch.
Then the complainant rang to Advocate Mr.Amit Jambotkar
and Advocate Mr.Vijay Desai and informed them that,
Mr.Prakash Bhandari had taken away Ramnarayan Gupta. He
also told them to find out contact number of Mr.Prakash
Bhandari and if some information was received, it be
transmitted to him. Then, the complainant and Mr.Ganesh
Iyer went to Dadar Telegraph Office and at about 18.28
hours, sent telegrams to then Chief Minister and then
Deputy Chief Minister with the message that,
RAMNARAYAN VISHVANATH GUPTA AND ANIL BHEDA
PICKED UP BY POLICE FROM VASHI SECTOR 9, THEIR
LIFE IS IN DANGER/ THEY MAY BE KILLED IN THE
FAKE ENCOUNTER, PLEASE HELP AND SAVE THEIR
LIFE.
54. From there, they went to Belapur Crime Branch
by motor cycle of the complainant and reached there at
19.45 hours. They made inquiry with a police constable,
who was in uniform and who told them that, Mr.Prakash
Bhandari was on leave and they did not arrest anyone or
did not bring anyone for inquiry on that day. The
constable also showed the rooms to the complainant and
to Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer at their request, but no one
was found there. Thereafter they came to Belapur
Railway Station and were having tea. Then the
complainant rang to the person, who gave him
information as regards to Mr.Prakash Bhandari and told
...44/-
Exh.1124 44 (J-SC 317/10)
him that, the information given by him was wrong as
there was no one in the Crime Branch. At about 20.30
hours, the complainant received a call on his mobile
from Shyamsunder, who told him that, there was a
breaking news on T.V., in which it was reported that,
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiya was killed
in an encounter in Versova area.
55. Then, the complainant and Advocate Mr.Ganesh
Iyer came to the office of Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer.
While coming to his office, Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer
informed Mr.Vijay Desai about the incident and that the
complainant and Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer were going to
the spot of the incident. Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer also
called his driver Raja to his office. The complainant
called Shyamsunder at the office of Advocate Mr.Ganesh
Iyer. They reached at the Sion Office at about 21.20
hours. Advocate Mr.Desai, Advocate Mr.Kudrat Shaikh,
Mr.Shyamsunder and Mr.Raja, the driver, were waiting at
the said office for them. The complainant handed over
his Reliance Mobile bearing No.932428002 to Shyamsunder
and told him to go home and took his mobile bearing No.
9867016540 with him and through Sonata Car of Mr.Ganesh
Iyer they went to Versova police station. At Versova
police station, they made enquiry with the police
constable about the encounter, who informed that the
police station did not have any specific information
...45/-
Exh.1124 45 (J-SC 317/10)
and they should go to the spot where they would get
some information.
56. Then they went to Nana Nani Park, Verosva and
reached there at 22.30 hours. No one was present at the
said spot and there was total darkness. They saw some
buildings at some distance from street light pole.
There was pool of blood and a newspaper Dopaharka
Saamana was kept on it and a stone was kept on the
said newspaper. At about 22.44 hours, the complainant
took some clips of the newspaper and street light pole
of 01 minute and 11 seconds with the help of mobile of
Motorola Company. Due to the darkness, the clipping was
not clear. At that time, no police officer or staff was
present there. No revolver or empty was lying at the
spot. One pick-up van bearing No.UP-16-L-9622 was
standing at some distance. 2-3 persons in the night
dress were standing near the vehicle. The complainant
went there and inquired with them as to whether any
encounter took place, upon which they told the
complainant that, 'no encounter took place, one police
vehicle came there, a dead body was thrown out of it
and some people got down from the vehicle, fired in the
air and went away'. The complainant asked their names,
but they did not tell their names to the complainant.
...46/-
Exh.1124 46 (J-SC 317/10)
57. A watchman was present in Magnum Opus
Building, which was at some distance from the spot. The
complainant asked his name, upon which he told his name
to be Rambabu Rajaram Lodh, age 40 years. The
complainant made inquiry with him, upon which he told
the complainant that, 'no encounter took place and one
dead person was thrown down on the road and some people
fired in the air and went away, after sometime, another
police vehicle came there and took away the dead body'.
The complainant asked him as to how he said that, it
was a dead body, upon which the said person told him
that, there was no movement in the body. The
complainant got baffled, therefore, he did not ask the
said person the time when the dead body was thrown and
number of the vehicle.
58. At about 23.15 hours, they went to Versova
police station and asked one constable present there
about the encounter. The constable told them that there
was no information and the complainant and other should
go to Cooper Hospital to make inquiry. Then the
complainant was to proceed to Cooper Hospital, but
Advocate Mr.Ganesh Iyer, Mr.Desai and Mr.Kudrat Shaikh
convinced him and forcibly sent him home through a
vehicle at Pratiksha Nagar.
...47/-
Exh.1124 47 (J-SC 317/10)
59. On 12.11.2006, the complainant sent his
brother Shyamsunder to JJ Hospital, as postmortem of
the dead body was to be carried out at 09.00 am.
Shyamsunder went to JJ Hospital and identified the dead
body and accordingly, informed the complainant on
mobile phone. On Sunday, at 12 noon, the complainant
called from his mobile bearing No.9821376490 to Dhiraj
on his mobile bearing No.9324349531 and made inquiry
about Anil Bheda, but Dhiraj told him that, he did not
know anything. On 13.11.2006 or 14.11.2006, the
complainant wrote a letter to Versova police station
stating that, dead body of the deceased be not disposed
off, as he wanted to carry out second postmortem.
60. On 15.11.2006, the complainant filed a Writ
Petition in the Hon'ble High Court, Judicature at
Bombay and on 16.11.2006, he received a copy of
postmortem of his deceased brother from the Hon'ble
High Court. The complainant had made a request in the
Writ Petition for second postmortem and the same was
withdrawn by him. On the same day, he received
certified copies of F.I.R., spot panchanama, inquest
panchanama and statements of inquest panchas from
Versova police station through Advocate Mr.Ajay
Vishwakarma. At that time, he came to know that, on
11.11.2006, a crime bearing No.302 of 2006 under
Sections 307, 353 of the I.P.C and Sections 3,25 of the
...48/-
Exh.1124 48 (J-SC 317/10)
Arms Act was registered against his deceased brother.
61. On 17.11.2006, the complainant went to
Oshiwara police station to take custody of the body of
his deceased brother as the crime was transferred for
further investigation to Oshiwara police station. He
met PSI Mr.Shaikh and told him that he had come to take
custody of the dead body of his deceased brother. PSI
Mr.Shaikh started recording his statement, wherein PSI
Mr.Shaikh mentioned that, the complainant's brother
died in an encounter. The complainant objected to it.
The complainant gave a letter for permission to take
photographs of the dead body and to conduct video
shooting of the same. The permission was refused. Then
some altercations took place between them. Therefore,
the complainant did not take custody of the dead body.
On 22.11.2006, by order of the Hon'ble High Court, the
dead body of the deceased was taken into custody by the
complainant for carrying out funeral rites and on the
same day, the funeral rites were carried out in the
crematory.
62. On 26.11.2006, the complainant rang to Dhiraj
and met him at 11.30 am, in a canteen near Vashi Bus
Depot and made inquiry about Anil Bheda, but Dhiraj
informed that, he did not know whereabouts of Anil
Bheda. Then the complainant asked him as to whether he
...49/-
Exh.1124 49 (J-SC 317/10)
was prepared to file an application before the Hon'ble
High Court as regards to the incident that took place
in his presence. Dhiraj told him that, he did not want
to get involved in it and refused to file any
application. Then they went near the shop of Dhiraj.
The complainant saw that name of the shop was Trishala,
Sector 9-A. From there, he went to the house of Anil
Bheda at Sector-29 and found that it was locked. He
made inquiry with a watchman of the building, who told
him that he did not know anything and nothing should be
asked to him.
63. Thereafter, on consecutive three Sundays, he
went to the house of Anil Bheda, but found the house
locked. Then in the last week of January, probably on
Sunday, he went to the house of Anil Bheda. At that
time, Anil Bheda, his wife and son were present in the
house. The complainant made inquiry with him as regards
to the incident dated 11.11.2006. Anil Bheda told the
complainant that, on 11.11.2006, it was Saturday and in
the morning, he, along with his son and Ramnarayan
Gupta went to Hanuman Temple. Then they came back home
and took break-fast. Thereafter, both of them were at
the shop of Dhiraj at 11.30 am. A customer was to come
there for property dealing. Therefore, they were
waiting for him. At about 1.00 pm, they came out of
the shop. Ramnarayan Gupta was purchasing cigarette. At
...50/-
Exh.1124 50 (J-SC 317/10)
that time, one silver coloured Qualis vehicle came
there. Four-five persons got down from the vehicle.
They slapped both Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil Bheda on
their faces and pushed them in the vehicle. Number of
the vehicle was H-12. He did not know full number.
The persons from the vehicle said, you stole vehicle
of Minister. After sometime, they asked, who was
Lakhan. Another person pointed out at Ramnarayan Gupta
and told that he was 'Lakhan'. The vehicle was
straightway taken to Jungle area at Bhandup. There,
Anil Bheda was separated and was made to sit in a white
Innova Car. At about 3.00 pm, he was taken to D.N.
Nagar police station and was produced before PI Mr.
Pradeep Sharma. Pradeep Sharma told his staff to make
proper inquiry with Anil Bheda. Then he was taken to
another room. He was beaten there. They were asking
about three revolvers kept in his room by Lakhan. He
was also asked as to who killed Tari Sardar. Anil Bheda
told them to make inquiry with Lakhan. He also asked,
why did they beat him, if Lakhan was with them and to
beat him and make inquiry with him. Those people
laughed at him and said, +n+| +| =|+ +| , +n+| | |= +|==|
++ +| r ! |= + + + |+ r ! 4 + : r| +| r |= r|
=|+| ! (Why to beat him he was going to be killed.
There was one free on another, till then there were 113
and that day it would be 115).
...51/-
Exh.1124 51 (J-SC 317/10)
64. At about 16.30 hours, he was again produced
before Mr.Sharma in his cabin. Mr.Sharma was sitting in
a chair and Ramnarayan Gupta was sitting on floor.
Mr.Sharma asked his staff as to whether he was telling
anything, whereupon Anil Bheda fell down on his legs
and requested him saying that, he did not do anything
and if anything was to be asked it be asked to
Ramnarayan Gupta. At 07.00 pm, Anil Bheda was taken out
of the police station and was made to sit in a Qualis
Jeep and then he was taken to some unknown place. On
the following day, he was taken to Vashi police
station. His wife was present in the police station.
Vashi police recorded his statement and that of his
wife and a missing complaint filed by his wife was
withdrawn. From there, Anil Bheda was taken to Kolhapur
through a vehicle and he was kept in Majestic Hotel at
Kolhapur for seven days.
65. Thereafter, he was brought to Mumbai and was
kept in Hotel Mid-town for two months. Meantime, he was
not allowed to see or to talk to anyone except his
wife. When the complainant asked reason behind this,
Anil Bheda informed that, Ramnarayan Gupta had done a
dealing in Dahanu Property and Udhani Builder from
Belapur, Jeni from Thane and Janya Sheth from Belapur
were involved in it. Ramnarayan Gupta picked up
quarrels with them. Therefore, Anil Bheda suspected
...52/-
Exh.1124 52 (J-SC 317/10)
that, those people might be behind it.
66. Then the complainant told Anil Bheda to go the
Hon'ble High Court and to file an affidavit, as he was
the eye-witness. Then Anil Bheda told the complainant
that, his life was saved only because of the fax sent
by him on that day. He also told the complainant that
he did not dare as his activities were under
surveillance. This fact was not disclosed by the
complainant as he was afraid that, if it was disclosed
then Anil Bheda would be finished, but due the
confidence imparted by the Hon'ble High Court, he was
disclosing the said fact. It was further alleged that,
if inquiry was made in proper manner with Anil Bheda he
would clearly tell the said facts.
67. A Magisterial Enquiry in the encounter case
was carried out by the office of Special Land
Acquisition OfficerIV (SLAO-IV) Shri Madhavraoji
Chindhe from Collector Office. It was concluded in
October, 2007. The complainant, his friend Mr.Ganesh
Iyer, gave their statements before the S.L.A.O.-IV,
wherein they mentioned that, it was a fake encounter.
The report submitted by the SLAO-IV was not accepted by
the Hon'ble High Court as the inquiry was not carried
out in pursuance to various points and then inquiry was
entrusted on 13.02.2008 to Railway Mobile Court,
...53/-
Exh.1124 53 (J-SC 317/10)
Andheri as per the provisions of Section 176(1-A) of
Cr.P.C. Initially inquiry was conducted by Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate Shri V.S. Kulkarni and after
his transfer, further inquiry was conducted by Smt.
R.K. Shaikh, who completed the inquiry and submitted
her report on 11.08.2008, wherein she concluded that,
the police officers abducted the deceased, took him to
some unknown place, killed him by firing bullets at him
and then showed that encounter took place at Nana Nani
Park and the said person was in police custody.
68. The complainant alleged that, it was a
preplanned murder as it was not revealed as to through
which auto-rickshaw Ramnarayan Gupta came to the
alleged spot. The spot panchanama prepared by the
police was false. The revolver was planted on
Ramnarayan Gupta. The injuries sustained by Ramnarayan
Gupta were not possible at the said spot. Photographs
of the deceased were destroyed. When the encounter
took place, PI Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi was not at the
spot, but he was in Versova police station. The rules
of sending hand-wash of the deceased were not
deliberately followed. On 11.11.2006, the complainant
was having two mobiles bearing nos.9821376490 and
9324280012 with him. Then after 4-5 months, he
disconnected those numbers and at the time of filing
his complaint he was having mobile bearing No.
...54/-
Exh.1124 54 (J-SC 317/10)
9867653191. He was using the said phone for the last
two and half years and he used mobile no.9702053191 for
the last one year prior to lodging the First
Information Report.
69. It was further alleged that, the police
officers and staff by name Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi,
presently at MIDC police station, PI Mr. Dilip Palande,
Spl. Branch-1, Detection Crime Branch, Mumbai, PI Mr.
Nitin Sartape, Special Branch-2, Crime Branch, Mumbai,
PI Mr. Mohandas Sankhe, Kurar Village police station,
API Mr.Arvind Sarvankar, PSI Mr.Ganesh Harpude, Verosva
police station, PI Mr.Anand Patade, D.N. Nagar police
station and Police Head Constable Mr.Prakash Kadam,
Police Naik Mr.Pandurang Kokam, Police Constable
Mr.Ratnakar kamble, Juhu police station, Police
Constable Mr.Tanaji Desai, Versova police station,
Police Constable Mr.Sandip Sardar, Police Constable Mr.
Devidas Sakpal and Police Inspector Mr.Pradeep Sharma,
who were members of raiding party in C.R.No.302 of 2006
under Sections 307, 353 of the IPC and Sections 3,25 of
the Arms Act, so also Janya Sheth and Udhani from
Belapur and Jeni from Thane, in furtherance of their
common intention abducted Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil
Bheda from Sector-9 and by taking them to some unknown
place, Ramnarayan Gupta was killed somewhere by means
of bullets and then it was shown that he was killed in
...55/-
Exh.1124 55 (J-SC 317/10)
an encounter at Nana Nani Park. Sr.PI Mr.Mohandas
Sankhe prepared false documents, false FIR and false
panchanamas. The complainant also produced copies of
five telegrams, copies of fax messages, reports of two
fax messages, copy of the complaint dated 14.11.2006
sent to the Police Commissioner, Mumbai.
70. On the basis of the report, a crime bearing
No.246 of 2009 under Sections 302, 364 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code was registered in Versova police
station and S.I.T. took over investigation. The SIT
carried out investigation and after investigation was
over, submitted charge sheet in the Court of Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, which subsequently came to be
committed to this Court (the investigation part is
discussed in detail hereinafter).
71. Charge was framed on 08.03.2011, 11.07.2011
and additional charge came to be framed on 11.07.2011
against accused persons i.e. accused nos.1 to 22 vide
Exh.46, Exh.46A and Exh.88, to which the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
72. In support of its case, the prosecution has
examined in all 110 witnesses. So also, has relied on
documents at Exhs.114 to 142,146,147,150, 153 to
155,159, 160, 165, 169, 170, 174, 174A,177, 177A, 178,
...56/-
Exh.1124 56 (J-SC 317/10)
178A,179, 179A, 180, 182, 183, 186,186A, 187, 188, 190
to 192, 194, 195, 197, 197A, 199, 200, 202, 208, 208A,
209, 209A, 211 to 214, 216,216A, 217, 217A, 218, 218A,
219, 219A, 221, 221A, 222, 222A, 223, 223A, 224, 224A,
226, 228, 232, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243 to 254, 251A,
253A, 254A,255, 256, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 269,270,
274,274A, 278, 279, 281,282, 282A, 283 to 285, 285A,
286, 287, 287A, 288, 289,290, 290A, 290B, 291, 292,
292A, 292B, 293, 294, 294A, 295, 297, 297A, 298, 298A,
299A, 300,300A, 301, 301A, 302, 306, 307, 307A, 310,
311, 312, 312A, 312B, 313, 316, 324, 325, 325A, 326,
326A, 327, 119/1, 329, 329A, 330, 330A, 119/2 to
119/4, 334 to 337,340, 341, 344, 346 to 348, 352, 353,
353A, 355, 355A, 355B, 356, 358 to 360, 360A, 361 to
363, 365, 366, 366A, 370 , 385, 386 to 388, 398 to 465,
467, 468, 471, 473 to 475, 477, 478, 478A, 479, 480,
482, 486, 488, 491, 491A,491B, 493, 493A, 494, 495,
495A, 496, 496A, 497, 497A, 498, 498A, 499, 499A, 500,
500A, 501, 501A, 502, 503, 503A, 504, 505, 505A, 506,
506A, 507, 507A, 508, 508A, 509, 509A, 510, 510A, 511,
511A, 512, 512A, 513, 513A, 514,514A, 515, 516, 520 to
532, 534 to 564, 570 to 585, 589, 589A, 590, 590A,
591, 591A, 592, 592A, 593, 595 to 597, 599, 601, 601A,
602, 602A, 603, 603A, 606, 607, 611, 611A, 612, 612A,
613, 617, 617A,620, 620A, 623, 626, 626A, 628, 631,
636,637, 637A,640, 641 to 648, 650 to 652, 656, 656A,
657, 658,659, 662, 663, 665, 665A, 666, 666A,667,667A,
...57/-
Exh.1124 57 (J-SC 317/10)
668, 669, 669A, 670, 670A, 671, 671A, 673, 676 to 685,
687, 687A, 688, 688A, 689, 689A, 691, 692, 694, 696,
698, 702, 702A, 703, 703A, 706, 714,715, 718 to 721,
724, 725, 727 to 729, 729A,730, 731, 731A, 732, 732A,
733, 733A, 737 to 739, 741, 744, 746, 751, 751A, 752,
753, 753A, 754, 755, 755A, 756, 756A, 757, 758, 764,
764A, 765, 765A, 775, 775A, 778 to 780, 782, 788 to
790, 792, 799 to 802, 802A, 803, 804, 804A, 806 to
821, 823, 827, 827A, 833 to 836, 838 to 841, 843, 844,
846 to 848,850 to 879, 882, 884, 884A, 886,888, 890,
894 to 897, 897A, 898, 898A, 899, 899A,900 to 902, 904,
907 to 915, 921 to 924, 926 to 928, 928A, 929.
930,932,934 to 942,944, 946,947, 951, 953, 955, 958,
961, 965 to 968, 974 to 984, 986 to 991, 993, 996, 997
and 1007 to 1010. Accordingly, the Ld. SPP for the
State filed evidence close pursis vide Exh.916 dated
29.10.2012.
73. Considering incriminating evidence against the
accused, I have recorded statements of the accused
persons u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exhs. 921, 923, 924,
926, 927, 928, 929, 932, 934, 935, 937, 938, 939, 940,
941, 944, 946, 947, 951, 953, 955 and 958. Defence is
that of total denial, false implication and that of
genuine encounter. In short, multifarious defences have
been taken by the accused persons. The accused have
examined defence witnesses viz. Mr.Manohar Pandurang
...58/-
Exh.1124 58 (J-SC 317/10)
Kulpe (DW-1) at Exh.960 and Mr.Dagadu Bandu Patil
(DW-2) at Exh.973. Accused no.1 has relied on document
at Exh.922, accused no.9 has relied on document at Exh.
928A, accused no.15 has relied on document at Exh.930,
accused no.17 has relied on document at Exh.936 and
accused no.22 has relied on document at Exh.942.
74. Ld. Advocate Mr.Vanjara has filed evidence
close pursis vide Exh.969 dated 21.12.2012 for accused
nos.3,4 and 5. Ld. Advocate Mr.Iyaz Khan for accused
nos. 6,7 and 10 has filed evidence close pursis vide
Exh.971 dated 22.12.2012. Ld. Advocate Mr.S.D.Nangare
for accused no.9 has filed evidence close pursis vide
Exh.972 dated 22.12.2012. Ld. Advocate Mr.Prakash
Shetty for accused no.14 has filed evidence close
pursis vide Exh.992 dated 24.12.2012. Ld. Advocate
Mr.Bane for accused no.1 has filed evidence close
pursis vide Exh.994 dated 26.12.2012. Ld. Advocate Mr.
Vadke for accused no.17 has filed evidence close pursis
vide Exh.995 dated 26.12.2012. Accused nos. 2,8,11,12,
13,16,18,19,20 and 21 in person have filed evidence
close pursis vide Exh.1000 dated 26.12.2012. Ld.
Advocate Mr.Varad Deore h/f. Mr.Girish Kulkarni for
accused nos. 15 and 22 has filed evidence close pursis
vide Exh.1001 dated 27.12.2012.
75. Heard rival parties.
...59/-
Exh.1124 59 (J-SC 317/10)
76. This has given rise to following points. I
have recorded my findings on these points for the
reasons to follow:-
Points Findings
1. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, the accused nos. 1 to 22,
during the period between October, 2006
to 11
th
November, 2006 at Mumbai and New
Mumbai were party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit offences
punishable under Sections 364, 365, 368
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
inasmuch as all of the accused
conspired (i) to abduct the deceased
Ramnarayan Vishwanth Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya in order that he might be
murdered, (ii) to abduct the witness
Anil Jethalal Bheda with intent to
cause him to be secretly and wrongfully
confined, (iii) to wrongfully conceal
or confine the deceased Ramnarayan
Vishwanth Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya knowing
that he had been kidnapped or had been
abducted for murder, (iv) to commit
murder of the deceased Ramnarayan
Vishwanth Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya and
thereby committed offences punishable
u/s. 120 B r/w. 364, 365 and 368 of the
Indian Penal Code ?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos. 2
to 22.
2. Whether the prosecution has proved
that, the accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and
21 on 11
th
November, 2006, at about
12.30 pm, at Sector-9, Vashi, New
Mumbai in pursuance of the said
conspiracy in the course of the same ..Proved.
...60/-
Exh.1124 60 (J-SC 317/10)
transaction, were members of unlawful
assembly the common object of which was
to abduct the deceased Ramnarayan
Vishanath Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya and
witness Anil Jethalal Bheda and thereby
accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21 have
committed offences punishable u/s. 143
of the Indian Penal Code ?
3. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, at the same time and place
the above stated accused being members
of the unlawful assembly were armed
with deadly weapons like firearms and
thereby accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21
have committed offence punishable u/s.
144 of the Indian Penal Code?
..Proved.
4. Whether the prosecution has proved
that, the above mentioned accused in
charge No.3, at the same time and place
being members of the unlawful assembly
had committed offence of rioting and
thereby have committed offence
punishable u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal
Code ?
..Proved.
5. Whether the prosecution has proved
that, all the accused mentioned in
Charge nos. 3 and 4 above, at the same
time and place being members of the
unlawful assembly and while committing
the offence of rioting were armed with
deadly weapons like firearms and
thereby accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21
committed offence punishable u/s. 148
of the Indian Penal Code?
.. Proved
...61/-
Exh.1124 61 (J-SC 317/10)
6. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, the above mentioned
accused in Charge nos. 3,4, and 5, at
the same time and place in pursuance of
the said conspiracy and in prosecution
of common object of the said unlawful
assembly had abducted deceased
Ramnarayan Vishwanth Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya in order that he might be
murdered and thereby the accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21 have committed
offence punishable u/s. 149 r/w. 364 of
the Indian Penal Code?
.. Proved
7. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12
and 21 at the same time and place in
pursuance of the said conspiracy and in
prosecution of common object of said
unlawful assembly had abducted witness
Anil Jethalal Bheda with intent to
cause said Anil Jethalal Bheda to be
secretly and wrongfully confined and
thereby accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21
committed offence punishable u/s. 149
r/w. 365 of the Indian Penal Code ?
.. Proved
8. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos.
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 and 21 on the same
day in pursuance of the said conspiracy
and during the course of same
transaction at Bhandup complex, Mumbai
at 1.00 pm in furtherance of their
common object had abdcuted the deceased
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya in order that he might be
murdered and thereby committed offence
punishable u/s. 364 r/w. 149 of the
.. Proved
...62/-
Exh.1124 62 (J-SC 317/10)
Indian Penal Code?
9. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, at the same time and place
and during the course of same
transaction in pursuance of the said
conspiracy the accused named above in
charge no.8 in furtherance of their
common object had abducted witness Anil
Jethalal Bheda with intent to cause
said Anil Jethalal Bheda to be secretly
and wrongfully confined and thereby
committed offence punishable u/s. 365
r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
.. Proved
10. Whether the prosecution has proved
that, accused no.1, named above, on the
same day at D.N. Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai at about 2.30 pm, in pursuance
of the said conspiracy had concealed or
confined deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath
Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya knowing that the
said deceased had been abducted for
murder and thereby the accused no.1
committed offence punishable u/s. 368
of the Indian Penal Code ?
.. Not proved
11. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, since the offences
punishable u/s. 364 and 365 committed
by accused nos.2,3,4,5, 6,7,8,10,12 and
21 were committed in pursuance of
conspiracy of all of accused nos.
1,9,11,13 to 20 and 22 have abetted by
conspiracy commission of the said
offences punishable u/s. 364 and 365 of
the Indian Penal Code and thereby
accused nos. 1, 9, 11, 13 to 20 and 22
committed offences punishable u/s. 365
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.
9,11,13 to 20
and 22.
...63/-
Exh.1124 63 (J-SC 317/10)
r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code?
12. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, since the offence
punishable u/s. 368 of the Indian Penal
Code by accused no.1 was in pursuance
of criminal conspiracy of all of the
accused, accused nos.2 to 22 abetted
commission of the said offence
punishable u/s.368 of the Indian Penal
Code and thereby accused nos. 2 to 22
committed offence punishable 368 r/w.
109 r/w.120(B)of the Indian Penal Code?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.2
to 22.
13. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos. 1,2,3,5,13
and 16 in pursuance of the said
conspiracy during the course of same
transaction and in furtherance of their
common intention had wrongfully
confined witness Anil Jethalal Bheda
for a period of 30 days commencing from
11.11.2006 at D.N. Nagar police
station, Mumbai, Hotel Majestic,
Kolhapur and at Hotel Mid Town,
Andheri, Mumbai and thereby committed
offence punishable u/s. 344 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.
2,3,5,13 and
16.
14. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, the above stated offence
punishable u/s. 344 of the Indian Penal
Code was committed in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy of all the accused
i.e. accused nos. 4,6 to 12, 14, 15 and
17 to 22 have abetted the commission of
the said offence punishable u/s. 344 of
the Indian Penal Code by conspiracy and
.. Proved.
...64/-
Exh.1124 64 (J-SC 317/10)
thereby the accused nos. 4,6 to 12, 14,
15 and 17 to 22 committed offences
punishable u/s.344 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code?
15. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, the accused, on the same
i.e. 11.11.2006 at or around D.N. Nagar
police station, at about 8.00 or at
around 8.00 pm, accused nos. 1,2,9 and
15 in furtherance of their common
intention had committed murder by
intentionally or knowingly causing the
death of the deceased Ramnarayan
Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya and
thereby accused nos. 1,2,9 and 15
committed offence punishable u/s. 302
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code ?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.
2,9 and 15.
16. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, since the above said
offence punishable u/s. 302 of the
Indian Penal Code was committed in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy of all
the accused nos. 2 to 8, 10 to 14 and
16 to 22 have abetted by conspiracy the
commission of the said offence and
thereby accused nos. 2 to 8, 10 to 14
and 16 to 22 committed offence u/s. 302
r/w. 109 r/w. 120 (B) of the Indian
Penal Code?
... Proved
17. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos.
2,3,9,11,13,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 22
near Nana Nani Park, Versova on
11.11.2006 at about 8.00 pm in
pursuance of the said criminal
conspiracy and in the course of same
...65/-
Exh.1124 65 (J-SC 317/10)
transaction and in furtherance of their
common intention cause disappearance of
evidence of the commission of offence
of murder with intention of screening
the offenders from legal punishment
knowing or having reason to believe
that an offence of murder has been
committed and thereby the accused
committed offence punishable u/s. 201
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
.. Proved.
18. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, since the said offence
punishable u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal
Code had been committed in pursuance
of criminal conspiracy of all the
accused i.e. accused nos. 1 to 8,10,
12,14 and 16 have abetted the
commission of the said offence 1,4 to 8
by conspiracy and thereby committed
offences punishable u/s. 201 r/w. 109
r/w. 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.2
to 8,10,12,14
and 16
19. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused no.9 at Versova
police station on 11.11.2006 at about
8.00 pm in pursuance of the said
criminal conspiracy gave information
respecting the offence which he knew or
had reason to believe to be false with
intention of screening the offender
from the punishment and thereby
committed offence punishable u/s. 201
of the Indian Penal Code?
...Proved.
20. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, since the offence
mentioned in charge no.18 was committed
in pursuance of criminal conspiracy of
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
...66/-
Exh.1124 66 (J-SC 317/10)
all, the accused nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to
22 have committed offences punishable
u/s. 201 r/w. 109 r/w. 120 (B) of the
Indian Penal Code?
accused nos.2
to 8 and 10 to
22.
21. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos. 20 and 22 in
the month of October, 2010 failed to
appear before Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri as
required by the proclamation duly
published and despite the fact that the
accused were declared as proclaimed
offenders and thereby the accused nos.
20 and 22 have committed offence
punishable u/s. 174(A) of the Indian
Penal Code?
...Proved.
22. Whether the prosecution has
proved that, in the course of same
transaction and pursuant to the said
conspiracy, the accused nos.1,2,3,7,
9,11,13,15 to 20 and 22 being public
servants namely members of Mumbai
Police Force, whose duty was to prevent
the commission of the offence
punishable u/s. 364 and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code with intention of
facilitating or with the knowledge that
all the above accused will thereby
facilitate the commission of above said
offences punishable with the term of
imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, death or
imprisonment for life and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s.
119 of the Indian Penal Code ?
Not proved
against
accused no.1.
Proved against
accused nos.
2,3,7,9,11,13,
15 to 20 and
22.
...67/-
Exh.1124 67 (J-SC 317/10)
23. What Order? As per final
order.
REASONS
77. It has come in evidence of Mr.Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta (PW-1) (Complainant), Exh.113 that, he
had three brothers namely, Bhagwandas Gupta, Ramnarayan
Gupta and Shaym Sunder Gupta. On 11.11.2006 his brother
Ramnarayan was murdered. After the murder of
Ramanaryan, on 15.11.2006 he filed a Writ Petition No.
2473 of 2006 in the Hon'ble High Court with a prayer
that then C.P. of Mumbai be directed to register the
offence of murder against Pradeep Surayanshi, Dilip
Palanade and other police officers. The second prayer
was since police officers of Mumbai police were
involved in murder the investigation of the case be
handed over to CBI. The Hon'ble Justice V.H. Marlapalle
and Hon'ble lady Justice Mrs. R.S. Dalvi passed order
on 13.08.2009, directing him to approach to DCP Mr.
Prasanna, along with his complaint dated 14.11.2006,
which was forwarded to then C.P. Mumbai and to give a
fresh statement to Mr.Prasanna which would be treated
as FIR.
78. The witness further deposed that, the Hon'ble
Justices themselves appointed DCP Mr.Prasanna as
Investigating Officer and directed him to form his
Special Investigation Team (SIT) and to carry out
...68/-
Exh.1124 68 (J-SC 317/10)
investigation in the case of the murder of Ramnarayan
and to give progress report to the Hon'ble High Court
within four weeks, as the Hon'ble High Court was
supervising the investigation. In pursuance to the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court, he approached to
DCP Mr.Prasanna on 20.08.2009. He called him in Versova
police station, where the DCP recorded his statement
and registered the crime vide CR No. 246/09 against 17
accused.
79. The witness further deposed that, on
11.11.2006, he was at his home. At about 1.55 pm, his
brother Shyamsunder, by his mobile no.9867016540,
called him on his mobile no. 9821376490 and informed
that, one person informed him by telephoning two-three
times that, Ramanarayan and Anil Bheda were forcibly
taken in a Qualis car by 4 to 5 persons like officers
from in front of his shop. At about 01.59 pm, he called
from his mobile no.9821376490 to his friend
Adv.Mr.Ganesh Iyer on his mobile no.9820135384 and
informed about the incident and told him to meet him
immediately. Then immediately he went to the shop of
his brother Shyamsunder at Bldg. No.T 4/004, Pratiksha
Nagar, Sion Koliwada. When the witness was there,
Shyamsunder received a call on his mobile from one
person. The witness took the mobile of Shyamsunder and
talked with that person. That person told his name as
...69/-
Exh.1124 69 (J-SC 317/10)
Dhiraj and mobile no. as 9324349531. The witness asked
him as to whether he knew as to who were the police
officers and where from they came. He told that he did
not know about it.
80. The witness further deposed that, that person
told him that those officers were not like local police
officers. The witness asked him to go to Aruna Bheda,
wife of Anil Bheda and let her talk with the witness.
Thereafter he went to the office of Adv. Ganesh Iyer
at Jai Society, Sion and met him at 2.45 pm and
informed him about the communication he received. He
contacted Subhalaxmi, the wife of Ramnarayan on her
mobile no.09845275138 and asked her about Ramnaraya.
She informed him that, she received a telephone call
from her brother Babu Murgan Shetty about Anil Bheda
and Ramnarayan being forcibly taken away. Thereafter he
telephoned Dhiraj on his mobile no.9324349531 from his
Reliance Mobile No.9324280012. That time Dhiraj was in
the house of Aruna Bheda. Then the witness talked with
Aruna on mobile and asked her as to whether any police
officers had visited her home and whether she knew
anything.
81. The witness further deposed that, Aruna Bheda
gave her address as Sector-29, Diamond Apartment, Plot
no.C-41Vashi, Navi Mumbai. He also inquired about
...70/-
Exh.1124 70 (J-SC 317/10)
address of his shop as Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
At that time, Aruna Bheda was crying and told him to
find out Ramnarayan and Anil and to save their lives.
Thereafter, he and Ganesh Iyer telephoned to some of
the police officers namely Arun Chavan from Property
Cell, API Sakpal of Rabale Police Station and Constable
Narendra Bisht of Antop Hill Police Station. The
witness informed them about the incident and requested
them to make inquiry. He also telephoned his advocate
friends Mr. Mahesh Mule on his mobile no.9820078646,
Adv.Shrirang Shrimane on his mobile no.9820044302,
Adv.Amit Jambutkar on his mobile no.9867588555,
Adv.Vijay Desai on his mobile no.9869109878 and
informed them about the incident and requested them to
make inquiry.
82. The witness further deposed that, he inquired
with Mahesh Mule and Shrirang Shrimane about the fax
numbers of C.P. of Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai. Both
of them gave fax numbers which he noted down.
Thereafter he and Ganesh Iyer went to Matunga Telegram
Office at about 4 pm, sent telegrams to C.P., Mumbai,
Thane and Navi Mumbai. The contents of the telegrams
were Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta and Anil Bheda picked
up by plainclothes policemen from Sector-9, Vashi and
their lives are in danger. Please help and save their
lives. The telegram was sent in the name of Aruna
...71/-
Exh.1124 71 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda and her address was mentioned and received the
receipt of payment for sending the telegram. He
approached to the BSNL on 27.11.2006 for delivery
report of the telegrams that he sent. On 29.11.2006 he
received the report from the telegram office about
delivery of those telegrams to the offices concerned.
Exh.114 was the telegram form which was sent to the
C.P. of Thane, which was written by Ganesh Iyer. It was
sent in the name of Aruna Bheda. Exh.115 was the
telegram form which was sent to the C.P. of Navi
Mumbai. It was written by Ganesh Iyer. It was sent in
the name of Aruna Bheda. Exh.116 was the telegram form
which was sent to the C.P of Mumbai Shri A.N. Roy. It
was written by Ganesh Iyer. It was sent in the name of
Aruna Bheda. Exh.117 was the telegram form which was
sent to Chief Minister, Maharashtra State at 06.28 pm
on 11.11.2006 from Dadar Telegram Office. It was
written by Ganesh Iyer. It also was sent in the name
of Aruna Bheda.
83. The witness further deposed that, Exh.118 was
the telegram form which was sent to the Dy. CM,
Maharashtra State at 6.28 pm on 11.11.2006 from Dadar
Telegram Office. It was sent in the name of Aruna
Bheda. At about 05.45 pm, on the same day, one person
telephoned him and told that his brother and Anil Bheda
were taken away by API Prakash Bhandari, Belapur Crime
...72/-
Exh.1124 72 (J-SC 317/10)
Branch. Then he and Ganesh Iyer went to Dadar Telegram
Office and at about 6.28 pm, sent telegrams to the CM
and the Dy CM vide Exhs.117 and 118. The contents in
the telegrams were My husband Anil Bheda and his
friend Ramnarayan Gupta has been picked up by the
plainclothes policemen from Sector-9, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai and I fear that they may be killed in fake
encounter. When he and Ganesh Iyer were at Belapur
Railway station, at about 08.30 pm, Shyamsunder
telephoned him and informed that, there was a breaking
news on all T.V Channels that, Ramnarayan Vishwanath
Gupta was killed in an encounter with police at
Versova.
84. The witness further deposed that, he, Ganesh
Iyer, Vijay Desai and Kudrat Shaikh and driver Raja
went to Versova police station and inquired there. They
were told to go to Nana Nani Park, Versova.
Accordingly, they went there at 10.30 pm. They found
some blood near the electric pole. There was one jeep
bearing No. UP-16L-9622 standing there. There was a
building namely Magnum Opus situated near left side of
the spot. He made inquiry with one watchman Rambhau
Rajaram Lobh. He told that, one police car came and a
dead body was thrown from the vehicle and some people
fired in the air and went away. There was no movement
in that body. The witness did recording from his
...73/-
Exh.1124 73 (J-SC 317/10)
Motorola Company Mobile of the spot and of the electric
pole.
85. The witness further deposed that, he
transferred the video clipping taken at the spot to his
computer. He prepared CD of that clipping and handed
over the same to the police officer. On 11.11.2006, he
told Dhiraj to take Aruna Bheda to Vashi police station
and lodge complaint of kidnapping. At about 6.30 pm,
Dhiraj took Aruna to Vashi police station and police
registered adult missing complaint bearing No.51 of
2006 of Anil Bheda. On 12.11.2006, he asked his brother
Shyamsunder to visit JJ Hospital for identifying the
body of Ramnarayan. Accordingly, Shymsunder went to JJ
Hospital and identified the body of the deceased and
informed him at 01 pm.
86. The witness further deposed that, on
13.11.2006, in the morning, he went to Matunga
Telegraph Office and obtained certified copy of
Telegram which was sent by him on 11.11.2006. Then he
went to Dadar Telegraph Office and obtained two
certified copies of telegrams which were sent by him to
the C.M. and the Dy.C.M. of Maharashtra State on
11.11.2006 vide Exhs.114,115 and 116. On 13.11.2006,
after getting the certified copies of the telegrams, he
prepared detailed complaint on his letterhead addressed
...74/-
Exh.1124 74 (J-SC 317/10)
to the C.M. and the Dy. C.M., which was sent by hand
delivery and obtained receipt of the letters from
officers concerned. On 14.11.2006, he sent complaint on
his letterhead to The State Human Rights Commission and
to Mr. AN Roy, The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
87. The witness further deposed that, on
15.11.2006, he filed a Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006 in
the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay with number of prayers.
On 16.11.2006, one of the copies of complaint was
addressed to the President, National Human Rights
Commission, New Delhi on his letterhead and was sent by
RPAD. On 27.11.2006, he gave an application on his
letterhead to Sub-Divisional Engineer (G-II), BSNL,
Mumbai requesting to inform as to whether the five
telegrams which he had sent on 11.11.2006 were received
by the authorities concerned. Accordingly on
29.11.2006, they gave him report about the delivery of
the telegram by authorities concerned by mentioning the
date and time. On 21.11.2006, he had sent a letter on
his letterhead to Manager, BSNL requesting him not to
destroy the telegram forms without permission of the
Hon'ble High Court or without informing him as the
matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court.
88. The witness further deposed that, on
22.11.2006, the Hon'ble High Court gave directions to
...75/-
Exh.1124 75 (J-SC 317/10)
him and to the officers of Oshiwara police station to
go to JJ Hospital so that dead body of his brother was
handed over to him. Accordingly, on 22.11.2006, he had
been to Oshwara police station for claiming the dead
body. In pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High
Court, he had taken custody of dead body of Ramnarayan
on 22.11.2006 and last rites were performed. On
26.11.2006, after calling Dhiraj Mehta on phone he went
to Vashi to meet him. He met Dhiraj at Vashi Depot and
inquired with him about Anil Bheda. Then he went to
shop of Dhiraj and saw name of the shop as Trisha
Collections, Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Then he went
to the house of Anil Bheda at Plot No.1, Diamond
Apt.,Sector 29, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The house was
locked. He inquired with watchman of the building. He
had received the receipts for payment of five telegrams
sent by him vide Exh.119 (colly.).
89. The witness further deposed that, the fax
message on 11.11.2006 was written by Ganesh Iyer. The
witness had obtained delivery report of the fax vide
Exh.120. When he had sent the fax to C.P. of Mumbai,
Thane and Navi Mumbai on 11.11.2006 he received
delivery report of the concerned parties vide Article-1
and Article-2. In the last week of December, 2006 he
had been to the house of Anil Bheda. That time, Anil
Bheda, his wife Aruna and son Parth were present. He
...76/-
Exh.1124 76 (J-SC 317/10)
made inquiry with him as regards to incident dated
11.11.2006. After some conversation between the witness
and Anil Bheda, the witness advised him to file an
affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court pertaining to
the incident dated 11.11.2006. When the Hon'ble High
Court directed the SIT to make investigation, he
disclosed before them in his FIR about his conversation
with Bheda.
90. The witness further deposed that, on
13.2.2008, the Hon'ble High Court directed Ld.MM
Court, Andheri to conduct fresh inquiry u/s.176 (1-A)
of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted by Ld.
M.M., Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. The witness
participated in the said inquiry. The statements of
witnesses by way of affidavits were recorded. On
11.08.2008, report of the inquiry came to be filed
before the Hon'ble High Court. Eight police officers
filed intervention applications in the Writ Petition.
So also number of affidavits were filed. One of the
police officers Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape also filed a
separate Writ Petition vide WP No.181/2009, challenging
the report of the M.M. Court, Andheri. On 13.08.2009,
the Hon'ble High Court directed the Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai, to register FIR in the offence of
murder of Ramnarayan Gupta and to carry out
investigation and file report.
...77/-
Exh.1124 77 (J-SC 317/10)
91. The witness further deposed that, the Hon'ble
High Court also gave direction to the witness to give a
copy of complaint dated 14.11.2006 to the Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai. Thereafter, he tried to contact DCP
Mr.Prasanna, Head of the SIT on 20.08.2009, who
recorded statement of the witness. He handed over
copies of complaint dated 14.11.2006, copy of writ
petition, copy of five telegrams, copy of receipts of
five telegrams, copy of fax delivery reports and two
other fax delivery reports, which were annexed to W.P.
24763/06 with his forwarding letter. FIR is at Exh.121.
92. The witness further deposed that, on
11.11.2006, he was having two mobile phones of his own
and from the afternoon, he was having a mobile of his
brother Shyamsunder bearing Nos.9821376490, 9324280012
and 9867016540 respectively. He had taken video
clipping of the spot by his mobile bearing No.
9821376490 of Motorola handset. The video clipping of
the spot was saved in the memory card of his mobile no.
9821376490. CD (Exh.122) i.e. video clipping taken by
the witness and the video clipping of Sahara News on
the laptop were the same. He prepared CD from the
memory card of his mobile. On 16.12.2006, he had
obtained CD (Exh.123) of the video clipping of Sahara
Samay from Isha Monitoring Services at Ghatkopar after
...78/-
Exh.1124 78 (J-SC 317/10)
paying charges for which they issued the receipt. He
had written a letter on 13.11.2006 to the C.M. of
Maharashtra State and received acknowledgment of the
hand delievery of the letter vide copy Exh.124.
93. The witness further deposed that, he had
written a letter on 13.11.2006 to the Dy. C.M. of
Maharashtra State and received acknowledgment of the
hand delivery of the letter vide copy of letter Exh.
125. On 14.11.2006, he had written a letter to Mr. AN
Roy, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and received
acknowledgment of hand delivery of the letter vide copy
of letter Exh.126. On 14.11.2006, he had written a
letter to the State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai and
received acknowledgment of hand delivery vide copy Exh.
127. So also, on 16.11.2006, he had written a letter to
the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, by
Register Post and received acknowledgment receipt vide
Exh.128 colly. On 20.11.2006, he had written a letter
to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(BSNL) for preserving the original telegram forms and
received acknowledgment of the hand delivery vide copy
Exh.129. On 27.11.2006, he had sent a letter to SDEG-
II, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for seeking
delivery reports of the telegrams sent by him and
received acknowledgment of hand delivery of the letter
vide Exh.130. He received reply from SDEG-II, BSNL
...79/-
Exh.1124 79 (J-SC 317/10)
Office vide Exh.131. On 06.03.2007, he made an
application to the Information Officer/ Assistant
Commissioner of Police under RTI Act to get the
information as to when and at what time and by whom the
office of Commissioner of Police received the telegram
and what action they had taken on the telegram. He
obtained acknowledgment of receipt of the application
vide xerox copy Exh.133. Accordingly, he received a
reply from the CP Office on 20.03.2007 vide copy Exh.
134.
94. The witness further deposed that, on
17.08.2009, Prakash Ganpat Kadam, Sandip Hemraj Sardar,
Devidas Ganagaram Sakpal and Pandurang Ganpat Kokam
challenged the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated
13.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006
before the Hon'ble Apex Court by SLP. He appeared in
that petition before Hon'ble Apex Court. The said
petition came to be dismissed, as withdrawn. Certified
copies of the SLP were at Exh.135 colly. The certified
copy of the order dated 21.8.2009 and 31.8.2009 passed
in SLP were obtained vide copies Exh.138 colly. On
20.8.2009, he had given a letter to the Investigating
Officer Mr. Prasanna, along with xerox copy of Writ
Petition No.2473 of 2006, xerox copies of five
telegrams, xerox copies of fax, xerox copies of
receipts of those five telegrams, xerox copies of two
...80/-
Exh.1124 80 (J-SC 317/10)
delivery reports and letter dated 14.11.2006. The said
letter was at Exh.139. Second set of copies of SLP,
along with annexures were at Exh.140 Colly. On
12.7.2010, he had written a letter to DCP Mr.Prasanna
informing him about statement of Anil Bheda recorded
u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. in the case bearing CR No.302/06 of
Versova polie station the investigation of which was
being carried out by Oshiwara police station.
95. The witness further deposed that, D.N. Nagar
police station made two applications to the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate for seeking permission to
record statement of Anil Bheda u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. on
30.01.2009, Oshwara police station made an application
to the CMM for seeking permission to record a statement
of Anil Bheda u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, orders
were passed by the Court. On 26.02.2009, D.N. Nagar
police made an application to the CMM for recording
statements of witnesses Jayesh Kanji Karia, Aruna Bheda
and Manohar Pandurang Kulpe u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. In the
month of March, 2009, Oshiwara police station made an
application to the CMM seeking permission to record
statements of Sandip Hemraj Sardar, Prakash Kadam,
Pandurang Kokam, Devidas Sakpal, Ananda Patade and
Ganesh Harpure u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C.
...81/-
Exh.1124 81 (J-SC 317/10)
96. The witness further deposed that, he had
obtained certified copies of five applications from the
CMM and handed over the same to IO Mr. Prasanna with a
letter(Art.3). After giving the letter dated
12.07.2010, he received a phone call from the SIT
office and he was called on 14.07.2010 for recording
his further statement with regards to that letter.
Earlier, on 21.08.2009 his statement was recorded by
the IO in respect of production of the C.D. On
24.08.2009, he received a phone call from the SIT
Office and he was called on 25.08.2009 at Vashi Bus
depot for showing the spot from where his brother was
taken. His statement was recorded on 25.08.2009. On
10.10.2009, he received a phone call from the SIT
office calling him at Nana Nani Park on 11.10.2009. On
01.03.2011, he gave a copy of the complaint letter
dated 13.11.2006 addressed to the C.M. and the Dy. C.M
and also letters given to the State Human Rights
Commission and the National Human Rights Commission
along with RPAD acknowledgment to the SIT Office. Exh.
117 was in the handwriting of Ganesh Iyer and Exh.118
was addressed to Shri R.R. Patil, Dy. C.M. of
Maharashtra State.
97. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, after the incident the first letter was prepared
and sent on 13.11.2006. He prepared all the five
...82/-
Exh.1124 82 (J-SC 317/10)
letters addressed to the different authorities but sent
at different dates. While preparing these letters he
did not talk with his friends. Thereafter the next step
which he had taken was to file a writ petition. While
filing the writ petition he annexed one of the letters
with W.P. It was a letter addressed to the CP, Mumbai.
After filing of the writ petition, he stated about the
facts of the case only when the SLAO-IV inquired with
him. The SLOA-IV recorded his statement on 12
th
or 13
th
September 2007. Thereafter he had filed the affidavit
before Ld. Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. After that
his statement was not recorded till filing of the FIR
i.e. till 20.08.2009. Thereafter his 10 statements
were recorded from time to time. Since the year 1981
himself, his brothers Shayamsunder and Ramnarayan had
been in Mumbai. Ramnarayan was born on 09.07.1971. He,
his three brothers and his entire family were residing
together till 1992-93 at Pratiksha Nagar. In the year
1993 in a dacoity case his brother Ramnarayan was
arrested by Thane City Police. Thereafter he was
arrested by Deonar Police in a robbery case. During
that period he was arrested in a dacoity case by Wagle
Estate Police station. In the year 1995 Ramnarayan was
arrested by Chembur Police Unit-VI Crime Branch. During
that period he was arrested by Lokamanya Tilak Marg
Police station. He learned that Ramnarayan was
associated with Chota Rajan Gang. He did not know
...83/-
Exh.1124 83 (J-SC 317/10)
whether he was wanted in five more cognizable cases.
After the incident later on he came to know about the
same. In the year 1995 his mother expired. After the
death he was released and then he started residing with
them at Pratiksha Nagar. In connection with a murder
case the Antop hill police used to call him in the
police station during that period. Because of that he
left their house and started residing separately.
98. The witness further deposed that, he was not
aware whether in 1989 Sewree Police station
registered the offence under C.R.No.158 of 1989 u/s.
326, 114 against Ramnarayan. He was not aware whether
in 1994 Kasturba Marg Police station registered the
offence under CR No.106/94 u/s.399,402 r/w 34 IPC and
25 Arms Act against Ramnarayan. He was not aware
whether in 1995 Dahisar Police Station registered the
offence under CR NO.394/95, u/s 342,452,397,398 and 457
of IPC. He was aware that in 1997 Wadala Police station
registered the offence under CR No.78/97 u/s.302, 307,
324, 143, 147, 149, 212 of IPC against Ramnarayan. He
was aware that in the year 1997 Shewree Police station
registered the offence under CR NO.95/97 u/s.302 of IPC
25 and 27 of Arms Act against Ramnarayan. He was aware
that in the year 1998 Kalamboli Police station
registered the offence under CR No.167/98 u/s.302 of
IPC and 34,3,25 and 27 of Arms Act against Ramnarayan.
...84/-
Exh.1124 84 (J-SC 317/10)
Since the year 1995 Ramnarayan did not come to stay
with them. However he used to meet them. According to
him since he left their house he was residing at Thane.
99. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he knew Anil Bheda since before the
incident. He was residing at Navi Mumbai. Ramnarayan
was residing with Anil Bheda prior to the incident.
Even approximately he could not tell the period of his
residence with Anil Bheda. Ramnarayan was knowing Anil
Bheda since three to four years prior to the incident.
Ramnarayan introduced him with Anil Bheda. Three to
four cases in respect of the offence of cheating were
pending in Esplanade Court against Anil Bheda. As per
request of his brother Ramnarayan he was asked to
appear for Anil Bheda in the court. However as other
advocate appeared for Bheda he did not appear for him.
He knew the person namely Subhash Ramjibhai Patel.
Since 2001 he knew him. He was not aware that he knew
Ramnarayan. Ramnarayan did not introduce him to Subhash
Patel. He himself approached the witness with other
persons in Esplanade Court for his case. He was not
aware whether the case filed by Dindoshi Police station
vide C.R.No.671/94 u/s.385 of IPC was pending against
Subhash Patel. He was not aware whether the case filed
by Thane Nagar Police station vide CR No.98/2000 u/s.
394,397,452, 342 r/w 149 of IPC was pending against
...85/-
Exh.1124 85 (J-SC 317/10)
Subhash Patel. He was not aware whether the case filed
by Manik Nagar Police station vide Case no.329/00 in
u/s.307 of IPC in Thane Court was pending against
Subhash Patel. He was not aware whether the case filed
by Nalasopara Police station vide CR No.112/01 bearing
SC no.330/01 was pending against Subhash Patel. He was
not aware whether the case filed by Borivali Police
station bearing SC No.vide 444/P/2001 u/s.394,397 of
IPC and 3, 25 of Arms Act was pending against Subhash
Patel. He appeared in two cases for Subhash Patel i.e.
robbery case filed by Bhoiwada Police station u/s.397
of IPC and another case filed by crime branch unit XII
u/s.399, 402 of IPC in the year 2002 or 2003. He knew
the person namely Dhiraj Mehta. He had not heard of him
or known him prior to 11.11.2006. For the first time he
learned about this name between 02.00 to 03.00 pm. On
26.011.2006 for the first time he saw him. On
11.11.2006 for the first time he talked with Dhiraj on
phone. There was a phone call on the mobile of his
brother Shyamsunder and that phone was given to him and
at that time he came to know about Dhiraj. He had
telephonic talk with Dhiraj approximately five to six
times. He could not tell how many telephone calls
himself and Dhiraj made with each other on that day. He
could not tell whether he had talked with Dhiraj from
his telephone or telephone of Shyamsunder. He had asked
telephone number of Dhiraj when he talked with him for
...86/-
Exh.1124 86 (J-SC 317/10)
the first time. He was not knowing his number before
that. Dhiraj did not ask him for his telephone number.
Last telephone call from Dhiraj to him was about 07.00
to 07.30 pm.
100. The witness further deposed that, when he had
a telephonic talk with Dhiraj for the first time on the
mobile of Shymasunder, Shymsuder was present. It was
the place of shop of Shymsunder. He did not ask
Shymsunder whether he knew Dhiraj. He had not
specifically asked Shymsunder whether he had earlier
talked with Dhiraj. Shymsunder also did not tell him
that he had earlier talked with Dhiraj. When Dhiraj
first talked with him, he told him his name as Dhiraj.
He did not ask him whether he was the brother of
Ramnarayan and an advocate. He did not tell the witness
that he was the owner of a mobile shop. In connection
with the incident Shymsunder talked with him first. He
did not remember as to whether Shymsunder told him
anything more than what he had stated in para no.4 of
his evidence. He did not ask Shymsunder as to whether
he inquired about the person who called him on phone.
Shymsunder did not inform him that the police had taken
Ramnarayan alone by Qualis car. He did not remember
whether in any of the letters Exh.124 to Exh.128 he had
mentioned that Shymsunder had informed him that he
learned from one person on phone that Ramnarayan and
...87/-
Exh.1124 87 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil Bheda were forcibly taken in Qualis car by 4 to 5
persons like officers from in front of his shop. The
witness was shown Exh.124 to Exh.128. He had given
short story of the incident in those letters and
therefore there was no mention of the aforesaid facts.
The witness was shown copy of writ petition No.
2473/2006. In the writ petition there was no mention of
the above stated facts. He had not mentioned the above
stated facts anywhere till his statement was recorded
by the SLAO- IV in the month of September, 2007.
101. The witness further deposed that, his brother
Shymsunder was having two mobiles bearing numbers
9867016540 and 9892344123. He did not remember from
which mobile of Shymsunder, he had talked with Dhiraj.
However he talked with Shymsunder on his mobile number
9867016540 from his mobile number 9821376490. There was
one call from Shymsunder in this connection. However he
did not remember whether Shymsunder had called him
before that. There was only one call from Shymsunder at
01.55 p.m. with regard to this incident. It did not
happen that his brother Shymsunder on telephone
informed him that a friend of Ramnarayan informed him
that Ramnarayan who was standing with his friend Anil
Bheda was picked up by plainclothes police. He did not
remember whether he had stated about this fact before
the Executive Magistrate. Had that fact been recorded
...88/-
Exh.1124 88 (J-SC 317/10)
in the statement it might have been recorded by the
clerk by mistake. His statement recorded by the
Executive Magistrate was given to him for his reading.
He read it and confirmed the same to be correct and
thereafter he signed it.
102. The witness further deposed that, after
receiving the call from Shyamsunder, he went to see him
at shop. When he received his call he was at Nehru
Nagar, Kurla. Nehru Nagar, Kurla was at the distance of
five to ten minutes by bike. He alone went to meet
Shyamsunder. Shyamsunder was also alone at that time.
He was there for about 10 to 15 minutes. Nobody was
present except he and Shymsunder. Whatever Shyamsunder
informed him on phone was again repeated by him when
the witness met him. Apart from that he did not tell
him any other thing. It would not be correct to say
that when he received Shyamsunder's call at 1.55 pm he
was at home. The witness was shown FIR Exh.121. The
statement in FIR that he received the said telephone
call at his home was correct. His earlier statement in
evidence that he was at Nehru Nagar when he received
the telephone call was incorrect. He did not remember
whether in his presence Shyamsunder had telephoned
anybody. He did not remember whether during the meeting
of Shyamsunder apart from Dhiraj any other calls were
received by Shymsunder or by him. It would not be
...89/-
Exh.1124 89 (J-SC 317/10)
correct to say that after having talked with his
brother Shymsunder on phone at 01.55 pm he went to the
office of Ganesh Iyer and he did not go to the shop of
Shymsunder directly. In all his five applications he
did not mention about going to the shop of Shymsunder.
In the writ petition 2473 of 2006 there was no mention
about this fact. It is marked as Exh.141.
103. The witness further deposed that, he had taken
four to five minutes for leaving the house after
receiving the call at 01.55 pm. He did not remember as
to whether or not he had stated about this fact in his
statement recorded by SLOA IV. He stated before the
SLOA IV that at about 01.59 pm he telephoned his
advocate friend Ganesh Ranga Iyer and informed him
about the incident and told him to meet immediately at
his office at 74/B, Vijay Cottage, 25
th
Road, Jai Hind
Soc., Mumbai-22 and immediately left his house and
reached his office. In the statement before the SLAO-IV
he had not stated about going to the shop of
Shymsunder. For the first time on telephone he had
talked with Dhiraj in the shop of Shymsunder. He had
not specifically asked Dhiraj as to how he came to know
about the two persons being picked up from his shop
because he himself stated that from in front of his
shop these persons were picked up. He had not given
this explanation in his examination in chief as he he
...90/-
Exh.1124 90 (J-SC 317/10)
was not asked about it. He did not ask Dhiraj as to
whether he learned from somebody or somebody told him
about the abduction. He did not tell him that when he
was in the shop Nilesh came and told him about that.
Dhiraj did not tell him that after Nilesh told him
about it he went outside the shop to see as to whether
there was anybody and that he did not find anybody.
104. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he knew a person namely Girish Nepali
since 11.11.2006. He talked with Girish Nepali on
telephone. Dhiraj did not tell him about Girish Nepali.
It did not happen that Dhiraj told him about Girish
Nepali telephoning him and having talked with him. He
told Dhiraj to go to the police station and to lodge a
complaint. The witness denied that, he did tell him
that he did not know anything and hence would not lodge
the complaint and that, Aruna also told him that she
did not know anything and would not lodge the
complaint. He was not aware of the business of Dhiraj.
A person claimed to be a mobile shop owner did
telephone him. The witness denied that, he telephoned
the witness when he was at the office of Ganesh Iyer.
The witness, on his own deposed that, he telephoned
him. One person who had telephoned his brother
Shyamsunder had given the telephone number of that shop
owner. He did not remember as to whether one person
...91/-
Exh.1124 91 (J-SC 317/10)
telephoned him and informed that he was the owner of
mobile shop. It did not happen that when he was at the
office of Ganesh Iyer at about 03.00 pm he received the
telephone call and the caller told him that he was the
owner of the mobile shop. It did happen that at about
03.00 pm his friend Ganesh Iyer in his office met him
and the witness informed him about the fact but it did
not happen at that time that his elder brother's friend
telephoned him and told him that he was the owner of
the mobile shop. He had talked with the mobile shop
owner and he told him to the effect that at 01.00 pm
his elder brother was picked up by plainclothes police
without saying anything to him and forcibly took in a
silver colour jeep and at that time he asked him what
was the number of car and he told him that in commotion
he could not take the number of jeep and then the
witness asked him as to from which police station they
were, to which he replied that he did not know but they
were not from local police station. The witness
telephoned him and he responded him. He might have
stated in a statement before the SLAO-IV that the owner
of mobile shop telephoned him and had aforesaid talk
with him. He had by mistake stated about that person
telephoning him. This talk had taken place at the
office of Ganesh Iyer.
...92/-
Exh.1124 92 (J-SC 317/10)
105. The witness further deposed that, in his
written complaints he had not mentioned about his
telephonic talk with Dhiraj. In writ petition 2473/2006
he had not mentioned about it. He did not tell about
this fact in his statement recorded by the SLAO-IV. The
witness on his own deposed that, as there was a danger
to life of Dhiraj, he did not mention about it and
secondly he was not ready to come forward after he had
a telephonic talk with him on 12.11.2006. He did not
give this explanation in the examination in chief. He
did not give this explanation in the FIR or in
subsequent statements recorded by police. The witness
denied that, when he asked Dhiraj to file his affidavit
in the writ petition he told him that he did not know
anything and hence he would not file the affidavit. He
did not ask Shyamsunder to file his affidavit in the
writ petition. On 11.11.2006 he talked with three
police officers namely Arun Chavan, Property Cell, API
Sakpal, Rabale Police station and Constable Narendra
Bisht, Anotop Hill police station. He told them that
his brother was abducted but did not tell them about
any person having knowledge about the same. He did not
tell the police officer to give police protection to
Dhiraj. He did not mention in the fax messages or the
telegrams about Dhiraj. He did not tell police officer
of the police station of that area about giving
protection to Dhiraj. The witness on his own deposed
...93/-
Exh.1124 93 (J-SC 317/10)
that, as the police officers were involved in this case
he did not tell the police officers about giving
protection to Dhiraj. He learned from Dhiraj that
abductors were police. He was knowing that police were
involved in this case and he learned it from Dhiraj. He
received 7 to 8 telephone calls from different 7 to 8
persons about abduction by the police. Names of those
persons were Girish Nepali, Aruna Bheda and his sister
in law Shubalaxmi. He did not remember names of other
callers. He had not mentioned in his various letters
Exh.124 to Exh.128 about names of persons who told him
about abductors being the police officer. In his writ
petition also he did not mention about it. He had met
Girish Nepali 15 to 20 days after 11.11.2006. He did
not ask him whether he had personally seen the fact of
abduction of his brother and Anil. His sister in law
Shubhalaxmi had no personal knowledge about the
abduction. Aruna informed him that she had no personal
knowledge about it. Copy of the writ petition along
with the annexture was taken on record and was marked
as Exh.142.
106. The witness further deposed that, he left
Shyamsunder's shop at about 02.20 pm or 02.25 pm.
At that time Shyamsunder did not accompany him. On that
day he again met Shyamsunder at about 09.30 pm. When he
left Shyamsunder's shop he took with him one of his
...94/-
Exh.1124 94 (J-SC 317/10)
mobiles bearing number 9867016540. He had telephonic
conversation with him during the period from 02.25 to
09.30 pm. On that day he telephoned Subhalaxmi once
only when he was at the office of Ganesh Iyer.
Subhalaxmi did not tell him that his brother and Anil
Bheda were abducted by police. Aruna Bheda also did not
tell him on phone that they were abducted by police. He
did not mention name of Girish Nepali to whom he had
talked, in the FIR. He was having Shyamsunder's
telephone bearing no. 9867016540 on that day. The
witness denied that, at the time when they were about
to go to Versova Police station from Ganesh Iyer's
office at Sion in the night they exchanged their
telephones. He did tell the police while recording the
FIR that when they were about to go to Versova police
station he had taken mobile of Shyamsunder bearing no.
9867016540 and gave his mobile bearing no.932428001 to
him. He made a mistake about the same while filing the
FIR and he corrected it in his subsequent statement.
Only once he had given his mobile phone to Shyamsunder.
He had not exchanged his mobile phone with
Shyamsunder's mobile.
107. The witness further deposed that, after coming
to the office of Ganesh Iyer he telephoned Dhiraj at
about 03.00 pm. He could not tell exactly whether he
had phoned Dhiraj first or after the phone call of
...95/-
Exh.1124 95 (J-SC 317/10)
Subhalaxmi. He did not remember whether he had made
telephone calls to any person other than Subhalaxmi,
Dhiraj, some other advocates and the police officer
when he was at the office of Ganesh Iyer. He had not
mentioned about the telephonic call made to Subhalaxmi
in his letters Exh.124 to Exh.128. He had not
specifically mentioned about this telephone call in
the writ petition. He did not remember whether or not
he had stated before the SLAO IV about this telephone
call. After seeing the statement recorded by the SLAO-
IV he stated that, there was no mention about this
telephone call. When he telephoned Dhiraj he was at the
house of Anil Bheda. He told Dhiraj to go to the police
station and lodge complaint when he telephoned him. He
could not tell whether he had told him about this
before he went to the house of Bheda. It did not happen
that at that time Dhiraj told him that he could not go
to the police station. It did happen that at that time
he told him that he would ring him again. Thereafter,
he did telephone to Dhiraj and told him to go to the
house of Anil Bheda and let him talk with her. After
Dhiraj reached the house of Anil Bheda the witness told
him on phone to immediately go to the police station
and file complaint. He also told him to fax about this
fact. The witness denied that, at that time Aruna Bheda
spoke with him on phone and told that she did not know
anything and hence they would not make fax. He had
...96/-
Exh.1124 96 (J-SC 317/10)
spoken with Aruna regarding the fax. She told him that
she did not know how to fax and hence she could not
fax. The witness denied that,he was stating falsely
that she did not know how to fax and hence she could
not fax.
108. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that thereafter he supplied them names and
addresses of senior police officers and their phone
numbers. According to him he informed Aruna and Dhiraj
about the same before her denial. It did happen that
whatever names and numbers of the police officers he
had given, the same were noted down by Dhiraj. It did
not happen that thereafter Dhiraj told him that he
would not get himself involved in making fax. It did
not happen that Dhiraj told him that they would wait
till 05.00 pm and then decide what was to be done. He
told Aruna that there was a danger to life of his
brother and Anil Bheda and she should immediately go to
the police station. It did not happen that she replied
that she did not know anything and hence she would not
send fax. The witness denied that, only from Aruna and
the mobile shop owner he came to know about the
abduction. He knew that the mobile shop owner informed
Aruna Bheda about the abduction. According to him
Aruna Bheda requested him to prepare letters and to
send fax. The witness denied that, neither Dhiraj nor
...97/-
Exh.1124 97 (J-SC 317/10)
Aruna Bheda nor mobile shop owner nor anybody
telephoned him and informed about the abduction of his
brother and/or Anil Bheda.
109. The witness further deposed that, apart from
the places of his visits which he mentioned in his
examination in chief he did not visit any other place.
Prior to the date of the incident he did not visit the
mobile shop or the building where it was situated. He
did not feel it necessary to visit the mobile shop or
the building where it was situated to make inquiry
about the abduction. The witness on his own deposed
that, as he was busy in contacting number of peoples,
sending telegrams and fax hence he did not feel it
necessary to visit that places. At that time he was not
anxious to know by making inquiry at that place about
abduction and witnesses. The witness denied that, his
brother was to go and do some illegal activities and
in order to create alibi he was anxious to create some
evidence such as telegrams, faxes etc. and that, it was
he who was after Dhiraj asking him to go and lodge
complaint but he was not agreeable, and hence he tried
to persuade Aruna to lodge complaint and even she was
not agreeable. The witness also denied that, to create
evidence he sent three telegrams and two faxes and
again two telegrams and thereby he wanted to cover up
Bombay Region, Thane and Navi Mumbai. He received only
...98/-
Exh.1124 98 (J-SC 317/10)
one certified copy of Exh.114. The witness was shown
Exh.114 and its copy, which were not certified copies
which he received from Matunga Telegraph office. Exh.
115 and Exh.116 and copies annexed thereto were not
certified copies which he received from the Matunga
Telegraph office. Exh.117 and Exh.118 and the copies
annexed thereto were not certified copies which he
received from the Dadar Telegraph office.
110. The witness further deposed that, the police
officer concerned who received the telegrams sent by
him did not show the same to him and did not record
statement about it. The witness had encircled or
bracketed the portion in red pen in Exh.114, Exh.115
and Exh.116 which was in his handwriting. The witness
also encircled or bracketed the portion of the copies
of Exh.114, Exh.115 and Exh.116 in red ink. The witness
denied that, he had not sent the telegrams and he
prepared bogus documents later on. He produced two
documents Exh.120 and Art.1 at on different dates.
Art.1 was produced on 20.08.2009 along-with his letter.
Exh.120 was produced on or about 16.06.2010. The
witness denied that,after writing on the back side of
Exh.120 he produced Exh.120 before the police.
Telegrams Exh.118 and Exh.119 were sent after he got a
telephonic message as stated in para 15 of his
evidence. He could not assign any reason as to why
...99/-
Exh.1124 99 (J-SC 317/10)
name of the police officer API Prakash Bhandari was not
mentioned in Exh.117 and Exh.118. Exh.114 to Exh.118
were sent as if they were sent by Aruna Bheda. There
was difficulty in sending these telegrams either in his
name or in the name of Ganesh Iyer.
111. The witness further deposed that, he was an
advocate. His brother was having a past criminal
record. Therefore he felt shy of putting his name in
telegrams. He did not feel it necessary to ask Ganesh
Iyer to send these telegrams in his name and hence he
did not tell him to do so. The witness on his own
deposed that, husband of Aruna Bheda was also abducted
and therefore the telegrams were sent mentioning name
of Aruna Bheda and not in his name or in name of Ganesh
Iyer. The witness denied that, Aruna Bheda refused to
send telegrams and hence he sent the same in her name
so that he could get some evidence and he expected to
persuade her after Anil Bheda came back. In between
Sion to Belapur there were number of police stations.
He did not pay any attention as to whether there was
any police officer present at Belapur Crime Branch
Office. At that time it did not occur to him to file a
complaint in the crime branch. He returned to Sion from
Belapur by the same route. On being asked, on return
did he not feel that he should go to some police
station and lodge complaint, the witness answered that,
...100/-
Exh.1124 100 (J-SC 317/10)
he wanted to go first to the spot.
112. The witness further deposed that, before going
to Belapur crime branch he sent the telegrams. He left
crime branch office at 08.30 pm. He did not go to his
house before going to Nana Nani park. The witness
denied that, he had personally seen TV news of the
encounter. The witness was shown Exh.124. Portion
marked 'A' in Exh.124 was correct. In this letter
nowhere it was stated that Shyamsunder informed him of
having seen TV news of the encounter. The witness
denied that, he had stated falsely that he wanted to go
to the spot first and hence he did not lodge complaint
to any of the police stations. He had stated falsely
about receiving telephone call from one person at 05.45
pm and thereafter sending the telegrams and going to
Belapur Crime Branch.
113. The witness further deposed that, he
telephoned police officers from different places. The
witness was shown Exh.124 to Exh.128. In these letters
he did not mention about telephoning police officers
and having talked with them. The witness was shown copy
of W.P Exh.142. In the W.P. he had not mentioned about
having talked with police officers on telephone. He
had not mentioned about having talked with police
officers on telephone in statement recorded by the
...101/-
Exh.1124 101 (J-SC 317/10)
SLAO-IV. None of the police officers to whom he talked
on phone was present at the time when the FIR and his
10 (ten) statements were recorded.
114. The witness was shown letters Exh.124 to Exh.
128. There was no reference of names of advocates
namely Mahesh Mule, Shrirang Shrimane, Vijay Desai and
Amit Jambotkar in those letters. He had not mentioned
in Exh.124 to Exh.128 of having talked with the
advocates and/or obtained names of police officers.
While coming from Belapur to Sion he telephoned his
brother Shyamsunder, and Ganesh Iyer telephoned his
driver. He did not call Shyamsunder so that he should
accompany them to the spot. He did not feel it
necessary to ask Shyamsunder to accompany him for going
to the spot. The witness on his own deposed that, after
receiving the news their family members had collapsed
and his elder brother was out of the house for
attending work and only three ladies were at home and
therefore he did not call Shyamsunder to accompany him.
He did not have any difficulty in calling Shyamsunder
at the office of Ganesh Iyer. He did not mention in
Exh.124 to Exh.128 of going to versova police station
before visiting the spot. He was at versova police
station for two to three minutes. During this period he
did not try to find out as to whether there was any
police officer present in versova police station. He
...102/-
Exh.1124 102 (J-SC 317/10)
did not ask name and buckle number of the police
constable who met him there. He did not ask him whether
any police officer was there in the police station. He
knew that Mr.Sankhe was PI of versova police station.
However, he could not tell when he came to know about
it i.e. whether on his first occasion or on his second
visit after visiting the spot. It did not happen that
police officer met him in versova police station and he
had a talk with him. The witness denied that he talked
with the police officer and he told him that there was
an encounter. He met the police officer and inquired
with him about the encounter and on that he told him
that up till then there was no special information but
one encounter had taken place and hence he had to go
the spot or contact police inspector Sankhe. At that
time it did not occur to him to tell the police officer
about the real fact of encounter by filing a complaint.
He reached Versova police station, on that day at about
10.00 to 10.15 pm. He did not tell Ganesh Iyer to file
a complaint as they were going to the spot. On being
asked, whether he tried to find out name of the officer
to whom he had talked or find his rank, the witness
answered in negative
115. The witness further denied that, he did not
have any occasion to see that constable or police
officer till date. The witness denied that, he did not
...103/-
Exh.1124 103 (J-SC 317/10)
go to versova police station as alleged. He himself and
three advocates and driver went to the spot. They were
at the spot for about 20 to 25 minutes. During this
period he did not see any police constable or police
officer. The witness was shown Exh.124 to Exh.128. The
witness deposed that, in none of these letters he
mentioned name of any person apart from Ganesh Iyer who
accompanied him to the spot. In these letters he had
not mentioned about blood stains or any news paper kept
on the blood stains with a stone. There was no mention
of video clippings of the spot being taken in these
letters. In these letters there was no mention of any
vehicles or vehicle bearing no. UP-16L-9622. In these
letters there was no mention of going to building
Magnum Opus or meeting any watchman namely Rambabu
Rajaram Lodh. In the W.P., there was no mention about
presence of advocates Vijay Desai and Kudrat Shaikh and
driver. First he had talked with persons who were
standing near the vehicle at the spot and thereafter he
had taken video clipping of the spot and thereafter he
had talked with the watchman Rambabu Rajaram Lodh.
116. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he had a mobile at that time by which
conversation could be recorded. He did not record his
conversation with those three to four persons by his
mobile. None of the three persons disclosed their names
...104/-
Exh.1124 104 (J-SC 317/10)
and addresses to him. He asked them whether there was
any encounter and they told that there was no encounter
and apart from that there was no other talk between
them. He had not mentioned about this talk with these
three persons in Exh.124 to Exh.128. The witness
denied that, out of those three to four persons one
person disclosed his name and address to him. It did
not happen that out of the three to four person who
were standing near the vehicle one person told his name
and address and further told that as he was not related
to him he should not use his name. It did not happen
that he asked the same person to give him his affidavit
in the Hon'ble High Court and he told him that he
would give such affidavit. It did not happen that the
said person told him that if there was a need he should
contact him and then they would decide. The witness was
shown a copy of his statement recorded by the SLAO-IV.
He admitted it was the copy of his statement. The copy
of statement was marked as Art.4. The witness was shown
portion marked A in his statement Art.4, which was
correct.
117. The witness further deposed that, before
sending letters Exh.124 to Exh.128 he knew that the
video clippings was important piece of document.
Neither he had referred about the video clippings in
these letters nor the copies of the same were sent
...105/-
Exh.1124 105 (J-SC 317/10)
along with it. The witness denied that, the video
clippings were taken after these letters were sent. For
the first time he produced the video clippings before
the police on 21.08.2009. The police officer did not
inquire with him about the identity of the voices in
the mobile video clippings. His statement in connection
with the mobile video clippings was recorded only
once. In his statement he had not stated that he
identified voice of Ganesh Iyer in the mobile video
clippings and that, he was talking on mobile at the
time of taking the video clippings and voice recorded
therein was his.
118. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he had not stated in the WP that he
had gone to building Magnum Opus and talked with
watchman Rambabu Rajaram Lodh. The witness was shown
statement Art.4. He had not mentioned in the statement
about talking with watchman Rambabu Rajaram Lodh. The
witness denied that, at that night he had not gone to
the spot of the incident. For the second time when he
visited versova police station he did not try to find
out as to whether there was any police officer present.
On his second visit to versova police station he did
not file complaint because police officers were
involved in the criminal case. At that time he was not
knowing specifically as to whether or not police
...106/-
Exh.1124 106 (J-SC 317/10)
officers of Versova were involved in the case. There
was no mention in Exh.124 to Exh.128 about his second
visit to Versova police station after visiting the
spot. In the WP also he did not mention about this
fact. In Art.4 also there was no mention about this
fact. The witness denied that, he falsely stated about
his second visit to Versova police station. According
to him abduction took place from near Trisha
Collection, Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Prior to
26.11.2006 he had not visited Trisha Collection. He was
not aware as to whether there were any other shops
apart from the mobile shop in that building. It did
occur to him to make inquiry about the incident of
abduction with other shop owners from ground floor of
the building. However he did not ascertain as to how
many shops and shop owners were there on ground floor
of the building.
119. The witness further deposed that, it did occur
to him to tell Anil Bheda to file his affidavit in his
writ petition. He requested him to file the affidavit
but he did not agree to file the affidavit. The
witness on his own deposed that, due to fear he did not
file the affidavit. The witness denied that, from
11.11.2006 he was pressurizing Aruna Bheda and Dhiraj
and subsequently Anil Bheda for either lodging
complaint or supporting him by filing affidavit in writ
...107/-
Exh.1124 107 (J-SC 317/10)
petition, but none of them was agreeable and that,
deliberately and falsely he filed the writ petition.
120. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, since 1999 he had been practicing as
an advocate on criminal side. He had some knowledge
about procedure and practice of the criminal law. He
was acquainted with about five to six criminal cases
filed against his brother Ramnarayan. Out of those
cases two to three cases were in connection of offence
of robbery. He was not acquainted with the cases under
302 and 307 of IPC filed against Ramnarayan. He knew
the cases of robberies registered by Thane City police,
Wagle Estate Police, Deonar Police station Chembur
Unit-VI Station against Ramnarayan on 11.11.2006. He
was not aware that he was booked under the Arms Act for
carrying lethal weapons. He did not know that in the
cases of dacoity and robbery Ramnarayan was also
charged under Arms Act. He was not aware that
Ramnarayan was charged for having committed offence
u/s. 3, 25 of Indian Arms Act. The witness deneid that,
as Ramnarayan was wanted by the police he went out of
Mumbai. He was aware that Antop Hill Police station was
summoning him to the police station and because of that
he left Mumbai. After leaving Mumbai Ramnarayan resided
at Thane. When he was residing at Thane he used to
...108/-
Exh.1124 108 (J-SC 317/10)
occasionally meet the witness. Even though Ramnarayan
had gone to Thane they used to talk with each other.
His brother Ramnarayan was knowing that he was
practicing on criminal side. Ramnarayan recommended
Anil Bheda to him for taking his case. The witness
denied that, Ramnarayan consulted with him about his
criminal cases.
121. The witness further deposed that, he was
regularly in touch with his brother Ramnarayan ever
since he shifted to Thane. Occasionally he used to talk
with Ramnarayan after he shifted to Thane. This was
roughly from the year 1995. According to him Ramnarayan
was not arrested or detained in any case after 1995. In
the year 2005 Ramnarayan shifted to Vashi. He was
residing with Anil Bheda at Vashi. Ramnarayan told him
about his residence with Anil Bheda. Occasionally he
used to talk with Ramnarayan after he shifted to Vashi.
The witness denied that, Ramnarayan was arrested by
Sewree Police in CR No. 25 of 1997 u/s.302, 34 of IPC
r/w.3,25 and 27 of Arms Act and that, Ramnarayan was
arrested in connection with CR No. 18 of 1997 u/s.302,
307, 324, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 212 of the IPC
registered by Wadala Police station. The witness also
denied that, Ramnarayan was arrested in connection with
CR No. 167 of 1998 u/s.302, 34 of IPC r/w.325, 327 of
Arms Act registered by Kalamboli Police station and
...109/-
Exh.1124 109 (J-SC 317/10)
that, he had knowledge about the three offences
referred to above registered against Ramnarayan. He had
stated in the FIR that Ramnarayan had a past criminal
record. The witness on his own deposed that, he
mentioned about the same in the FIR after reading
affidavit of Shri M.N.Roy dated 20.11.2006 filed in
writ petition. He had stated in the FIR that on making
inquiry relating to the offences he learned that
Ramnarayan was absconding and crimes were on DF
(Dormant File) and that he was involved in five
cognizable cases and wanted by the police. In the FIR
he had not mentioned that his source of knowledge of
the above facts was the affidavit filed by Mr.Roy in
the Writ Petition. He could not tell whether or not
area of Sector no.9, Vashi was extremely crowded place.
He visited Sector 9 of Vashi. He did not know whether
Sector 9 was a large sector. There were number of
sectors in Vashi. He did not know whether roads in the
Sectors were specifically named by their respective
names. Names of roads and place from where the
abduction had taken place were not specifically
mentioned in his statements.
122. The witness further deposed that, he visited
Sector 9 of Vashi. He made inquiry relating to the
alleged incident. He did not learn from that inquiry
about any person raising alarm at the time of incident.
...110/-
Exh.1124 110 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness on his own deposed that, the witnesses were
not willing to come forward and say anything about the
police encounter. Since nobody had given his name he
did not state name of such person. The witness denied
that, no such incident as alleged had occurred and
therefore nobody came forward to tell him about the
same and that, he had sent the telegrams in the name of
Aruna Bheda with ulterior motive. He was shown
telegrams Exh.114 to Exh.118. In all these telegrams
word Aruna was written. The word 'Aruna'' above the
caption senders signature was encircled in all Exh.114,
Exh.116, Exh.117 and Exh. 118. It was not written by
Aruna. On seeing these telegrams it would be the first
impression that the person who had signed above the
caption senders signature had sent the telegrams. He
did not know whether or not Aruna Bheda ratified the
act of his signing as Aruna on the telegrams. The
witness denied that, nobody told him to send the
telegrams in the name of Aruna Bheda and that, he
forged signature of Aruna Bheda on the telegrams.
123. The witness further deposed that,
correspondence under Exh.124 to Exh.128 was his first
correspondence with the authorities subsequent to the
telegrams and the faxes. The witness denied that, there
were inconsistencies in letters Exh.124 to Exh.128 and
writ petition Exh.142 and that, in writ petition he had
...111/-
Exh.1124 111 (J-SC 317/10)
stated some additional facts which had not been
mentioned in the letters Exh.124 to Exh.128. In para
no.2 of the WP he had not mentioned about criminal
antecedents of Ramnarayan. He had not referred to
criminal antecedents of Ramnarayan in Exh.124 to Exh.
128. The WP was filed on 15.11.2006 and the application
to National Human Rights Commission was filed on
16.11.2006 and hence there was no reference of that
application in the WP. According to him the WP was
filed on 15.11.2006 and its verification was done on
16.11.2006. He did not remember whether after filing of
the WP he made its verification. He remembered of
making verification of the W.P. The witness denied
that, Anil Bheda met him and talked with him before
filing the writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court
issued directions to the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC). He was aware of those directions.
The witness denied that, the NHRC disposed off his
complaint within the time granted by the Hon'ble High
Court. He was aware of the findings given by the NHRC
on his complaint. The witness was shown copy of the
order of National Human Rights Commission. He had not
received copy of the order. However he was informed by
the NHRC about final order. The witness was shown copy
of WP Exh.142. Contents in para 7 of the WP were
correct. He was deeply attached to his brother
Ramnarayan. His death was a grave blow to him. The
...112/-
Exh.1124 112 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that, to avenge his death he had taken
recourse to filing false complaints and that, his
brother met with death in an encounter. The witness
also denied that, his brother had an encounter with the
police and in retaliation by the police he died and
that,the police acted in self defense when his brother
fired at them.
124. The witness further deposed that, he was aware
of the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by Her Ladyship in
WP 2743 of 2006 (Exh.146). As per this order the NHRC
was seized of this matter on his application. By this
order four months time was given to the NHRC to decide
his case and then matter was adjourned to 08.06.2007 by
the Hon'ble High Court. After 08.06.2007, the matter
before the Hon'ble High Court was taken on board from
time to time. The order of registration of the offence
was passed on 13.08.2009. He visited the NHRC three
times and they told him that they would not require his
presence and thus they did not entertain him. They told
him as and when his presence was required he would be
called. He did not produce copy of the order dated
08.02.2007 passed by Hon'ble High Court to the NHRC. He
did not make an application to the NHRC bringing on
record the above order. He did not approach NHRC with
order of the Court for completing inquiry within
stipulated period. He received a letter from the NHRC
...113/-
Exh.1124 113 (J-SC 317/10)
that his case was closed. He did not personally
approach to the NHRC to find out the findings on the
basis of which his case was closed. The witness on his
own deposed that, he had sent a letter by email to the
NHRC for knowing details of the status of his case
after its closure. He did not receive reply to his
email. He did not know whether order passed by the NHRC
was available on Internet. Subsequently he did not go
to the NHRC to find out the findings as he did not feel
it necessary. The witness denied that, he was aware of
the findings given by the NHRC to the effect that We
are convinced that Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in a
genuine encounter and the action of the police is
protected by law and hence the case was closed. The
witness denied that, as the findings were not in his
favour, having knowledge of the same he was feigning
the ignorance of the same.
125. The witness further deposed that, he had not
mentioned name of the shop 'Trisha' in the FIR. The
witness on his own deposed that, by mistake he had
mentioned name of the shop as 'Trishala' in the FIR.
There were shops adjacent to shop 'Trisha Collection'
at the spot. Even though he inquired with those shop
owners they did not tell him anything about the
incident. The witness on his own deposed that, due to
fear they did not tell anything. He had taken the
...114/-
Exh.1124 114 (J-SC 317/10)
investigation officer to the shop owners. However the
shop owners to whom he met on his first inquiry were
not present on subsequent visit with the IO.
Subsequently he did not take the IO to that spot. On
13.08.2009 he was present in the Hon'ble High Court
when the order was passed. He did not consult with his
advocates regarding the order. The witness denied that,
he had consulted battery of advocates during 13.08.2009
to 20.08.2009. Before 20.08.2009 Mr.Prasanna had not
visited the Hon'ble High Court in respect of this case.
The Chief P.P. had suggested name of Mr.Prasanna to the
Hon'ble High Court on 11.08.2009. He received
authenticated copy of order on 14 or 16 August 2009. He
contacted Mr.Prasanna for the first time on 18.08.2009
or 19.08.2009. It was a telephonic contact. The witness
denied that, he knew that Mr.Prasanna was sitting in
his office at Zone-X from 13.08.2009 to 20.08.2009.
When asked as to whether he personally went to the
office of Mr.Prasanna where he was sitting for giving
his statement, the witness answered that, when he
contacted Zone-X office on phone he learned that he was
transferred and was on leave and hence he did not go to
his office. The witness contacted a police constable on
phone but he did not know his name. He did not tell
Mr.Prasanna when his statement was recorded that he
tried to contact him but as he was on leave he could
not contact. In the FIR explanation for delay in filing
...115/-
Exh.1124 115 (J-SC 317/10)
it was not given. He had spoken with Mr.Prasanna in
Hindi at that time. He himself narrated the incident to
Mr.Prasanna while recording the FIR, and he did not ask
him questions. API Mr.Ghorpade typed the FIR on laptop.
The witness denied that, after passing of the order
dated 13.08.2009 he consulted his advocate friends and
prepared his statement which he had given to
Mr.Prasanna and that, he had stated falsely that his
statement was recorded by Mr.Prasanna as narrated by
him. The witness denied that, he was deposing falsely
and on account of personal anguish he had filed false
case against the accused. He did not obtain the
certified copy of panchanama of the spot of the
incident before filing WP. The witness denied that, he
has falsely implicated the accused.
126. It has come in evidence of Advocate Mr.Ganesh
Rangayya Iyer (PW-2), Exh.148 that, on 11.11.2006, at
about 02.00 pm, he received a call from Ramprasad
Gupta, the complainant, informing that his brother
Ramnarayan Gupta (the deceased) and his friend Anil
Bheda were forcibly taken away by 4-5 persons who were
looking like police from Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
Accordingly, both of them went to the office of the
witness at Sion, Mumbai. Thereafter, he had a talk with
Aruna Bheda on phone, who also informed the witness
about the kidnapping of her husband Anil and the
...116/-
Exh.1124 116 (J-SC 317/10)
deceased. Then at the request of Aruna Bheda, he and
complainant Mr.Gupta sent telegrams to the Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Navi
Mumbai and the Commissioner of Police, Thane vide Exhs.
114, 115 and 116 and four receipts Exh.119 colly.,
before the Court were the same. So also they sent fax
to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, Thane and Navi
Mumbai. The witness further deposed that, he and
complainant Gupta (PW-1) sent telegrams to C.M and Dy.
C.M of the State of Maharashtra vide Exhs.117, 118 and
receipt was at Exh.119. Then complainant Mr. Gupta
received a call from his brother Shyamsunder informing
about T.V News that Ramnarayan@ Lakhanbhaiya was killed
in a police encounter. Then they went at Nana Nani
Park, Versova and made inquiry. They found bloodstains
at the spot. They made inquiry with the people there.
Exh.120 was a draft of fax. Exh.150 was a letter which
was sent by him on 18.11.2006 to the Head of the Post
Office, Matunga Central Telegraph Office to preserve
the telegrams which were sent on 11.11.2006.
Thereafter, SIT recorded his statement.
127. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he was residing at 74/B, Vijay Cottage, Jain
Society, Sion, Mumbai since 2005 to 2009 and his office
was also situated there. He started practicing since
2004 as an advocate. He knew the complainant since the
...117/-
Exh.1124 117 (J-SC 317/10)
year 2002. The witness and Ramprasad Gupta practiced
together and even in the month of November 2006,
Ramprasad Gupta practiced with him. His office timings
were fixed since 05.00 pm to 09.00 pm. On holidays and
Saturday they did not sit in the office. Mr. Gupta did
not have the key of his office. The office remained
open from morning to night. He was alone and he had no
family. There was no staff in his office in the year
2006.
128. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 11.11.2006, he did not go out to
attend the work. His statement was recorded by Oshiwara
police station, thereafter by SLAO-IV and then he filed
an affidavit before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri.
He knew the importance of giving signature. Generally
he read the statement or any document which he was
supposed to sign and after reading it he put his
signature on it. He knew that the case wherein his
statement was to be given was a serious case relating
to death of his friend's brother. He was aware of the
writ petition filed by Ramprasad Gupta in the Hon'ble
High Court, Bombay. The witness denied that, his
statement dated 14.03.2007 was recorded by Oshiwara
police station. He understood Marathi. He could read
Marathi very well. On 14.03.2007, he met an officer of
Bombay Police. The witness denied that, he met police
...118/-
Exh.1124 118 (J-SC 317/10)
officer Pradip Suryawanshi on that day then he again
deposed that, he met police officer Pradip Suryawanshi.
On that day his statement was recorded and then he put
his signature and the date below the statement. He
realized that, the statement was in connection with
death of his friend's brother. He understood contents
of the statement and thereafter he put his signature.
The witness on his own deposed that, the place where
the statement was recorded was the office of police
officer Pradeep Sharma at DN Nagar police station. He
had not stated to anybody till date about his statement
recorded in the office of Pradeep Sharma at DN Nagar
police station. He did not consider this fact to be
important till date. He did not feel it necessary to
tell about this fact to his friend Ramprasad Gupta who
was struggling to get the case registered. He did not
know about progress of the writ petition filed by
Ramprasad Gupta. He did not make inquiry at any point
of time with Ramprasad as to what was happening in the
writ petition. He did not feel it necessary to ask
about it to Ramprasad despite his earlier active help
to him in sending telegrams, fax etc. He did not come
to know from Ramprasad names of accused against whom
the writ petition was filed. He came to know that from
newspapers. He had taken a lot of interest in this case
on 11.11.2006 and thereafter he lost interest.
Thereafter, practically he used to meet Ramprasad
...119/-
Exh.1124 119 (J-SC 317/10)
everyday. There was no reason for withdrawing the
interest from this case. The witness denied that, as
he was a very good friend of Ramprasad he had taken
interest in this case right from beginning till date.
129. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he gave statement before SLAO-IV which
was recorded after questioning him. His statement was
recorded in narrative form in Marathi. After recording
of statement it was given to him for his reading. He
read out the statement and told the SLAO-IV that it was
correctly recorded and thereafter an endorsement was
made by the SLAO-IV office of its being found to be
correct. It happened on 12.09.2007. He was summoned by
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri for his statement. He was
not aware whether the summons was sent by inquiry
officer suo moto or on the application of Ramprasad
Gupta. The affidavit which was given to the mobile
court was drafted in his office by himself. He was told
to make affidavit about the knowledge which he was
having of the case. He remembered about his statement
being recorded in the office of Pradeep Sharma while he
was drafting his affidavit. He felt at that time that,
his statement dated 14.03.2007 was not properly
recorded. Even at that time, he did not feel it
necessary to mention in the affidavit about this fact.
He did not feel it necessary to write to the superior
...120/-
Exh.1124 120 (J-SC 317/10)
officers and tell this fact.
130. The witness further deposed that, before going
to the Matunga Telegraph Office he had talked not only
with Gupta but also with Aruna Bheda and also with
other police officers namely PI Arun Chavan of Property
Cell and PSI Sakpal of Rabale police station in
connection with this case. Those two police officers
did not know anything about the incident. They came to
know about it from the witness. He learned from Mr.
Gupta that those persons alleged that Bheda and
Ramnarayan were abducted by persons who were looking
like police officers. From Aruna he came to know that
abductors were four to five persons. He knew that while
sending a telegram he had to give correct information.
There was vast difference between the persons looking
like police and police. In the telegrams, he mentioned
that the abductors were police. Ramnarayan Gupta and
Anil Bheda were taken away by a Qualis which he learned
from Gupta. During examination in chief he did not tell
about Ramprasad informing him about Ramnarayan and Anil
being taken away by a Qualis. He forgot to mention
about it in his examination in chief. He learned from
Gupta and Aruna about Qualis. He did not learn anything
apart from that from them about that vehicle. In the
telegrams, he had stated about silver colour Qualis.
While sending the telegrams, it was expected to state
...121/-
Exh.1124 121 (J-SC 317/10)
the place from where those persons were abducted. He
was not knowing the area of Vashi and New Mumbai. He
was not aware that, sector-9 of Vashi was a big area.
He learned that, those two persons were abducted from
in front of a mobile shop, sector-9, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai. He did not mention in the telegrams about the
mobile shop. He learned from Ramprasad that he was not
the witness to the incident. According to him, Aruna
Bheda was also not a witness to the incident. It did
occur to him that before sending telegrams or fax they
should personally go and find out the place from where
the alleged abduction had taken place. He discussed
with Mr.Gupta about going to the spot. They decided
not to visit the spot before sending telegrams. He had
not stated in the statement recorded by Oshiwara police
station that on 11.11.2006 at about 1.30 pm, he had
gone to Andheri(W). The statement was correctly
recorded (Article-5). He did not state words,
'Kamanimitta' marked as A in the statement. The
witness could not assign any reason as to why this was
recorded in his statement. The witness denied that, at
that time Ramprasad Gupta on his mobile gave him a call
and told him to immediately meet him in his office
which was situated near Sion, Jain Society, behind SIES
College and also that, at that time Ramprasad did not
tell him the purpose of the meeting. The witness also
denied that, he had not stated in his statement that
...122/-
Exh.1124 122 (J-SC 317/10)
Ramprasad informed him that his brother Ramnarayan
Gupta and his friend Anil Bheda were forcibly taken by
4 to 5 persons who were looking like police from
Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The witness also denied
that, he had not stated before police that Ramprasad
again told him the same thing which he told the witness
on phone and that, Ramprasad told him that his brother
Ramnarayan Gupt and a person by name Anil Bheda were
picked up by somebody but there was no information
about the persons who picked them up. He did not state
portion marked B in his statement, but could not
assign any reason as to why the said portion appeared
in the statement. The witness further denied that, he
had not stated that, Ramprasad called Dhiraj or had a
talk with him on the mobile. The witness explained
that, the person who was recording the statement was
accused in this case and he told the witness as to why
he was indulging in this case as the person killed was
not his brother. Therefore, it was not recorded by the
writer in the statement. The writer only told him once
about the above reason. He knew that, the writer was
the inspector. He knew that there were number of police
officers who were above the rank of inspector. He did
not contact any of the superior officer at that time.
He did not write to any police officer about the
behaviour of that writer. He did not put it on record
that the writer was not taking down properly the
...123/-
Exh.1124 123 (J-SC 317/10)
statement made by him. After completing the recording
of his statement the officer did did not put his
signature below. He did not ask the writer as to why
he was not putting his signature. He knew in the year
2007 that, Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi was an accused. After
seeing the statement, the witness stated that, he did
not remember whether the words Oshiwara Police
Station were written below his statement. The witness
denied that, he was obsessed with idea that Pradeep
Suryawanshi should be convicted and that, deliberately
and viciously he was trying to implicate him.
131. Further the witness denied that, in that
statement he did not state that, he had a talk with
Aruna Bheda. He could not assign any reason as to why
the same was not recorded by the police in his
statement. The witness denied that, about his talking
with Aruna Bheda which he had stated in para nos.3 and
5 in his examination in chief did not take place. The
witness further deposed that, when Mr. Gupta called him
on phone the time was 2 pm. Gupta told him on phone
that, his elder brother Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta was
taken away from Sector-9, Vashi by five unknown persons
in a silver coloured Qualis to unknown destinations. He
stated so before the the SLAO-IV. It was correct
statement. Thereafter, he reached his office at 3 pm.
Then both of them went inside the office and
...124/-
Exh.1124 124 (J-SC 317/10)
immediately Gupta contacted Aruna Bheda by phone. He
did not remember whether Gupta had talked to Aruna
Bheda on phone. The witness denied that, after Gupta
had talked with Aruna Bheda he asked her address and
that, she gave her address as Diamond Apartment, Vashi,
Sector 28 to him. The witness was shown Article-6, his
statement before the SLAO-IV, which was correctly
recorded and that he signed it. He was shown portion
marked A in the said statement. Except No.29, the
rest of the statement was correct. According to him,
the sector should be 29. It was marked as portion A.
132. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he was residing at Transit Camp,
Dharavi. He denied that, prior to 2007, he was residing
there for a period of about 12 years. His address at
Dharavi was block no.2, Row-J, House No.9, Sankraman
Shibir, Dharavi. He did not state to the police on
14.03.2007 that, he was residing at the above address
with his family for about 12 yrs. If it was written in
his statement then it was written as per own desire of
the writer. Portion marked C was incorrect. He did
not state so to the police. Portions marked A,B,C,D and
E in Exh.114 were only in his handwriting. The entire
portion in Exh.120 was in his handwriting. Portions
marked A,B,C,D and E in Exh.117 only were in his
handwriting. Portion marked A i.e. signature in Exh.
...125/-
Exh.1124 125 (J-SC 317/10)
118 only was in in his handwriting. The witness denied
that, Exhs.114, 115, 116, 117 and 120 were written as
dictated by Mr.Gupta(PW-1). The witness further deposed
that, he wrote the same on his own. He did not state to
the police while recording Art.5 that he wrote the
three telegrams on instructions of PW-1. Portion marked
D appearing in his statement was incorrect. He did
not state so to the police. He did not state to the
police that he wrote the fax Exh.120 as per directions
of PW-1. It was written by the person recording the
statement as per his own desire. Portion marked E
appearing in his statement was incorrect. It was
written by the person recording it as per his own
desire. He did not state to the police that, the said
telegrams had been sent as per information given by Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1). Portion marked-F was
incorrect. He did not state so to the police. It was
written by the person recording it as per his own
desire.
133. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had no occasion to meet Aruna Bheda
prior to 11.11.2006. He did not meet Aruna Bheda
personally on 11.11.2006 or thereafter till date.
Except authorizing him on telephone, there was no other
means by which Aruna authorized him to send the
telegram. On that day, he also observed that, PW-1 was
...126/-
Exh.1124 126 (J-SC 317/10)
speaking with Aruna Bheda on mobile. PW-1 Gupta spoke
with Aruna before he spoke with her. He could hear what
Gupta (PW-1) was speaking with Aruna but he could not
hear what Aruna was speaking with Gupta during that
conversation. He did not hear Gupta telling her that
her husband and his brother (PW-1's brother) had fear
for their life and hence, she should go and lodge a
complaint. He did not hear PW-1 telling her that she
should send faxes to senior police officers to avoid
their fake encounter. PW-1 Gupta did not inform him
that Aruna Bheda was refusing to send telegrams and /or
faxes. It did not happen that PW-1 was telling her to
write the names and addresses of senior police
officers.
134. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, except his conversation with her on
11.11.2006, he had no other occasion to talk with her
till date. He remembered on 14.3.2007 that he had
spoken with Aruna Bheda. He stated to the police
regarding his conversation with Aruna Bheda, but the
police did not record the same in his statement dated
14.3.2007. The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006, he
did not have conversation with Aruna Bheda and that,
Aruna Bheda never authorized him to send any faxes and
/or telegrams. He did not visit opposite Mobile Shop,
Sector-9, Vashi on 11.11.2006. On 11.11.2006, he did
...127/-
Exh.1124 127 (J-SC 317/10)
not visit the said place along with Gupta from the time
he met PW-1 Gupta till they parted. Prior to
11.11.2006, he did not know the place opposite mobile
shop. He did not not feel it necessary to make
inquiries at that place regarding the incident prior to
sending the telegrams and faxes. He did not see the
place from where the persons were allegedly abducted.
The witness denied that, they wanted it to be recorded
that deceased Gupta was abducted from the time PW-1
Gupta contacted him till he heard his encounter on
television. The witness admitted that, when he visited
Belapur, there were number of police stations on the
way. He did not discuss with Mr.Gupta to lodge any
complaint in those police stations. Till they left the
police station at Belapur, they had no knowledge as to
what had happened to brother of PW-1. He felt that he
should lodge complaint about abduction at police
station in Belapur. No complaint was lodged by him or
by Mr.Gupta at police station in Belapur. He tried to
contact police officer in the crime branch office at
Belapur.
135. There was no police officer present there at
that time. The police constable on duty permitted them
to see the detention rooms. One police constable
accompanied them. He did not take note of his buckle
number or name. He made inquiries with the constables
...128/-
Exh.1124 128 (J-SC 317/10)
who were present, if any officer was available. He
could not say if PW-1 Gupta saw the news of encounter
in his presence, on television. The witness denied
that, he forged the faxes and telegrams in the name of
Aruna Bheda without any authority and that, he and PW-1
Gupta wanted to create alibi of deceased Gupta but did
not have courage to do so in their own names. The
witness denied that, he did not go to the police
station at Belapur and did not visit the detention
room/ lock up at the police station at Belapur and
that, PW-1 Gupta met him in the afternoon and asked him
to create evidence about taking the deceased Gupta into
custody and hence asked him to send forged faxes and
telegrams. The witness further denied that, telegrams
Exhs.114,115,116,117 and fax Exh.120 were not the
telegrams and faxes which he sent but they had been
created subsequently. Before going to Versova police
station on 11.11.2006, he met Shyamsunder Gupta,
brother of PW-1. He could not say if he showed any
anxiety to visit Versova police station as the witness
did not speak with him. He did not hear him telling
anyone that he wanted to visit Versova police station.
From Belapur, he went to his office at Sion and then he
went to Versova police station.
136. The witness further deposed that, in Versova
police station, he met station house officer. He did
...129/-
Exh.1124 129 (J-SC 317/10)
not verify his designation. He did not make inquiries
with him if any superior officer was available there.
He did not ask the S.H.O to record his complaint. In
his presence, PW-1 did not ask to record such
complaint. He had stated to the police while recording
his statement dated 14.03.2007 that, he had been to
Versova police station. The said statement was written
by the person recording it as per his own desire. The
witness denied that, he did not visit Versova police
station on that day. He reached the spot i.e. Nana Nani
Park at 10.40 pm. First they met 3-4 persons present
there. He personally did not speak with any of those
persons. PW-1 Gupta spoke with those persons. The
witness was present very near when the said persons and
Gupta were having conversation with one another. After
conversation with them, he saw the blood stains. He
asked Gupta to take video recording of the said place.
The witness denied that, when he reached the said place
he first saw the bloodstains, then he asked PW-1 to
video record the same and then he spoke with the
persons present there.
137. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, before Railway Magistrate Court, he had
prepared his own affidavit and given the chronology of
events. He verified contents of the said affidavit and
found it to be correct and thereafter, he signed the
...130/-
Exh.1124 130 (J-SC 317/10)
same. He did not know names and addresses of the said
persons. He did not remember if one of the persons
stated and gave his name and address to PW-1 Gupta and
that he remembered at the time of making the affidavit,
the conversation between the said person and Gupta. He
remembered the fact that said 3-4 persons had stated
that no encounter had taken place when he prepared the
said affidavit. He had stated to the police the said
fact while recording his statement dated 14.3.2007. The
said statement was written by the person recording it
as per his own desire. He did not remember if he had
stated the same before the SLAO-IV. He had not stated
so to the SLAO-IV. He did not state in his affidavit
before the Ld. Magistrate Railway Court. He did not
state so to the police on 4.9.2009. The witness
admitted that, When they made inquiries at Nana Nani
Park, about the encounter, no one could give any
information. They had conversation about the incident
at Nana Nani Park on 11.11.2006 with only 3-4 persons
first and then with the watchman. Portion marked A in
Exh.148 appearing in para 18 of his examination in
chief was stated by him while recording his statement
on 14.3.2007. It was not so stated because the said
statement was written by the person recording it as per
his own desire. It did not happen that, he met two
watchmen and spoke with them. It did not happen that he
met one watchmen namely garden watchmen first. It did
...131/-
Exh.1124 131 (J-SC 317/10)
not happen that they spoke to members in the public
first and then to the garden watchman and then the
building watchman. He had stated to the police that,
they first spoke with the general public, then with the
garden watchman and then with the building watchman of
Magnum Opus Building. The general public and the garden
watchman were of the same group. Except name of the
watchman of Magnum Opus Building, they did not note
down names of other persons and /or watchman. He did
not ask PW-1 Gupta to video record/ photograph those
persons. He did not meet the watchman of Magnum Opus
Building before or after. He did not note down his
name. He did not remember if he had disclosed name of
the said watchman to any of the authorities who
recorded his statement. He only remembered his surname
as Lodh. He did not remember if his name was Rambabu
Rajaram Dhanuk. It would be incorrect to say that, the
watchman whom he met stated to him that he did not know
anything about the incident. The witness denied that,
he did not visit Nana Nani Park with Gupta on
11.11.2006 and no video clip was taken on that day.
138. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Mr.Gupta, PW-1, made inquiries with the
watchman. At that time, the said watchman disclosed his
name. The witness denied that, he asked the said
watchman his name and that said watchman replied him
...132/-
Exh.1124 132 (J-SC 317/10)
stating that he would not disclose his name as he did
not want to get involved in this affair. He did not
state so to the the SLAO-IV. Portion marked B in
Article-6 was not stated by him. The contents were
incorrect. The reference to the person in portion
marked A was to the watchman of the adjoining
building. The witness could not state as to why it was
so stated in his statement (Art.6). Copy of affidavit
was tendered to the witness submitted to Ld. M.M.
Railway Court (Art.7). Contents of portions marked A
and B in Art.7 were true and correct. Sequence of
events as stated in portion marked C in Art.7 was
incorrect. It did not happen that, initially he met
watchman of Nana Nani Park, then he met 3-4 persons and
thereafter he met watchman of Magnum Opus Building.
Portions marked C1, C2 in Art.6 i.e. statement before
the SLAO-IV and sequence of events as stated therein
was incorrect. The fact that, Ramprasad informed him
about abduction of his brother and Anil and it was
again stated to him on phone was not so stated because
the said statement dated 14.3.2007 was written by the
person recording it as per his own desire and the said
statement was recorded in DN Nagar police station by PI
Pradeep Suryawanshi. The witness denied that, in
collusion with Mr. Gupta, he was deposing false to
implicate the police officials.
...133/-
Exh.1124 133 (J-SC 317/10)
139. The witness further deposed that, generally he
was practicing on Criminal Side. The witness denied
that, he knew family background of PW-1 Gupta because
of his acquaintance with him. He did not know during
his acquaintance with PW-1 that he had brothers. He did
not know name of Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhanbhaiya.
On 11.11.2006, for the first time, he got knowledge
that Ramnarayan was brother of PW-1 Gupta. He did not
make any inquiries about the past of deceased
Ramnarayan. He did not ask PW-1 as to why he had
apprehension that police would have picked up deceased
Gupta. He was senior to PW-1 in advocacy. In his
profession, they were sharing office together and
carrying on their profession together and in that sense
also he was senior to PW-1 Gupta. The witness denied
that, PW-1 Gupta used to rely upon him for advice in
cases of legal matters. He did not state in the
telegrams, faxes or to the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway, name of the shop from where the alleged
abduction took place. He reached Belapur from Sion and
while proceeding towards Belpaur, he passed Vashi. He
did not feel it necessary while passing from Vashi,
while going towards Belapur, to go to Sector 9 where
the alleged abduction took place. He did not feel it
necessary even to make inquiries at that time. He did
not know if Sector 9, Vahshi was a very large area. He
did not inquire with PW-1 as to why he was not
...134/-
Exh.1124 134 (J-SC 317/10)
forwarding the telegram in his own name. The witness
did not feel it necessary to inquire the reason for not
doing so. He did not send the telegram in his capacity
as an advocate. He did not make copy of the telegram
and fax to Mrs. Aruna Bheda. The witness denied that,
he did not confirm with her after sending such fax and
telegram. He stated so for the first time. In the
telegrams and fax, he had transcribed signature of
Aruna Bheda. He was aware that telephone number 100 was
dedicated to Mumbai Police. He did not feel it
necessary to use this service on 11.11.2006 and that to
inform the Navi Mumbai Control Office of the police.
The witness denied that, he had fabricated the telegram
and fax and he had no authority to send such telegram
and fax and that, his said act was not ratified by
Aruna Bheda.
140. The witness further deposed that, when video
clip was taken by mobile, other person could not see
what was being recorded in video. He did not know what
was being recorded by PW-1 at Nana Nani Park. The
witness denied that, the fact that were stated in his
statement dated 14.3.2007 could have been disclosed
only by him to the police. He met the said police
officer for the first time on 14.3.2007. He could not
say if the said statement was recorded as he gave the
said details. He had given his name, age, address, year
...135/-
Exh.1124 135 (J-SC 317/10)
of practice, his acquaintance with Adv. Mr. Gupta to
the concerned police officer on 14.3.2007. He did not
give details of Adv. Gupta meeting him on 11.11.2006.
He gave details of his meeting with Gupta. He told the
police officer on that day about sending of telegrams
in the name of Aruna Bheda. The said statement dated
14.3.2007 was not read over to him. Art.5 had his
signature. He had signed the said statement without
knowing its contents. As an advocate, he would read the
contents before signing any document. His signature
below the document was acknowledgment to him knowing
the contents of the document. He did not state to the
police on 14.3.2007 that he did not know if police had
taken the deceased and Anil Bheda in a Qualis vehicle.
Portion marked G from his statement dated 14.3.2007
was not stated by him to the police. Contents were
incorrect. The said statement of was written by the
person recording it as per his own desire. He had
stated to the police that he did not know the deceased
and Anil Bheda. He gave some information to the police
on 14.3.2007. He did not lodge any protest about the
contents that appeared in his statement which he did
not state.
141. Further, the witness denied that, Adv. Gupta
continued his practice in the same office with him on
11.11.2006 and that, PW-1 Gupta consulted him relating
...136/-
Exh.1124 136 (J-SC 317/10)
to subsequent events after 11.11.2006. He did not have
any knowledge about the complaints preferred by PW-1.
When his statement was recorded by the SIT, he did not
lodge any protest or did not object to the statement
recorded on 14.3.2007, Art.5. The witness denied that,
over a period of time, he was making improvements to
his statement. He did not mention about the car bearing
No.UP-6-L-9622 standing near Nana Nani Park. On
14.3.2007, when he gave his statement he was not aware
of C.R.No.302 of 2006 being registered against deceased
Gupta for alleged offence punishable u/s. 307 of IPC
r/w.3, 25 of the Arms Act. He did not ask why the
police were recording his statement. Police had called
him to record his statement. While recording his
statement, he was aware that his statement was being
recorded in respect of the alleged encounter death of
Ramnarayan Gupta. He had asked the officer concerned as
to in which crime he was recording his statement. He
was not aware about any CR being registered in that
regard while giving his statement. He had no knowledge
about registration of crime relating to death of
Ramnarayan from the date of his death till recording of
statement of the witness. He did not state name of the
person who spoke with PW-1 on telephone and allegedly
gave information of abduction of the deceased and Anil.
The witness denied that, because of his acquaintance
and close relations with PW-1, he was deposing false to
...137/-
Exh.1124 137 (J-SC 317/10)
assist him and that, he was aware that the deceased
died in an encounter at Nana Nani Park and in-spite of
being aware of the said fact he was deposing false to
assist PW-1 and that, to support PW-1 in his goal to
avenge death of his brother in encounter and to help
him he was deposing false.
142. The witness further deposed that, no summons
or notice was issued to him when he was called to
record his statement dated 14.3.2007. He was called by
police constable attached to DN Nagar police station.
He did not know his name or buckle no. No notice or
summons was issued to him to appear before D.N. Nagar
police station. The witness denied that, he was called
by Oshiwara police station for recording his statement
dated 14.3.2007 and in pursuance thereto, his statement
was recorded at Oshiwara police station. The witness
denied that, his statement was recorded by PI Dilip
Patil (Crime). He did not inform any superior officer
or anyone else that accused no.9 was present when his
statement was recorded on 14.3.2007 and that, he met
him. The witness denied that, he did not meet accused
no.9 on that day and he did not record his statement.
143. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state to the police on 14.3.2007, the SLAO-IV,
Metropolitan Magistrate and the SIT that, Aruna Bheda
...138/-
Exh.1124 138 (J-SC 317/10)
told him that, 4-5 persons kidnapped her husband and
Ramnarayan and also that, Aruna told him that said
incident took place at Vashi, Sector 9 in front of a
Mobile Shop, Aruna told him that she did not understand
post office. The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006, he
did not visit Belapur crime branch office, Versova
police station and Nana Nani Park and that, no video
recording was taken on 11.11.2006.
144. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shyamsunder
Vishwanath Gupta (PW-3), Exh.157 that, for the last
three years he resided at Building No.T/1, 406,
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Koliwada, Mumbai-22 and prior to
that, since 2003 he was residing with his wife and two
children in Building No.T/10, Room No.403, Pratiksha
Nagar, Sion. He did his business of goldsmith since
1990. He prepared jewellery by taking gold and orders
from other shops. In the year 2005, one of his artisans
took away gold worth Rs.5 lacs and accordingly, he
lodged a complaint with the police station, nothing was
detected till date. Hence, he suffered loss and started
doing business of lottery by name Rajashree Lottery. He
carried on the said business in Pratiksha Nagar,
Building No.T/4, Ground Floor,004. They were four
brothers by name Bhagwandas, Ramnarayan (deceased),
himself and Ramprasad.
...139/-
Exh.1124 139 (J-SC 317/10)
145. It has further come in his evidence that, on
11.11.2006, he was sitting in his lottery shop. He
received a telephone call. The person stated that from
in front of the said caller's shop, Ramnarayan and Anil
Bheda had been forcefully taken away through a Qualis
vehicle of silver colour by persons who looked like
police. He received this call on his mobile bearing
no. 9867016540 at about 1.00 pm, when he was in his
lottery shop. At that time, he had one more mobile
bearing no.9892344123. He received 2-3 calls within
10-15 minutes narrating the same thing from different
persons. He did not know any of the persons making the
calls to him. He became tense and then immediately
called his younger brother, who was an advocate, on his
mobile no. 9821376490 and told him that, some unknown
persons had taken away brother Ramnarayan. He was
informed that Ramnarayan was taken from Vashi and he
did not remember sector number. Ramprasad told him
that, he was coming to his shop. Ramprasad came to his
shop and they were discussing the same and at that time
again, he received a phone call. He handed over the
phone to Ramprasad. Ramprasad asked him details.
Ramprasad stated that, he would make inquiry with the
police as to who were the said persons. Thereafter,
Ramprasad left and he also took his mobile with him.
Ramprasad informed that, he was going to the office of
Ganesh Iyer. The witness was in his shop after
...140/-
Exh.1124 140 (J-SC 317/10)
Ramprasad left. Then the witness received a phone from
the wife of Ramnarayan by name Subhalaxmi. He also
received phone from the wife of Anil Bheda and some
calls from other one or two persons. Subhalaxmi
informed him that, she was trying to contact Ramnarayan
but his phone was reported as switched off and that she
had been informed that some persons looking like police
had taken away her husband. She requested to search for
Ramnarayan and make necessary inquiries. The witness
informed her that Ramprasad had gone for making such
inquiries. Thereafter, he was at his shop.
146. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, there was a television set in his shop. He was
watching the television at 8.30 pm. Breaking news was
displayed on the television that, ``|=| |=+ +| ++|, |=+||+,
n|| =, ==|c = `. He immediately called Ramprasad. At
that time, he was in Belapur. He had informed the
witness at about 4-5 pm on telephone that he had
received information that one Prakash Bhandari had
taken away their brother. Ramprasad told him that, he
had returned and he should go to the office of Ganesh
Iyer. Then the witness reached the office of Ganesh
Iyer within 10-15 minutes situated at Jain Society,
Sion. His brother and Ganesh Iyer were not present
there. one advocate Mr. Vijay Desai and another person
were present there. At about 9-9.15 pm, his brother and
...141/-
Exh.1124 141 (J-SC 317/10)
Ganesh Iyer came there. Ramprasad gave him one mobile,
which was of Reliance and asked him to give it at his
house.
147. It has further come in his evidence that,
thereafter he left for Versova. The witness went to his
house. On the next day, he went to JJ Hospital and saw
the body. He reached the hospital at about 9-9.30 am.
He was waiting for the body to arrive. The body arrived
around 11-12 pm. The body was in an ambulance and it
was accompanied by one Hawaldar. The witness informed
him that, he was real brother of the deceased and he
wanted to see the face to identify the body. He
initially refused. Then he requested him repeatedly and
thereafter he spoke on phone with someone. Thereafter
he opened the door and showed him the body. The legs
of the body were towards the door. There was red soil
on his legs till knee. He opened his face and saw a
hole on his forehead. He requested the police to permit
him to take photograph, but he asked the witness to
leave. He called Ramprasad immediately. Ramprasad asked
him to return home immediately and not to wait there.
Police never came to him to make inquiries relating to
the incident. He never went to the police relating to
this incident. Till date, police did not make inquiries
with him about the incident.
...142/-
Exh.1124 142 (J-SC 317/10)
148. It has come during cross examination of the
witness that, he was born in Bombay. His all brothers
were born in Bombay. They were residing together till
his marriage in 1995. In 1996, he got separated from
the house at the time of birth of his first child. In
1995, Ramnarayan had left the house. Other two brothers
were staying together. In 1995, Ramprasad was staying
in Thane. He was residing there for about 2-4 years.
Then he was not married. Meantime, he started residing
in Navi Mumbai till his death. He got married when he
was residing in Thane with his wife. When he left for
Navi Mumbai, he was not accompanied by his wife. He did
not know where he had shifted in Navi Mumbai from
Thane. At the time of his death, he was residing in
Navi Mumbai with Anil Bheda. The witness studied upto
7
th
std. He could read and write English. He had filed
affidavit in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court,
Railway. The witness was shown Article-8 affidavit
filed by him before Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Court.
149. It has further come in his evidence that, he
went to the typist, gave him information in Hindi and
he prepared the said affidavit and gave it to him. He
read over the contents. The contents were true and
correct. Thereafter, he affirmed it and filed it in
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court. The witness admitted
...143/-
Exh.1124 143 (J-SC 317/10)
that portion marked A in the affidavit was correct.
In 1995, his mother expired. Thereafter, his brother
Ramnarayan was released from jail. That time his late
brother was residing at Pratiksha Nagar. Police were
inquiring with him relating to a murder case registered
by Antop Hill police station.
150. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not know if offence was registered by Sewree police
station in 1989 vide CR No.158/1989 u/s. 326, 114 of
IPC and by Khar police station in 1994 vide CR No.
106/1994 u/s. 399, 402 of IPC and 25 of the Arms Act
and by Dahisar police station in 1995 vide CR No.
394/1995 u/s. 342, 452, 397, 398, 457 of IPC and by
Wadala police station in 1997 vide CR No.78/97 u/s.
302,307,324,143,147,149,212 of the IPC and by Sewree
police station in 1997 vide CR No.95/97 u/s. 302 of
IPC, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by Kalamboli police
station in 1998 vide CR No.167/98 u/s. 302, 34 of IPC
and u/s. 3,25,27 of the Arms Act and by Thane City
Police station in 1993 in case of dacoity and by Deonar
police station in a case of robbery, so also by Wagle
Estate police station in a case of dacoity. He did not
know in which case he was in jail in 1995. He did not
know if he was arrested by Chembur police station, Unit
No.4. He did not know if he was arrested by Lokmanya
Tilak Marg police station. He did not know if he was
...144/-
Exh.1124 144 (J-SC 317/10)
connected with gang of Chhota Rajan. There might be 2
or 4 cases registered against him. He did not know by
which police station or under what section the cases
were registered. The witness denied that there were
many cases pending against his brother and that his
late brother was a well known criminal. The witness
also denied that, he was knowing about this fact. The
witness admitted that, the deceased had a criminal
background, but denied that he was purposefully not
disclosing the fact that his brother was arrested and
involved in many other cases after 1995. He did not
remember whether he had met police personnel on
01.09.2009. The witness denied that, police
interrogated him on that day and he did not remember
where he was on 22.06.2010.
151. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he came to his shop on 11.11.2006 at 10
am. He was in the shop till he received the phone
calls. He did not know anything about the incident
from 10 am till he received the phone call. He denied
that he did not know name of the person who called him.
He had not met that person prior to 11.11.2006 or that
day or till date. The said person had a mobile shop.
He did not remember how many phone calls he received of
the said person. He received all the phone calls prior
to he calling his brother. He did not know anyone in
...145/-
Exh.1124 145 (J-SC 317/10)
Bhiwandi. He did not know any person who had a mobile
phone shop in Bhiwandi. He had seen the number from
which he had received the phone calls. He did not
remember if it was of land-line or mobile. He did not
inquire if the caller had personally witnessed the
incident. He did not state that he had personally
witnessed the incident. He did not note down the number
from whom he received the call. He did not erase the
said number. He could not state for how long the said
number was present in his mobile. He had not noted what
information was given by the caller. The said caller
had stated the same words as stated by him before the
Court. From the caller, he came to know from where his
brother was abducted. He only came to know that it was
from in front of the caller's shop and nothing more.
He did not ask him where his shop was. The witness
further deposed that, the shop was in Vashi. He only
came to know that the incident of abduction took place
from in front of the shop at Vashi. He did not know the
shop of the said caller and had no knowledge about the
said shop of caller prior thereto. He did not feel it
necessary to make inquiries about the said person or
about the said address from the said caller. He did not
make any inquiries with the caller. He did not inquire
as to how many people they were. Those were 4-5
persons. He was remembering this fact during his
examination in chief. He was knowing the fact about
...146/-
Exh.1124 146 (J-SC 317/10)
number of persons when he prepared affidavit and filed
it before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court, but
had not stated it in the said affidavit (Article-8).
152. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not state in his affidavit filed
before the Ld. M.M that, he had two mobile connections.
He was not shown call details of the said mobile
numbers by the police. He received about 3-4 phone
calls about the incident before he called Ramprasad.
He did not remember if the said calls were made by
different persons. He received phone calls from
different persons, but could not say if he received the
said phone calls continuously. Out of the said persons,
who called him, he knew one person by name Girish. He
did not ask him if he had personally witnessed the
incident of taking away. He knew names of two more
persons, who had called him. He had not stated names of
the said persons in his affidavit before the Ld. M.M.
He did not remember if he had informed his brother on
mobile that the incident occurred at 1.00 pm. He had
informed his brother PW-1 that, their brother was taken
in a silver coloured Qualis vehicle. Article-8 was his
first statement in writing about the incident after the
incident. There was no talk between himself and PW-1
that he should give his statement with regards to the
said incident. He had not informed any other person or
...147/-
Exh.1124 147 (J-SC 317/10)
asked any other person to make inquiries, prior to
arrival of his brother, about the information received
by him relating to the taking away of his deceased
brother. It did not happen that, during that period he
went to a PCO and called someone and asked him
inquiring about the said incident. He had not given
any missed call to any person during that period.
153. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had not stated in his affidavit
before the Ld. M.M that, when Ramprasad came to his
shop and he was talking with him when he received a
phone call from the person who had given him
information earlier and he handed over the phone to
Ramprasad and he asked the said person his details. He
did not state in his affidavit before the Ld. M.M the
information given by Subhalaxmi and that she requested
him to search for Ramnarayan and the witness informed
her that Ramprasad had gone for making such inquiries
and also that, he received information from Ramprasad
at about 4-5 pm on telephone. He also stated in the
said affidavit that, Ramprasad told him that he had
returned and that he should go to the office of Ganesh
Iyer, which is at Sion, Jain Society and that, he
reached Iyer's office within 10-15 minutes and PW-1 and
PW-2 were not present there. He also did not state in
his affidavit before Ld. M.M that, Vijay Desai and
...148/-
Exh.1124 148 (J-SC 317/10)
another person were present there. He also did not
state in the affidavit before Ld. M.M that, at about
9-9.15 pm, PW-1 and PW-2 came there and PW-1 gave one
mobile of Reliance to be given at his house and PW-1
left for Versova and he went to his house.
154. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not state in his affidavit before Ld. M.M that,
next day he went to JJ Hospital at about 9-9.30 am and
the body arrived at about 11-12.00 pm and he informed
the Hawaldar accompanying the body that he wanted to
see the face and identify the body and he refused and
thereafter after speaking on phone, permitted him and
he saw the body in the ambulance, whose legs were
towards the door and they had red soil till his knee
and on seeing the face, he saw a hole on his forehead
and the police officer refused him permission to take
photographs and he was asked to leave and then he
called Ramprasad and Ramprasad informed him to return
home and not to wait there.
155. The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006 he
never received any phone call from anyone relating to
the taking away of his brother and Anil Bheda and also
that, he was deposing false that he called his brother
and informed him the said details. The witness denied
that he was deposing false that, thereafter his brother
...149/-
Exh.1124 149 (J-SC 317/10)
came to his shop and that he was deposing falsely that
his brother came there and he received the phone call
and left and that, he did not receive any phone call
from wife of Anil Bheda and Subhalaxmi. He also denied
that, his brother did not inform him that he received
information that Prakash Bhandari had taken his
deceased brother. It is further denied that, he was
never called at the office of Ganesh Iyer and he never
met Mr.Vijay Desai there nor did he meet his brother
and PW-2 there. The witness also denied that, he did
not go to JJ Hospital and did not see the body of his
brother in the ambulance.
156. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, relations between all the four brothers
were cordial and they were regularly in contact with
one another. Whenever Ramnarayan was in custody he
could not talk to him. The witness denied that, he had
information that Ramnarayan was in police custody on
number of occasions. He had knowledge about only two
such occasions. It could be that he was arrested on 3
or 4 occasions. Had had not stated in his affidavit
before Ld.M.M that, his brother had a criminal
background. The witness denied that, he prepared the
said affidavit before the Ld. M.M at the say of his
brother (PW-1) and that he had not received summons
from the Ld. M.M. The witness denied that, typist of
...150/-
Exh.1124 150 (J-SC 317/10)
Article-7 and Article-8 were one and the same. PW-2 was
not known to their family members. The witness denied
that, PW-2 prepared the said affidavit. He had given
his name and other details to the typist. He on his own
prepared unnumbered paragraph-1 on the affidavit so
also last two unnumbered paragraphs. The witness denied
that, PW-1 and PW-2 prepared the affidavit (Article-8).
157. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shaligram
Kashiram Wankhade (PW-4), Exh.158, that, telegrams Exh.
114, Exh.115 and Exh.116 were sent from Matugna
Telegraph Office, Mumbai on 11.11.2006 and telegrams
Exh.117 and Exh.118 were sent from Dadar Telegraph
Office, Mumbai. Telegram Exh.114 was sent at 16.08
hours, telegrams Exh.117 and Exh.118 were sent at 18.28
hours. Telegram Exh.114 was sent to Mr.D. Shivanandan,
then Commissioner of Police, Thane. Telegram Exh.115
was sent to then Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai,
Belapur. Telegram Exh.116 was sent to Mr. A.N. Roy,
then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Exh.117 was sent
to then Chief Minister of Maharashtra State Mr.Vilasrao
Deshmukh, Varsha Bungalow, Mumbai and Exh.118 was sent
to then Dy. Chief Minister Mr. R.R. Patil, Chitrakut,
Malbar Hill, Mumbai. The telegrams receipts are at Exh.
119 (colly.). On 29.03.2010, police made demand of
original telegrams as well as certified copies of the
telegrams. On the same day, the original was given to
...151/-
Exh.1124 151 (J-SC 317/10)
the police. The letter issued by the police is at Exh.
159. The forwarding letter by the witness is at Exh.
160.
158. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, the police gave application on 04.10.2009 to
Dadar Telegraph Office and he did not know as to
whether the police officer had personally given the
letter or was given through any other subordinate
officer. He did not know as to from which document
Mr.Choube from the Telegraph Office prepared the
certified copy. He saw the telegrams for the first
time on 29.03.2010, which were kept in a file
separately in his office. He saw those telegrams for
the first time when police officer came to him. He had
given details of the telegrams only by seeing the
telegrams and that he had no personal knowledge
relating to the telegrams.
159. During further cross examination, the witness
deposed that, his statement was recorded on 29.03.2010
and he was shown receipt of the telegrams on the same
date. The witness again expressed his ignorance as
regards to the date on which the receipts were shown to
him. The police did not show him receipt and he also
did not give any information about the receipts to the
police. On 11.11.2006, he was not deputed to either
...152/-
Exh.1124 152 (J-SC 317/10)
Matunga Telegraph Office or Dadar Telegraph Office.
160. Ms. Ruchana Ramesh Vanjare (PW-5), Exh.159,
was working in B.S.N.L. It has come in her evidence
that, initially she was working as a Clerk and she
retired as Chief Section Supervisor. The witness
further deposed that, letter Exh.131 had her signature
and letters Exhs.129 and 130 were referred to in Exh.
131. She gave details in Exh.131 after calling for
reports from Matunga Telegraph office and Dadar
Telegraph Office.
161. It has further come in her evidence that,
letters OE and AF followed by numbers pertained to
machine number and thereafter the date of telegram was
stated in Exh.131. The telegram details as stated at
Sr.Nos.1,2 and 3 in Exh.131 were of Matunga Telegram
Office and Sr.No.4 was of Dadar Telegraph Office. The
name of telegraph office was stated on the receipts. On
28.06.2011, police made enquiry about the said
telegrams with her. The police recorded her statement.
162. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, on 29.11.2006, her superior Sub Divisional
Engineer, G-II, was on leave and she was Incharge.
Such type of requests were to be handled by Sub
Divisional Engineer. Exh.129 and Exh.130 did not bear
...153/-
Exh.1124 153 (J-SC 317/10)
her signatures or initials. In normal course, these
letters would have been gone to the office of Sub
Divisional Engineer. She did not prepare letters to
Dadar and Matunga Telegraph Offices. These would have
been prepared by the Sub Divisional Engineer. After
perusal of the said delivery receipts, her assistant
prepared Exh.131. Except delivery report and Exh.131,
she did not know anything regarding the said telegrams.
The delivery reports were retained by her office. Copy
of the delivery reports were also not given to the
applicant. She personally did not hand over the said
letter to the applicant. Police did not demand delivery
reports of the telegrams. At the time of recording her
statement, she was only shown Exh.131.
163. During further cross examination, the witness
deposed that, she was not appointed as a Sub Divisional
Engineer, G-II on 29.11.2006. There was only one post
of Sub Divisional Engineer, G-II in Administration
Department. She did not state in Exh.131 that, she was
Incharge of the office of Sub Divisional Engineer, G-
II. The police did not ask her about any document
stating that, she was the Incharge.
164. It has come in evidence of Mr.Mahesh Manohar
Mule (PW-6), Exh.163 that, he has been a practicing
advocate since 1998 and generally practices in Sessions
...154/-
Exh.1124 154 (J-SC 317/10)
Court, Mumbai. Complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta is his
friend. The incident occurred about 4 to 5 years before
relating to taking into custody of brother of Advocate
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. On that day, Ramprasad Gupta called
him on telephone at a bout 4 to 4.30 pm. At that time,
he was near his house. Ramprasad Gupta called him to
enquire about fax numbers of Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai and other top ranking police officials of
Mumbai. He had only number of one officer in his diary
and he gave the said number to Ramprasad Gupta. He
asked Ramprasad Gupta to contact his other friend Mr.
Shrirang Shrimane, an advocate, for other numbers.
Ramprasad Gupta told him that, his brother had been
taken away and he was missing and hence, he wanted
telephone numbers. The witness was asked for fax
numbers only. He gave fax numbers only. Ramprasad Gupta
might have called him twice or thrice. On the second
occasion, Ramprasad Gupta called him as Advocate Mr.
Shrirang Shrimane did not have any numbers. The witness
told Ramprasad Gupta that, he also did not have any
numbers. His statement was recorded by the police.
165. The witness further deposed that, he had
stated before police that, on 11.11.2006 there was a
second Saturday and hence, he was at home. He also
deposed that, PW-1 Ramprasad Gupta stated to him that,
his brother Lakhan Bhaiya and his friend had been taken
...155/-
Exh.1124 155 (J-SC 317/10)
away by the police from Vashi. He also stated that,
PW-1 stated to him that, he feared something untoward
would happen to his brother and asked him what to do.
Number of Shrirang Shrimane was 9820044302. He saw a
caption on television that night that, one person of
Chhota Rajan gang named Lakhan Bhaiya was killed in
encounter.
166. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he knew Ramprasad Gupta for the last 10 years. He
knew prior to the incident that, the brother of
Ramprasad Gupta had criminal antecedents. He did not
know if as a result thereof, he was staying separately.
Except as deposed in the Examination in chief, no other
conversation took place between him and Ramprasad
Gupta. He did not ask Ramprasad Gupta if he had
witnessed the abduction of his brother. He did not ask
him as to how he got the said information. He did not
feel it surprising that, police had taken away the
brother of Ramprasad Gupta. He did not ask him if he
had made enquiry at Vashi police station. He also did
not ask Ramprasad Gupta to go to Vashi police station,
or any other police station for lodging missing
complaint. He did not ask Ramprasad Gupta the name of
the friend who was abducted. The witness denied that,
Ramprasad Gupta informed him that he had to create an
alibi for his brother and hence, he asked him the phone
...156/-
Exh.1124 156 (J-SC 317/10)
numbers. The witness had informed the police that
Lakhan Bhaiya had a criminal antecedents and was not
residing with Ramprasad Gupta. He did not ask Ramprasad
Gupta as to where the deceased resided. He did not ask
Ramprasad Gupta to make inquiry at the places where
deceased Lakhan Bhaiya resided. He did not file any
affidavit or statement in the Writ Petition filed by
Ramprasad Gupta. He did not record his conversation
with Ramprasad Gupta at any place.
167. Evidence of Ms.Jyoti Mahadeo Babar (PW-7),
Exh.164, discloses that, she was working in Esha News
Monitoring Services Private Ltd., for the last ten
years, in the capacity of Administrative Director and
her office was situated at 10
th
Floor, Krushal
Commercial Complex, J.M. Road, Chembur(West), Mumbai
89. Her company recorded news shown on television
channel and provded copies of the same to the customers
on receipt of appropriate charges.
168. One Mr.R.B.Gupta requested for video of a clip
in the year 2006, which was shown by Sahara Mumbai
Channel dated 12.11.2006. The company handed over C.D
of the said news clip to Mr. R.B. Gupta for charges of
Rs.254/-. The receipt is at Exh.165 and the video clip
is at Exh.123. The defence has declined to cross
examine this witness, hence there was no cross
...157/-
Exh.1124 157 (J-SC 317/10)
examination.
169. Evidence of Mr.Amit Ashok Jambotkar(PW-8) Exh.
166 discloses that, the witness had been practicing as
an Advocate since the year 2000 generally on criminal
side in Sessions Court, Mumbai and in the Hon'ble High
Court, Mumbai. He knew Ramprasad Gupta.
170. On 11.11.2006, he received a telephone call
from Ramprasad Gupta between 4.00 to 4.30 pm. Ramprasad
Gupta had asked him to make enquiry about his brother,
as his brother was picked up from Vashi. He was asked
to make enquiries in Crime Branch Office, Thane about
his brother Ramnarayan Gupta and therefore, he went to
Crime Branch Office at Thane. He could not make inquiry
as he could not find any proper person. At about 6.00
to 6.30 pm, on 11.11.2006, Ramprasad Gupta again called
him and asked him about the inquiry, whereupon he told
Ramprasad Gupta that he could not find anybody as it
was Saturday and the office was not working and hence
he could not find anybody. Thereafter, Ramprasad Gupta
did not tell him anything. At about 8.00-8.30 pm, he
saw news flash on television stating that Ramnarayan
Gupta was killed in an encounter. The SIT recorded his
statement as per his say.
...158/-
Exh.1124 158 (J-SC 317/10)
171. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, on that day, he spoke with Ramprasad Gupta only
twice on telephone. There was no other conversation
between him and Ramprasad Gupta except that he deposed
during Examination in chief. The witness admitted that
Ramprasad Gupta was his friend. He did not feel it
necessary to ask as to in what circumstances his
brother was picked up. He did not inquire with
Ramprasad Gupta if he had personal knowledge of picking
up of his brother and further who gave such information
and how many persons and who picked him up. He did not
make inquiry about the time when his brother was picked
up. He received information that, only his brother was
picked up. The witness denied that, Ramprasad Gupta
called him on telephone twice at about 06.10 and 06.17
pm. He also denied that, Ramprasad Gupta called him
between 4.00 to 4.30 pm and that, he asked him to go to
Crime Branch Office, Thane and that he did visit Crime
Branch Office, Thane. He did not record his
conversation with Ramprasad Gupta and details of it in
any affidavit or format till his statement was
recorded. He did not ask Ramprasad Gupta if he wanted
him to file any affidavit in the Writ Petition.
172. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sunder Rangappa
Tendulkar (PW-9), Exh.168 that, at the relevant time,
he was the Director of RSB Finlease Private Ltd., which
...159/-
Exh.1124 159 (J-SC 317/10)
dealt in vehicles and also financed vehicles by giving
loans for purchase of vehicles. They also used to
purchase vehicles. They purchased a vehicle bearing
registration no. MH-04-AW-8824, silver coloured Qualis
in March 2008 by executing an agreement on the letter-
head of his Company, between his Company and Sujit
Mhatre. The agreement is at Exh.169. The Company paid a
loan of ICICI Bank of the said vehicle. It was
hypotheticated to ICICI Bank and then it was released.
The letter was addressed to Sujit Mhatre. They
submitted form no.35 duly signed by Sujit Mhatre to the
RTO Officer for removal of hypothecation remark. The
letter is at Art.9 colly.
173. Thereafter, the Company sold the said vehicle
to Sudhakar Sukha by giving a loan on 12
th
April, 2008.
He paid some installments and thereafter there was
default in payment. The Company issued a notice to him
and took possession of the vehicle. Again, the vehicle
was sold to Mrugesh Negandhi with continuation of the
loan. Again an agreement was executed on the letter-
head of the company. The agreement is at Exh.170. The
vehicle was insured with United India Insurance
Company. The company handed over possession of the said
vehicle to Mrugesh on the date of the agreement. They
also handed over photocopy of RC book and original
insurance papers. The entire loan was repaid within 2-4
...160/-
Exh.1124 160 (J-SC 317/10)
months. Hence, the company handed over original RC
Book, NOC letter and form 35 for removal of
hypothecation.
174. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he did not give documents to the police which he
produced before the court. Initially, Company did not
own the said vehicle. Its manufacturing year was 2001.
He did not know the first owner of the vehicle. He had
no concern with the said vehicle till March, 2008 when
it purchased the vehicle from Sujit Mhatre. He did not
know from whom and when Sujit Mhatre purchased the said
vehicle. He did not know how many owners were there
prior to Sujit Mhatre. He did not know who was the
owner on 11.11.2006. In April 2008, they sold it to
Shri Sukha. The vehicle bearing RTO no. MH04AW8824 was
never in the name of the Company. The Company had
financed the said vehicle to three persons viz.
Sudhakar Sukha, Mrugesh Negandhi and Hemant Mehta.
175. The witness further deposed that, he met
Negandhi after he came to the Court. On 7.09.2011, he
discussed this case with Negandhi. The witness denied
that, delivery note is required for transfer of the
vehicle. He did not have any document with him to show
that delivery note was executed relating to the said
...161/-
Exh.1124 161 (J-SC 317/10)
vehicle. He did not remember if police asked him about
the delivery note of the said vehicle and if he handed
over any such delivery note to the police. For transfer
of the vehicle, form nos.29,30, address proof, NOC of
other RTO, NOC of Financer Fee, all valid documents of
vehicle are required. The witness admitted that all
the documents of the said vehicle were not produced
before the police. Exh. 169 is not a loan agreement. It
is only terms of negotiation. The finance agreement has
to be stamped by franking. The police did not demand
such franked agreement and he did not give such
agreement to the police. The witness could not state as
to whether he handed over Exhs. 169 and 170 to the
police. The company did not maintain any separate
document to note the registration/ execution of the
documents. Exhs.169 and 170 were in his handwriting.
When the company purchased the vehicle from Mhatre it
was valued at Rs 3,25,000/- and when the company sold
it to Mrugesh Negandhi on 7/2/2009, the said vehicle
was valued at Rs.3,65,000/-. The witness denied that,
the vehicle was lying idel for the period of 2008 to
2009 and during that period, Sudhakar Sukh was using
the car since April 2008. The witness further deposed
that, the vehicle was lying idle for 15-20 days with
the Company.
176. Entry of hypothication is made in RC Book by
...162/-
Exh.1124 162 (J-SC 317/10)
the RTO. The witness denied that, till the loan was not
repaid, the vehicle remained in control of the company
and if loan was not repaid, the company could seize the
vehicle and till the loan was repaid the said vehicle
could not be unilaterally transferred or sold. Till the
loan was repaid, the company did not inform the RTO of
repayment of the loan. Exh. 177 was RC of the vehicle
MH04AW8824 of Andheri RTO. The hypothecation entry in
favour of RSB Fin lease was dated 09.06.2011. He did
not have original RC Book of the said vehicle.
Negandhi sold the car to the Company in April 2011 for
Rs. 2,25,000/-, but did not inform the company that he
had executed a bond in the court that he could not sell
or create any third party interests, rights with
respect to the said vehicle. He did not ask the police
that Negandhi was selling the vehicle and whether the
company could purchase it. He knew that, the vehicle
was involved in this case and police recorded his
statement. On 20.4.2011, Negandhi handed over
possession of the said vehicle to him and on the same
day, the company sold it to Hemant Mehta for Rs.
2,85,000/- On 20.4.2011, the company had delivered the
vehicle to Hemant Mehta. He did not know that it
remained in his possession since then. As of date,
there was no document to connect the said vehicle
MH04AW8824 with Negandhi. As per his records the
vehicle should be in possession of Hemant Mehta. On
...163/-
Exh.1124 163 (J-SC 317/10)
that day, RSB Finlease Company had no concern with
vehicle MH04AW8824. As per his records, Ashok Shah and
Pramod Waman Bhosale had no concern with the said
vehicle.
177. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not remember if he had told the police that,
agreement was executed on the letter-head of his
Company of said vehicle. He did not state to the police
that, there was a loan of ICICI Bank on the said
vehicle and the company paid the ICICI Bank in
repayment of said loan and the ICICI bank issued
release of hypothecation letter dated 05.02.2008 and
was sent to his office address and was addressed to
Sujit Mhatre. He did not state to the police that,
the company received the said letter which was
addressed to Sujit Mhatre and that they submitted NOC
of the bank and Form No.35 duly signed by Sujit Mhatre
to the RTO Officer for removal of hypothecation remark
and also that, ICICI Bank had sent two copies of the
said letter and the said letters were received in
regular course of his business. He stated to the
police that, the Company sold the vehicle to Mrugesh
Negandhi with continuation of loan and accordingly
agreement was executed on letter-head. He could not
assign any reason as to why it was not so stated in his
statement. He had not stated to the police that, on
...164/-
Exh.1124 164 (J-SC 317/10)
perusal of the record it was seen that it was insured
with United India Insurance Company and handed over
possession of said vehicle to Mrugesh on the date on
which the agreement was executed and also handed over
photocopy of RC book and original insurance paper. He
did not state to the police that, the original RC Book
was retained by them till the loan was repaid and that
the entire loan was repaid within 2-4 months and then
they handed over to Mrugesh, original RC Book, NOC
letter and form 35 for removal of hypothecation. The
witness denied that, he prepared Exhs.169-170
subsequently and fabricated the same at the say of the
police.
178. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Mrugesh
Dineshchandra Negandhi (PW-10), Exh.171, that, in the
first or second week of February, 2009 he purchased a
vehicle bearing No.MH-04-AW-8824 from RSB Finlease
Private Ltd., by obtaining a loan of Rs.2,80,000/- from
it. He repaid the entire loan amount by taking
financial help from his father. He executed an
agreement Exh.170 with RSB Finance. The agreement had
his signature. He put new seat covers, mud-guards and
also removed logo of SHIVSENA from the said vehicle.
R.C. Book is at Exh.177 and its copy is at Exh.177A.
Form No.29 is marked as A. The witness identified
documents at Exhs. 178, 178A, 179 and 179A. The witness
...165/-
Exh.1124 165 (J-SC 317/10)
also identified two signatures and thumb impressions of
Hemant Mehta.
179. During cross examination, the witness denied
that, he did not have any RC book of the said vehicle
from February, 2009 to June, 2011. He handed over the
old RC Book to RSB Finlease prior to receiving Exh.177.
He again hypothecated his vehicle in June, 2011. He
took a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- over and above the earlier
loan taken. In the earlier book, name of earlier owner
was stated. In Exh.177 name of the owner is not stated.
There were five owners prior to his purchasing the
vehicle. On 11.11.2006, Hemant Mehta was the owner of
the vehicle. The witness again deposed that, he did
not know as to who was the owner of the vehicle on
11.11.2006. He had not tried to sell the said vehicle
till the date of deposing before the Court. He
purchased the vehicle for the first time from Hemant
Mehta on 09.09.2011. Hemant Maheta became the owner of
the vehicle on 14.06.2011. On 14.06.2011, the witness
sold the vehicle to Hemant Mehta. He had executed a
bond in 2009 in this case. There was the order of the
Court that the witness should no sell the vehicle and
even then he sold the vehicle. He did not apply to the
Court seeking permission to sell the vehicle.
180. It has further come in his evidence that, he
...166/-
Exh.1124 166 (J-SC 317/10)
did not know Pramod Waman Bhosale, resident of 2/13,
Luv Kush, Near Naigaon Station, Dist.- Thane. The
witness denied that, the vehicle stood in the name of
Pramod Waman Bhosale on 08.09.2011. The witness further
deposed that, he did not sell the vehicle to Ashok Shah
resident of Plot No.178, Sector 16A, Nerul, Navi
Mumbai, Dist. Thane. Article 10 letter has been
referred during cross examination. It is dated
07.09.2011. It is at Exh.180.
181. The engine number in Exh.180 is 9646692 and in
Exh.177, engine number is 966692. He had not noted
Ashok Shah, being the owner of the said vehicle when he
purchased the vehicle. In Exh.177, name of Ashok Shah
is not stated as owner. He did not verify what was
original colour of the vehicle. He had purchased the
vehicle of colour B. Silver i.e. bluish silver. In the
RC Book, Exh.177, the chasis number does not end with
/01 as was shown in Exh.180. The witness denied that,
as he had sold the vehicle in June, 2011, he had
fabricated the documents Exhs.177, 178 and 179.
182. During further cross examination, the witness
deposed that, he did not hand over possession of the
vehicle to Hemant Mehta on 15.06.2011. After the last
date, when he attended the court he got the vehicle
again transferred in his name. The witness admitted
...167/-
Exh.1124 167 (J-SC 317/10)
that, though the vehicle was re-transferred in his
name, RC Book did not stand in his name on that day. In
the RC Book number of the vehicle was MH-04-AW-8824.
Exh.177 was duplicate RC Book, which he received in
June, 2011. The witness denied that, he prepared
document on 09.09.2011 at the say of police officers.
The witness further deposed that, he and Hemant Mehta
signed Exh.179 i.e Form 30 on 09.09.20111.
183. It has come in evidence of Dr.Sunil Hari
Shinde (PW-11), Exh.173 that, he was working as a
Medical Officer at Dr. R.N. Cooper Hospital since 2004.
In November, 2006, he was working as Casualty Medical
Officer. On 11.11.2006, he was working in night shift
since 8 pm, which ended at 8 am on the next day. He was
to attend all emergency patients coming to the
hospital. On 11.11.2006, police brought patient
involved in Medico Legal cases. On that day, Ramnarayan
Vishwanath Gupta was brought to casualty by P.C. No.
970043 of Versova police station. He examined the said
patient and on examination, he noted injuries on his
body. Accordingly, entry was made in MLC Register at
Sr. No.22278 on page no. 139 of MLC Register No.
45/2006. The entry continued on page no.140 also.
184. On examination of the patient, he found that,
the patient was brought dead. He had seen the injuries
...168/-
Exh.1124 168 (J-SC 317/10)
and noted the same in the MLC Register. He noted six
injuries on the person of the said patient. They were
(1) Circular puncture wound about 1 cm over forehead,
fresh in nature, (2) Circular puncture wound about 1 cm
over right anterior chest, fourth inter costal space,
above nipple, fresh in nature, (3) Circular puncture
wound about 1 cm in left anterior chest, second inter
costal space, fresh in nature, (4) Circular puncture
wound about 1 cm in left fourth inter costal space,
anteriorly, fresh in nature, (5) Circular puncture
exit wound, over right third inter costal space,
posteriorly, fresh in nature and (6) Circular puncture
wound about 1 cm posteriorly, over left body of
scapula, fresh in nature. History of the injuries was
given as bullet injuries caused by firearms. The
entries in MLC Register, which was maintained by the
hospital in regular course of its business were made in
his handwriting. He had handed over the body to the
said police constable of Versova police station for
postmortem. There were clothes on the body when he
examined the said body.
185. The witness further deposed that, he had
instructed ward boy of the hospital to remove the
clothes of the dead body so that he could examine the
body. He also instructed the ward boy to remove the
contents of the clothes on the said body and place it
...169/-
Exh.1124 169 (J-SC 317/10)
before him. Before removing the clothes, the witness
made note of those contents in MLC Register in the same
entry no.22278. He also made entry of the injuries
found and also contents of the clothes in the said
entry. Original MLC Register before the court page
nos. 139 and 140- was in his handwriting and contents
were true and correct. The copy of the register was
also placed on record. The original register entry is
marked Exh.174 and copy is marked Exh.174A. The clothes
and contents of the clothes were handed over to police
of Versova police station i.e. P.C. No. 970043. He
obtained acknowledgment in this regard from the said
constable. SIT recorded his statement and also took
attested copy of the MLC Register relating to the said
entry.
186. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, there was one register and no separate casualty
register. On 11.11.2006, about 28 persons were brought
in Medico Legal Cases. They maintained only OPD
Register even for patients brought to Casualty. In MLC
Cases, there was no OPD registration. There could be
approximately 25-30 non Medico Legal patients on that
day. In some Medico Legal cases, if a patient dies,
body is forwarded to the postmortem. As the bodies are
forwarded to the postmortem and other patients are
admitted in the hospital, where their detailed
...170/-
Exh.1124 170 (J-SC 317/10)
examination is carried out, the patients are examined,
cursorily, in the casualty ward.
187. He did not note whether the injury on the
forehead showed darkening or powder marks. He did not
note if there was blackening or powder marks on the
clothes of the said patient. He did not state name of
the ward boy who removed the clothes. He could not
state name of the ward boy. He saw four entry wounds
and two exit wounds. The witness further deposed that,
it was possible that there could also be five entry
wounds and he might have missed one of the entry
wounds, as he cursorily examined the wounds. He
personally did not remove or examine the clothes of the
deceased. The said ward boy counted the amount in the
purse and as per his say, the witness noted the
contents. He stated in the noting that, there were
currency notes of denominations of Rs.5, Rs.2 and Rs.2.
He could not tell if those were currency notes or
coins. He did not pay attention if the coins of Rs.25
paise were present or not. He did not know as to from
which pocket of the pant, the said wallet and other
articles were removed. He could not say as to how many
pockets were there to the pant of the deceased.
188. It has come in evidence of Mr.Naresh Rajaram
Chandolkar (PW-12), Exh.175, that in the year 2006, his
...171/-
Exh.1124 171 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile number was 9221029220. One Subhash Ramji Patel
became known to him through Suresh Manjunath Shetty.
In the year 2006, Subhash Patel came to his shop in
Tanaji Nagar, Malad for repairing fridge. Subhash Patel
told him that, he wanted to take a mobile connection
and he did not have necessary documents and asked him
to give his documents. The witness gave him his
photograph and photocopy of rationing card. Subhash
Patel took mobile connection bearing No.9833792771.
Subhash Patel was using the said connection which was
in the name of the witness i.e. Naresh Chandolkar. The
witness used to speak to Subhash Patel on the said
mobile number. He stated before the SIT that, Subhash
Patel had brought the form for taking the said mobile
connection and that, he signed the said form. The
defence declined to cross examine this witness.
189. It has come in evidence of Mr.Maruti Baburao
Naikade (PW-13), Exh.181, that, on 12.03.2010, he was
called as a panch on first floor of Bandra police
station. The he was taken to the ground floor near
compound of Bandra police station by DCP Mr. Prasanna.
One Qualis vehicle bearing registration No. MH-04-
AW-8824 of silver colour having seats of gray colour
was stationery near the compound. The police introduced
him to one Mr. Mrugesh Negandhi, the owner of the
vehicle. The vehicle was shown to him by opening its
...172/-
Exh.1124 172 (J-SC 317/10)
door. One person by name Anil Bheda was also present
there. Another panch was Mr. Haresh Patil. The police
recorded panchanama. He put signatures on the
panchanama. Other panch also put his signatures. The
panchanama was read over to him. Contents were true and
correct. Therefore, he put signatures on panchanama
Exh.182. The police had seized the said vehicle under
the panchanama.
190. During cross examination, the witness admitted
that, on that day, the vehicle was not moved and was in
the same position. It is not stated in the panchanama
that, the vehicle was seized and taken into possession.
Description of the vehicle mentioned in the panchanama
was correct. He did not verify engine number or chasis
number on the vehicle it was also not shown to him. The
witness denied that, except putting signatures, he did
not do anything.
191. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know another panch Haresh
Patil prior to recording the panchanama. Since 1982 to
2005, he was residing at 264/6459, Samata Colony, Pant
Nagar. He did not have document to show that he was
residing at the said place. The witness denied that,
he was habitual panch and also that he knew Haresh
Patil. The witness denied that, he put signatures on
...173/-
Exh.1124 173 (J-SC 317/10)
the panchanama at the say of the police and that he was
deposing false.
192. It has come in evidence of Mr.Parmanand
Sitaram Desai (PW-14), Exh.185 that, he worked in the
capacity of Supervisor in Solid Waste Management
Department in Kandivali in BMC, Mumbai since February,
2008 and he worked in BMC since 1973. There were 15
sub-departments under his department and each sub-
department was headed by a Junior Overseer. Each
overseer supervises about 50 employees. There was also
Mukadam appointed for about 20 employees. He was
performing duty of consideration of leave of the
employees, supply of material, payment of salary and
cleaning of the ward. The attendance of the employees
was registered separately in each sub-department. The
attendance register was maintained in the Time Office
under the supervision of Jr. Overseer. The employee
marks his presence by signing on the muster. The
employee marks in the said muster when he joins work
and also at 1.15 when his work gets over. All other
sub-departments only work in one shift except the
department of lifting of garbage, which works in three
shifts. If the employee did not sign while leaving,
then he was marked as half day absent. The employees
sign the muster in presence of the Mukadam as well as
the Jr. Overseer. The muster is brought to the main
...174/-
Exh.1124 174 (J-SC 317/10)
office after every 15 days for making entries relating
to the attendance of employees. The muster entries were
made in the main register and on the basis of entries
in the main register, salary was paid.
193. The SIT asked him to give details about one
employee and same was replied by his office vide letter
dated 23.03.2010 signed by him and the Office
Superintendent. The request letter was dated
15.03.2010. The letter was forwarded through proper
channel to the head clerk Mr.Rodrigues. The attendance
registers were kept in the office at Thakur Chowki. The
musters in Thakur complex were infested with termites
and also were damaged because of getting wet.
Accordingly, he informed the SIT and also showed them
the main register maintained in the Head Office from
which payment was made.
194. It has further come in his evidence that, name
of Mr.Sunil Ramesh Solanki appeared at Sr.no.164 of the
said register. Sunil Solanki worked at Thakur complex
chowki and one Mr.Jagtap was Jr. Overseer at that time.
On 09.11.2006, Sunil Solanki was absent for half day.
On 10.11.2006, he was on weekly off. On 11.11.2006, he
had taken casual leave. The personal record of the said
employee was maintained by the office under
Sr.No.K/556. On 01.02.2006, he was made permanent. His
...175/-
Exh.1124 175 (J-SC 317/10)
date of birth was 26.06.1981. Before being made
permanent, the employee was treated as daily recruit.
The said register was maintained in normal course of
business of the Municipal Corporation. The original
entry is marked as Exh.186 and its copy is at Exh.186A.
The copy of letter sent to the SIT is at Exh.187 and
letter received from the SIT is at Exh.188.
195. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, in the year 2006, one Mr.Wagh was entrusted with
the duty of maintaining those registers. When his
statement was recorded by the SIT, Mr.Wagh was still
on duty. In 2010 he was Dy. Head Supervisor at Vile
Parle. The original muster signed by Accused no.10
Sunil Solanki was not available with the office. He had
not verified any documents except the muster filed on
record to show that Sunil Solanki had taken casual
leave. There was alteration in the first column of the
said register of the name of months. He had not made
the said alteration and he also did not know as to who
made the said alteration. The witness denied that Exh.
186 was prepared at the say of the SIT for making
necessary alterations therein as called upon by the
SIT. The witness denied that, accused no.10 was on
duty on 11.11.2006 and that he had been falsely shown
as absent at the say of the SIT. The police did not ask
for the salary slip of November, 2006 though it was
...176/-
Exh.1124 176 (J-SC 317/10)
available with the BMC and it was given to the police.
The witness denied that he was deposing false.
196. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Avdhut
Shivaji Chavan(PW-15) Exh.189, that, since 06.10.2005
to 02.06.2009, he was working as P.I in DN Nagar police
station. Since 06.10.2005 to 31.12.2009, he was PI,
PRO and thereafter as PI, Crime. On 01.01.2008, Dilip
Suryawanshi was appointed as ACP of DN Nagar Division.
There were four police stations i.e. DN Nagar police
station, Versova police station, Oshiwara police
station and Amboli police station under DN Nagar
Division. In October, 2008, he had joined duties after
sick leave. At that time, the office of the ACP was at
the first floor of DN Nagar police station and in
November 2006 PI Pradeep Surywanshi was also attached
to DN Nagar police station along with the witness,
Tawre and Vikas Sonawane. Sr. PI was PI Mr. Thakur.
The witness knew PI Pradeep Suryawanshi.
197. It has further come in his evidence that,
investigation of Versova CR No. 302 of 2006 was carried
out by PI Mr. Sankhe of Oshiwara police station. A
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2473 of 2006 was filed
before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay as regards to
the said crime. ACP Mr.Suryawanshi directed him to
assist Mr.Sankhe in supervising the investigation of
...177/-
Exh.1124 177 (J-SC 317/10)
the said crime and to assist him in the said W.P
proceedings. ACP Suryawanshi is the brother of accused
no.9. Oshiwara police station is at some distance from
DN Nagar police station. He was asked to help ACP Mr.
Suryawanshi so that he could verify if the instructions
as given by ACP Mr.Suryawanshi were followed or
complied with by PI Mr. Sankhe. Considering the nature
of proceedings, in order to have proper investigation
and proper supervision over the investigation in view
of the W.P filed, the witness was called upon to
supervise and co-ordinate. It was also felt necessary
because PI Mr.Sankhe was not investigating the said
matter at speed which was expected by ACP Mr.
Suryawanshi.
198. The witness was directed to write letters and
accordingly, he issued letters dated 27.01.2009 and
also on 26.02.2009 to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
for recording statements of the witnesses under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. The first letter was O.W. No. 699/09
dated 27.01.2009, which was written as per the
directions of ACP Mr.Suryawanshi and was prepared after
11.00 am on that day. The letter had his signatures.
Contents were true and correct (Exh.190). The said
letter was endorsed in receipt by one Anand Patade. He
handed over the letter to ACP Mr.Suryawanshi. He went
home and returned for his night duty at 8.30 pm. He had
...178/-
Exh.1124 178 (J-SC 317/10)
no occasion to inquire about the said letter, Exh.190
when he returned. At about 9.00 pm, ACP Mr.Suryawanshi
called him in his cabin and he was informed that, as
PSI Anand Patade was one of the respondents in the said
W.P., it would not be proper to act upon the said
letter. The witness was directed to prepare one more
copy of the said letter and sign the same.
Accordingly, he took out another printout and signed
the same. It was having Outward No.742. It had his
signature and contents were true and correct vide Exh.
191. He was informed that, the said letter had been
acted upon and statements of witnesses were recorded.
Thereafter, the witness was on leave. He joined his
duties on 26.02.2009.
199. It has further come in his evidence that, he
was again called by ACP Mr.Suryawanshi and was asked to
prepare a letter for preparing confessional statement
of Mrs. Aruna Bheda, Manohar Kulpe and Jayesh Kesariya
before the Magistrate. Accordingly, he prepared letters
as per the said directions having outward no.1468 (Exh.
192). The said letter was also received by Anand
Patade. The letter bears signature of the witness and
its contents are true and correct. It also bears
signatures of Anand Patade and his acknowledgment.
200. During cross examination, the witness deposed
...179/-
Exh.1124 179 (J-SC 317/10)
that, he personally did not meet Ram Rajpal Singh, Anil
Bheda, Aruna Bheda, Manohar Kulpe and Jayesh Kesariya.
He personally did not hand over Exhs.190 and 192 to
Accused No.18. He did not hand over these letters to
Accused No.18. The witness further deposed that, he
was only following the orders and directions as given
by ACP Mr.Suryawanshi. He personally did not
investigate C.R.302 of 2006. The directions/ orders
could be immediately conveyed to Oshiwara police
station from DN Nagar police station by wireless and
other means of communications. When letter Exh.192 was
issued, at that time also Accused No.18 was respondent
in the said W.P.
201. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sujit Ramchandra
Mhatre (PW-16), Exh.193, that, in the year 2006 he
purchased a white coloured Qualis vehicle bearing
registration no. MH-04-AY-8472 from Sunil Solanki. He
also possessed a silver coloured Qualil vehicle bearing
No. MH-04-AW-8824 in June-July, 2006. He was hiring the
said vehicle, which he took from Dilip Shah although
the owner was Ashok Shah. In November, 2006, Sunil
Solanki (accused no.10) took both the vehicles for two
days. The vehicle was returned on third day. On the
next day, he paid Rs.3,000/- to the witness as hiring
charges.
...180/-
Exh.1124 180 (J-SC 317/10)
202. It has further come in his evidence that, he
sold the silver coloured Qualis vehicle to RSB Finlease
Pvt. Ltd. in 2008. He had purchased the said vehicle
when it was damaged in an accident and it had a loan
on it of HDFC Bank. The HDFC Bank loan was in the name
of Ashok J. Shah on the said vehicle. When the vehicle
was transferred in his name in the year 2007, the loan
was cleared and he took loan of ICICI Bank. He had
hypothicated the said vehicle to ICICI Bank. He paid
the loan of the ICICI Bank and issued NOC. Exh.169
bore his signatures. The witness identified form no.35,
Exh.194. (As the witness resiled from his earlier
statement and declined to fully support the
prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put questions to
the witness as per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the
Evidence Act).
203. During the cross examination by the Ld. SPP,
the witness was confronted with portions marked A and
B from his statement dated 11.03.2010, recorded by
the SIT. The witness identified the vehicle i.e. silver
colour Qualis vehicle. The witness deposed that, he did
not have a tourist permit of the said vehicle and it
was a private vehicle. He did not have any permit or
license to conduct travel agency. In the year 2006, he
was using two vehicles for his business. He was not the
registered owner of both the vehicles. He did not have
...181/-
Exh.1124 181 (J-SC 317/10)
any documents regarding the transaction with Ashok
Shah. He did not have any document to show that, the
said silver coloured vehicle was in his possession in
November, 2006. He did not have any documentary
evidence regarding the transaction of white Qualis with
Sunil Solanki.
204. In the year 2006, he did not employ any
permanent driver on the said vehicle. He did not have
any record like log book regarding the use of the
vehicle. He did not have any documentary record to
show that, he had given the vehicle to accused no.10 in
November, 2006. The witness admitted that, it was
possible that the said vehicle might have been out for
15 to 20 days in November, 2006. He did not have any
record of repairing the vehicle in any garage.
205. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not give any document of 2006 of the said vehicle
to the police. The witness admitted that, his statement
Exh.195 was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate as
per his say. Mr. Ghorpade from the SIT recorded his
statement. He had informed Mr. Ghorpade that he did not
remember exact date when Solanki had taken the vehicle.
He did not disclose the month and date to the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate. He had only disclosed that,
accused no.10 had taken the vehicle in the year 2006.
...182/-
Exh.1124 182 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not disclose the vehicle number or its silver
colour to the Ld. Magistrate. The witness further
deposed that, after verifying the vehicle again he came
to know that the colour was bluish silver vehicle. Some
parts of the vehicle were repainted. Its colour in the
year 2006 was the same as on that day. The vehicle was
repaired in the year 2007. The witness denied that,
Sunil Solanki had never taken the vehicle from him and
that, he was deposing at the say of the police. He did
not verify contents of the statement before 21
st
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra.
206. It has come in evidence of Mr.Hanumant Girappa
Kambli (PW-17) Exh 196 that, since 2005, he had been
working in Versova police station as Police Hawaldar.
On 11.11.2006, he, along with three other constables,
was working in day shift in a preliminary inquiry team.
On 11.11.2006, at about 6.00 pm, API Sartape approached
him and asked him to allot him a pistol. The witness
handed over one pistol and six rounds of ammunitions to
accused no.11 and made entries about the same in the
register maintained in the police station. The entries
in column nos. 7,8,9 and 10 were in his handwriting. In
column no.10, the figures pertain to Butt Number of
pistol which in the present case was 2912 in the
numerator and number of ammunition given in
denominator, which in the present case is 06. The
...183/-
Exh.1124 183 (J-SC 317/10)
witness obtained signature on the register relating to
handing over of the weapon. It was in column no.12.
The entry in the said register is marked Exh.197 and
its copy is at Exh.197A. The witness identified accused
no.11 AP Sartape. On that day, he handed over the
charge to Mr.Phasale, Police Hawaldar at about 08.20
pm.
207. The witness further deposed that, when he took
charge on the next day, he verified the arms and
ammunitions present. He made inquiries if any change
was found with the person from whom he had taken
charge. Accordingly, the witness made inquiries with
Mr. Phasale on the next day, who informed that there
was deficit of one round. Mr. Phasale told him that
one round was used in Versova C.R.No.302 of 2006. The
witness was shown column no.12 of Exh.197 which bore
signature of accused no.11.
208. During cross examination, the defence has
brought on record omissions as regards to arms and
ammunitions of police station being in possession and
his duty was to disburse arms and ammunitions and also
that, it was his duty to accept arms and ammunitions
when received. The witness did not remember as to whom
arms and ammunitions were disbursed during the period
of his duty and also that, entries that he made during
...184/-
Exh.1124 184 (J-SC 317/10)
the said period. When charge was handed over the
possession of the arms and ammunitions was also handed
over and entry to that effect was made while handing
over the charge in District Charge Book. He did not
disclose the fact that he handed over charge to Mr.
Phasale at 8.20 pm, while his statement was recorded by
police. He did not remember if he had handed over the
charge to Phasale. There was a register maintained
about pistols and ammunitions. They verified the
quantity of arms and ammunitions with that register. He
only saw the said register on 12.11.2006 when he took
charge. There was entry about only one round being
less. The witness denied that, he did not hand over any
pistol or ammunitions to accused no.11 and that, entry
Exh.197 was not in his handwriting and also that
accused no.11 did not put signature in column no. 12 of
Exh.197. The witness denied that he was not proper
custodian of Exh.197. Omission as regards to, 'one
round was used in CR 302 of 2006 of Versova police
station' has been brought on record. The witness
denied that, Mr. Phasale did not disclose that one
round was fired in an encounter and that, therefore the
details were not mentioned in his statement.
209. It has come in evidence of Mr.Bhimrao
Krishnaji Sonawane (PW-18), Exh.198, that, in February,
2007, he was serving as the A.C.P., Head Quarter-1,
...185/-
Exh.1124 185 (J-SC 317/10)
Mumbai. He was Incharge of the Head Quarter-1 and also
was holding charge of Information Officer of the
Commissioner of Police and that of the A.C.P,
Enforcement. He used to respond to R.T.I queries as per
law. It has further come in his evidence that, he
received letter Exh.133 and was replied by letter Exh.
134 and information was provided accordingly. Exh.134
had his signature. Its contents were true and correct.
The original registers of which copies were supplied
with Exh.134 were destroyed. He verified the entries
with the said registers and the said registers were
available with S.P., Control Room. He had taken
certified copies of the original registers and
thereafter answered to the queries raised in Exh.133.
In the capacity of the Information Officer he verified
the documents and registers and replied to the queries
raised. On 16.06.2011, the SIT recorded his statement.
210. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, per month, on an average, 30-40 applications were
dealt with. He studied applications and verified
documents called from various departments. He called
information from the A.C.P., Control Room. He received
documents from the department on 14.03.2007.
Requisition is at Exh.199 and reply given is at Exh.
200. The reply is also annexed with copies of registers
and the questions and answers. He forwarded it to Mr.
...186/-
Exh.1124 186 (J-SC 317/10)
Gupta, who was the applicant, by taking copies of the
documents forwarded by the Control Room Department.
There was correspondence other than Exh.199, Exh.200
and Exh.134. There was further correspondence between
him and Mr. Gupta other than Exh.133 and Exh.134. The
witness categorically deposed that, in Exh.134, 199 and
Exh.200, there is no mention that, the original
registers were destroyed. He did not disclose this fact
to the SIT. The witness denied that, he prepared false
documents.
211. It has come in evidence of Mr.Jyotiram
Sadashiv Phasale (PW-19), Exh.201 that, on 11.11.2006,
he was serving in Versova police station and was having
night duty as District Hawaldar and was Incharge of the
arms and ammunitions of the said police station. He had
to provide arms and ammunitions as demanded by the
officers. After handing over the arms and ammunitions
to the officers, entry was made in the register and
signatures of the officers concerned were taken in the
register. On return of the said arms and ammunitions
he made endorsement to that effect in the register and
also put his signature against the said entry. If less
arms and ammunitions were received than that was
issued, he inquired with the officer concerned about
the deficit and accordingly entry was made in the
register,
...187/-
Exh.1124 187 (J-SC 317/10)
212. On 11.11.2006, he was working in night shift
from 8 m to 9 am on the next day. On 11.11.2006, Police
Hawaldar Kamble was working in day shift and he took
over charge from him. He verified the charge book. At
about 10 pm, on that day, police officer Mr. Sartape
deposited pistol number 2912 and five rounds with the
witness. There was one round less. He made inquiry with
Mr.Sartape, who informed him that, one round was used
in Versova C.R.302/2006 relating to an encounter. The
witness brought the said fact to the knowledge of duty
officer and made entry of the said information in the
said register Exh.197. The latter part of the said
entry was in his handwriting and there was his
signature on it. The entry is marked as Exh.202. The
witness identified accused no.11 Sartape present before
the Court.
213. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he was not given detailed information about C.R.
302 of 2006. Before he met Mr. Sartape on 11.11.2006,
he got information about police encounter near Nana
Nani Park. He had not informed the SIT that he was
incharge of the arms and ammunitions of Versova police
station. He had informed the SIT while recording his
statement that he used to disburse arms and ammunitions
to the police personnel concerned. He had informed
...188/-
Exh.1124 188 (J-SC 317/10)
while recording his statement that if there was any
deficit in the arms and ammunitions then, he made
inquiries with the police officer concerned. The
defence has brought all these omissions on record and
also that in respect of witness taking charge from Mr.
Kamble. There is written entry in the charge book about
the arms and ammunitions present in the police station.
He had not disclosed to the IO that, he verified the
charge book on 11.11.2006. The arms and ammunitions
were disbursed in the name of Sr. PI of police station
by the LA-1 (Local Arms-1). Sr.Inspector is responsible
for the arms and ammunitions of the police station. Sr.
PI assigns arms and ammunitions to the police personnel
concerned. Sr.PI and Duty Hawaldar are responsible
officers for the arms and ammunitions. If there was
any discrepancy in the arms and ammunitions of the
police station, the inquiry can be initiated against
the Sr. PI and Duty Hawaldar. The deficit in arms and
ammunitions was looked after the PI (Administration).
Any deficit found in arms and ammunitions is a serious
matter. Any deficit found of the arms and ammunitions
was to be reported before its acceptance to the Sr.
Officer. The said report was to be given in writing.
The Sr. Officer concerned asks for an explanation from
the said per son about the deficit. He did not know if
the said weapon was also forwarded to the LA-1 for
examination. The witness denied that, after receipt of
...189/-
Exh.1124 189 (J-SC 317/10)
the explanation, the Sr.PI directs the person concerned
to record the quantum of arms and ammunitions received.
The said procedure was not followed in this case. The
witness denied that, he could not make out inquiries
about the deficit ammunitions and that he did not make
inquiries with Accused no.11 about the ammunitions. The
witness further denied that, he did not disclose that
he used the said bullet in Versova C.R.302/2006 and
that, he was not in charge of the arms and ammunitions
in the night shift on 11.11.2006. He did not feel it
necessary to take signature of the officer depositing
the arms and ammunitions in the register. The witness
denied that, he was not in charge and Exh.202 was not
in his handwriting.
214. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sanjivan Bhimrao
Shinge (PW-20), Exh.207 that, since 2004 to 2010 he
worked as Incharge Head Constable in DN Nagar police
station and his duty was to allot the duties to the
police personnel of the police station at 9 am and 8 pm
and those were mentioned in duty register maintained in
police station. Those entries were made by him. On
11.11.2006, he was on duty and made entries of the
duties assigned on that day to the police personnel in
the duty register Exh.208. Entries were made in his
handwriting. Its copy is at Exh.208A. In column No.1,
his buckle no.9246 appears as Incharge Head Constable.
...190/-
Exh.1124 190 (J-SC 317/10)
In column no.6, as Asstt. to PI PC No. 1519 Shri Gawde,
PC 3631 Santosh Kadam, PC 25297 Shri Todkar, PC 970740
Shri Rawle, PC 10502 Shri Sakpal are shown. PC 1519 was
assisting Sr. PI, PC 3631 was assisting PI Crime Shri
Suryawanshi, PC 25297 was assisting raiding PI, ADM,
Shri Tawade, PC 970740 was assisting API Prevention
Patil, PC 10502 assisting by separate order to PI Crime
Suryawanshi.
215. As per column 20 of Exh.208, passport
verification duty was assigned to PC 33492 Shri Sandeep
Sardar and to PC 970771 Shri Sanjay Katkar. As per
column 27 of Exh.208, district first inquiry team duty
was assigned to PC 21442 Shri Khatal and others and for
night duty PC 1655 Shri Tadvi and two others. In
detection branch, as per said register for day shift
duty was assigned to PC 970810 Shri More and PC 970735
Shri Phalke and night shift was assigned to PC 10812
Shri Padmanabhan, PC 970433 Shri Terwankar, PC 33869
Shir Sawant. The first inquiry team was shown as
District Hawaldar in Exh.208.
216. On 12.11.2006, he was on duty. Entries in the
duty register of 12.11.2006 are in his handwriting.
Contents are correct. It is at Exh.209 and copy is at
Exh.209A. The witness further deposed that, HC 1655
and HC 21442 were on duty on district day shift and
...191/-
Exh.1124 191 (J-SC 317/10)
district night shift. They were on duty in continuation
of their earlier shifts. Detection staff was the same
as on 11.11.2006 except additional PC 970604 was
deputed on day shift. In night shift HC 24158 and
970810 were deputed. The duties of the police officer
in the police station were written by the raiding PI or
Sr. PI of the police station.
217. At the relevant time, Sr.PI was Shri Ajendra
Thakur, PI Shri Suryawanshi, PI Shri Taware, API Shri
Sharad Patil were working in DN Nagar police station.
API Palande was on deputation to DN Nagar police
station during 2004 to 2006. He was assigned official
duties. PI Chavan was also attached to DN Nagar police
station. Till July, 2006 his office was inside the
police station building. On 11.11.2006, his office was
outside the police station building. Prior to 2006, PI
Sharma informed him that his office premises which were
then inside the police station building were required
by him and he was given alternate premises for his
office outside the police station building. He shifted
to the new office outside in July 2006. PI Sharma had
no charge of any department of police station with him.
There was no assistant to PI Sharma. He never inquired
what work PI Sharma used to do.
...192/-
Exh.1124 192 (J-SC 317/10)
218. There were three constables who were on
deputation with DN Nagar police station. They were
Shri Tanaji Desai, Shri Vinayak Shinde and Shri
Ratnakar Kamble. Desai and Shinde were deputed from
Versova police station and Kamble from Juhu police
station. He had received orders of deputation of Desai
and Shinde. As regards to Kamble, he had joined on
station diary entry. These police personnel were
working under Mr.Sharma. Besides these three
constables, there was one more constable Shri Kadam
working with PI Sharma. Shri Kadam was not on
deputation. He was not from DN Nagar police station.
The witness was not assigning duties to these
constables. Hence, entries in this regard were not
made by him in the duty register. Of the constables who
were assigned to the police station, the concerned
clerk used to inform him if their leaves were
sanctioned. He was not receiving information about the
leaves of the constables who were on deputation. The
witness assigned duty on 11.11.2006 at 8 pm and then
went home. The witness identified Accused nos. 1 to
3,7,9,13,15, 16 and 20, who were present before the
Court.
219. During cross examination, the witness admitted
that, there was nothing in writing to show that,
accused nos.2,3,7,16 were working under Accused no.1.
...193/-
Exh.1124 193 (J-SC 317/10)
As regards to these constables, there was no record
maintained at the police station about their arrival,
departure and/or attendance. There was no entry made
about what work these constables were doing.
220. It has come in evidence of Mr.Kailas Devrao
Ekilwale (PW-21), Exh.210, that, he was deputed at
Versova police station since November 2005. In
November, 2006, he was assigned duty of Primary
investigation, which was also known as District. On
12.11.2006, his duty started at 2 pm. PC 960392
Nandiwadekar was on duty before him. The witness was
informed on telephone at his residence to proceed to JJ
Hospital to relieve Shri Nandiwadekar. He went to the
PM Center of JJ Hospital and relieved Shri Nandiwadekar
at 2 pm. He was informed by Shir Nandiwadekar that, he
was to receive viscera in the encounter case. Body in
the case was brought for postmortem to the hospital.
221. It has further come in his evidence that, he
was handed over five sealed bottles by the doctor on
duty. Two bottles contained blood, two bottles
contained water like liquid and one bottle contained
three bullets. He was also handed over four forms to be
given to the Chemical Analyzer, FSL. In acknowledgment
of receipt of the articles and forms, his signature was
obtained on the copies of the forms with the hospital.
...194/-
Exh.1124 194 (J-SC 317/10)
On the form, name of the deceased was mentioned as
Ramnarayan Gupta. Thereafter, he carried the forms and
the five bottles to the police station and handed over
those to PI Sankhe of Versova police station. The
witness categorically deposed that, each of the forms
bore his signatures in acknowledgment on the front side
marked as A on each form. His statement was recorded
by the SIT.
222. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he was handed over bottles in a small room. He
could not name the said room. The bottles were already
sealed and prepared when they were delievered to him.
He did not know of which office the seal was put on
those bottles. There was different seal of Versova
police station. He had seen the seal of Versova police
station. Four forms are at Exhs.211, 212, 213 and 214.
The witness could not identify the seal even after
perusal of those forms. He did not remember if the
forms had the impression of the seals on it. He did not
feel it necessary to verify the seals on the bottles
with the seal impression on the forms. He did not feel
it necessary to obtain clear seal impression on the
forms. More than one bullet is mentioned as Bullets
and not as bullet. After seeing, received one sealed
bottle of three bullets in Exh.214, he put his
signature below it. Above the received noting, it is
...195/-
Exh.1124 195 (J-SC 317/10)
mentioned one sealed bottle of bullet. The witness
denied that, he could not see number of bullets in the
bottle, as it was sealed. The witness further
categorically deposed that, he had seen three bullets
in the bottle and he had received three bullets. He had
informed police that he received one bottle containing
three bullets. The witness could not assign any reason
as to why there is no mention of receiving bullets in
his statement before the police. The witness denied
that, he did not receive sealed bottles and did not
hand over it to PI Sankhe.
223. It has come in evidence of Mr.Vishnu Bapurao
Khatal (PW-22), Exh.215 that, he worked in DN Nagar
police station since 2004 to 2010 in the capacity of
District Hawaldar and arms and ammunitions of the
police station were in his custody, which he used to
hand over to the police officers concerned and
personnel after making entries in the register. On
11.11.2006, he was on duty as District Hawaldar and
was assisted by three other police personnel. Whenever
any officer demands any arm and ammunition, necessary
entry in that regard is made in the register and after
obtaining signature of the officer in the register same
are handed over to him. When arms and ammunitions are
returned to him he verifies the arms and the quantity
of the ammunition. If there is any deficit, he makes
...196/-
Exh.1124 196 (J-SC 317/10)
inquiries and makes note of it in the register. The
receipt of arms and ammunitions was acknowledged in the
register by putting his signature in the register. If
any officer, voluntarily hands over the weapon assigned
to him specifically, the same is received by him. Those
weapons were assigned to the said officer by the Head
Office i.e. LA-1. There is no entry in the police
station with the person incharge of arms and
ammunitions of such specifically assigned arms and
ammunitions to any police officer, if the same was not
handed over in the police station. There is no entry
of such weapon in the police station.
224. On 11.11.2006, he had assigned weapons and
accordingly, entries were made in the register in his
handwriting. On 11.11.2006, at 6 pm, he had handed
over one revolver and six rounds to PI Suryawanshi. In
column number 3 of the said register in the numerator,
the number of the arm was written and in the
denominator, the number of rounds issued was written.
He had issued revolver bearing no.475 to PI
Suryawanshi. In column number 5 against the said entry,
there was signature of PI Suryawanshi. He handed over
one revolver bearing number 468 and five rounds to API
Sarvankar and also one revolver bearing number 624 and
six rounds to API Palande. Corresponding entry bore
signature of Palande. He also handed over one revolver
...197/-
Exh.1124 197 (J-SC 317/10)
to PSI Patade bearing number 294 with six rounds and
his signature appeared against the said entry.
225. All the above officers came at the same time
to collect the arms and ammunitions. He first gave the
revolver to PI Suryawanshi and he signed in
acknowledgment. Thereafter he gave it to API Sarvankar.
Sarvankar received the same and stated that he would
sign the register. At that time, he was talking to PI
Suryawanshi. Then he gave to API Palande and Patade
consequitively and the said officers were conversing
with each other and left his table and hence
inadvertently, signature of Sarvankar was not taken in
the register. The entries pertaining to PI Suryanswhi,
Sarvankar, Palande and Patade were in his handwriting
in column numbers 1 to 5, which are marked as Exhs.
216, 217, 218 and 219 respectively. Against these
entries noting below each of them in red ink
11/11/2006 -=- =|= = r|+ =|+ was not in his handwriting.
He did not make the said entry. The copies of the said
entries are at Exhs.216A, 217A, 218A and 219A
respectively. The said endorsement was in the
handwriting of Hawaldar Mr. Tadvi, buckle no.1655. On
12.11.2006, he joined duty at 8.00 p.m. On 11.11.2006,
he was on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On
12/11/2006, being Sunday, I had double duty and he
joined his duties at 2.00 p.m. He took charge from HC
...198/-
Exh.1124 198 (J-SC 317/10)
1655 Mr. Tadvi. While taking charge, he checked the
arms and ammunitions, cash, receipt books, etc. and
also checked the registers corresponding to it. If
there was any deficit then he made inquiries with the
person handing over charge.
226. On 12.11.2006, when he took the charge, he
verified the articles, arms and ammunitions. He found
that, there were four rounds less. He made inquiries
with Mr. Tadvi, who pointed out to the entries made in
red in register Exhs.216,217 and 218 and informed
that, the entries pertaining to firing were made in
the registers as above. The witness identified
Suryawanshi, Sarvankar, Palande and Patade, who were
present before the Court.
227. During cross examination, the witness denied
that, Mr. Tadvi informed him on 12.11.2006 that, day
before at night, PI Suryawanshi and his team killed a
criminal in encounter at Nana Nani park within the
jurisdiction of Versova police station and that, in
the said encounter, except PSI Patade all other
officers who had taken arms had fired some rounds. The
witness further deposed that, he had not informed the
SIT about it while recording his statement. He knew
that of firing had been taken place and he informed the
SIT about it. He did not state portion marked A
...199/-
Exh.1124 199 (J-SC 317/10)
before the SIT. It has further come in his evidence
that, he got knowledge immediately within 5-10 minutes
of his taking charge from Mr. Tadvi.
228. It has further come in his evidence that,
entries of handing over and receipt of the arms and
ammunitions were maintained in the seven columns of the
said register. The column no.1, does not pertain to Sr.
No. but relates to date and time. As per custom, in
column no.1, Sr. No. is not noted but date and time is
noted. They did not get the register verified from
their superior officers. Besides, the entries in the
register, no corresponding entries were made in other
register about issuance or receipt of arms. The witness
further deposed that, the person taking the arms and
ammunitions makes entry in the station diary of the
police station about receipt of such arms and
ammunitions. He had not verified if there were
corresponding station diary entries pertaining to Exhs.
216, 217, 218 and 219. Except station diary and present
register, there were no other documents to show
issuance of arms and ammunitions. The register is the
only document which bore signatures in respect of
receipt of the weapon and ammunitions which is
maintained by him. Signature in the register was the
only way of acknowledgment of receipt of arms and
...200/-
Exh.1124 200 (J-SC 317/10)
ammunitions.
229. After 11.11.2006, he saw the register on
12.11.2006 at 2.00 pm. The witness denied that, he
came to know that, some rounds were less than usual on
12.11.2006. He stated before police while recording his
statement that, some rounds than usual were found less
on 12.11.2006. The witness denied that, he did not
know exactly how many rounds were less till recording
his statement and hence he had stated that some rounds
than usual were found less. He further denied that, he
did not know as to how many rounds were less on that
day and at the say of the police subsequently he stated
four rounds were less. He also denied that, in column-1
of Exh.216, there was overwriting of figure 18 and
also that, figures 1 and 8 appearing in 18 in
column-1 of Ex.216 were written subsequently. The
witness further deposed that, he got the information
only from Mr. Tadvi about the entries made in the
register pertaining to Exhs.216 to 219.
230. It has further come in his evidence that,
since he was appointed in D.N.Nagar police station, he
was doing the same duty of handling the arms and
ammunitions during his shift. When the officers were
present before him for receipt of arms and ammunitions,
he came to know that Exh.217 was not signed by API
...201/-
Exh.1124 201 (J-SC 317/10)
Sarvankar. He had informed the said officer to sign in
acknowledgment of said receipt. He stated that, he
would sign but then he left. The witness also forgot to
take the acknowledgment subsequently of API Sarvankar
on Exh.217. The witness admitted that, Mr.Sarvankar
told him while taking the weapon that he would sign in
acknowledgment in the register. He did not remember as
to whether he had told the police while recording his
statement that Sarvankar had assured him to sign. He
could not assign any reason why the said portion did
not appear in his statement.
231. It has further come in his evidence that,
writing in column numbers 6 and 7 of the said register
in Exhs.216 to 219 was not in his handwriting. He never
informed his senior officers that Mr.Sarvankar had not
signed the register in acknowledgment of receipt of the
arms and ammunition in Exh.217. The witness denied
that, Exhs.216 to 219 were not written in due course of
his duties as stated in his examination in chief. The
witness denied that, he had written Exhs.216 to 219 as
per say and convenience of the Investigating officers.
232. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shavaka Saibu
Tadvi (PW-23), Exh.220 that, he was working in DN Nagar
police station since 2004 to 2011. In the year 2006, he
was working as the District Hawaldar. Being the
...202/-
Exh.1124 202 (J-SC 317/10)
District Hawaldar, and arms and ammunitions, bail
bonds, handcuffs etc. of the police station were in his
custody. The said articles were kept in a special room
i.e. in a safe. A register was maintained of all the
articles, which were in his possession. Whenever arms
and ammunitions were handed over, entries were made.
Signature of the person receiving the arms was obtained
in such acknowledgment. When arms and ammunitions were
returned, entries in that regard were made after
verifying the same and he signed the said register. If
there was deficit in arms and ammunitions, he made
inquiries with the person, who was depositing the same.
Entry in that regard was made in the said register
after intimation to the superior officers. If any arm
was specifically assigned to any officer, the same
could be accepted by them after making entry in the
station diary and intimation to the superior officers.
In such a case, on issuance of such specifically
assigned arms to officer, entry was made in the
register. All officers who were allotted such arms
specifically, do not deposit the arms with the police
station. There is no record maintained at the police
station of the arms which were specifically assigned to
an officer and not deposited with the police station.
233. On 11.11.2006, he was on duty in night shift
as District Hawaldar and took charge from HC 21442 Shri
...203/-
Exh.1124 203 (J-SC 317/10)
Khatal at about 8 pm on that day. While taking charge,
physical verification was taken of the arms and
ammunitions and other articles. On that day, he found
that some arms and ammunitions had been issued. He got
this knowledge from the register. The relevant entries
are at Exhs.216 to 219. He was on duty till 2 pm on
12.11.2006. It was Sunday and hence, he was doing
double duty. The arms which were issued were received
on 12.11.2006. Accused nos.9,15,18, 22 brought the arms
with some rounds. When the arms and ammunitions were
brought to him by the officer, some rounds were found
less. Thereafter, he made entries with regard to
receipt of the arms and ammunitions in corresponding
columns 6 and 7 in the said register. The entries were
in his handwriting. Contents were true and correct.
Those are at Exhs.221, 222, 223 and 224. Its copies are
at Exhs.221A, 222A, 223A and 224A.
234. It has further come in his evidence that, PI
Suryawanshi surrendered four rounds and two rounds were
found less. He made inquiry with the said officer. It
was informed that, there was an encounter within the
limits of Versova police station and two rounds had
been fired. Accordingly, entry was made in Exh.216 in
red ink. API Sarwankar surrendered four rounds and one
round was found less. As there was one round less, he
made inquiries with the said officer. It was informed
...204/-
Exh.1124 204 (J-SC 317/10)
that, there was an encounter within the limits of
Versova police station and one round had been fired.
Accordingly entry was made in Exh.217 in red ink. API
Patade surrendered five rounds and one round was found
less. As there was one round less, he made inquiries
with the said officer. It was informed that, there was
an encounter within the limits of the versova police
station, and one round had been fired. Accordingly,
entry was made in Exh.218 in red ink. PSI Palande
surrendered six rounds and no round was found less. The
witness deposed that, he could identify accused nos. 9,
15, 18 and 22 and that accused no.9 was present before
the court.
235. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, when he resumed duties on 11.11.2006, at that
time, he got knowledge about police encounter near Nana
Nani Park within the jurisdiction of Versova police
station. The officers informed him that the said rounds
were fired in Versova CR No. 302 of 2006. He did not
remember if the said officers also stated that, it was
under sections 307, 353 of the IPC and Sec. 3, 25 and
27 of the Arms Act. He had informed the police while
recording his statement that, CR No. 302 of 2006 was
registered u/s.307,353 of IPC r/w.3,25,27 of the Arms
Act. The said officers gave information after recording
of FIR. He was informed that, it was a case of police
...205/-
Exh.1124 205 (J-SC 317/10)
encounter. He got the knowledge that a person from
Chhota Rajan gang was killed in the said encounter. He
had knowledge on that day that FIR in CR 302 of 2006
was made, relevant station diary entries were made and
entries in the register were made in that regard.
236. It has come in evidence of Mr.Suraj
Ramashankar Kanojia (PW-24), Exh.225 that, on
06.09.2010, police called him and was introduced to
Special Squad. He was taken to a small room in a house.
There were three persons in civil dress, who told him
that, there was a letter in the name of one Arvind
issued by the court. They further told him that, it had
to be given to Arvind and if he was not found, it had
to be stuck up on the wall of his house.
237. His brother Chetan Kanojia was also with him.
The letter of the court was in Marathi. It was read
over to him. They told him that, they had to go to the
residence of the said person and to give it and if he
was not found then to affix it on the wall of his
house. Thereafter they went to the police cottage next
to the police station. They went to second floor of the
said building and the officer rang bell of the house.
One lady opened the door. The said letter was given to
the said lady by the police officers. The said lady
read the letter and returned it back. Thereafter, it
...206/-
Exh.1124 206 (J-SC 317/10)
was affixed on the wall outside, next to the door.
Similar letter was affixed on the ground floor of the
said building. Thereafter, they went to the police
station and on the column of the gate, again the copy
of the letter was affixed. Thereafter they went to the
police chowki, beat no.1. One of the officers clapped
his hands. Some 10-15 persons gathered there and
thereafter he stated in Hindi and Marathi. There also
one paper was affixed. Thereafter, they went to
Kandivali railway station. There again one of the
officers clapped his hands. Some people gathered. Again
it was read in Hindi and Marathi and the said letter
was affixed near the ticket window. Thereafter he and
his brother were called. The said officers told that,
they had witnessed the activities and he was writing it
down the said activities performed in their presence.
It was read over to the witness. He confirmed it to be
correct and then he and his brother signed the same.
Panchanama Exh.226 had his signatures on it at Sr. No.1
at two places and that of his brother at Sr. No.2 at
two places.
238. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he drove an auto rickshaw. Since 8 am to 8 pm. It
was owned by his elder brother. There was no fixed
place for parking from where he got his customers. He
had badge permitting him to drive an auto rickshaw. On
...207/-
Exh.1124 207 (J-SC 317/10)
06.09.2010, at about 12 noon, his vehicle broke down.
Then it was repaired. He left garage at about 3 pm
after his vehicle was repaired. At 12 noon to 3 pm, he
was near the auto rickshaw only. The witness denied
that, police forcibly took him to Kandivali. He had
called his brother when his vehicle was being repaired
as he did not have enough money with him. He and his
brother had a lunch in police canteen situated within
compound of the police station.
239. He did not ask police as how much time it
would take as his vehicle and vehicle of his brother
was standing at the canteen when they went with the
police. The police did not inform him as to where they
had to go and how much time it would take. The witness
denied that, he did not know the contents of the said
letter. He personally did not read the said letter. He
did not verify the contents of the said letter. He
could not read Marathi. He had seen the number on the
said room as being number 10. He did not see name of
any person on the said room. It has further come in
his evidence that, it took about one and half hours
from the time he entered the cabin till he left the
police station. Entire panchanama was written at the
railway station where they went last. It took about 20
minutes or about to write the panchanama. The officers
explained to him in Hindi what he told the public in
...208/-
Exh.1124 208 (J-SC 317/10)
Marathi. The witness denied that he only put signatures
at the say of police and that he did not go to the
various places along with police.
240. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dhiraj
Vishwanath Koli(PW-25), Exh.227, that, on 29.07.2006,
he was serving as P.S.I and was attached to Juhu police
station. He was having night shift since 08.00 pm to
08.00 am next day. At about 08.30 pm, constable Mr.
Kamble came to him and stated that, the Additional
C.P., West Division, had directed him to assist PI Mr.
Pradeep Sharma of D.N. Nagar police station, and
therefore necessary station diary of leaving for D.N.
Nagar police station was to be made. The witness
requested PSI Mr.Nalawade, Incharge of the station
diary, to make necessary entry. Accordingly, PSI
Mr.Nalawade made station diary entry. It was in the
handwriting of PSI Mr. Nalawade and was made at the say
of this witness. The station diary entry is marked Exh.
228.
241. During cross examination, the witness
discloses that, in July, 2006, Mr. PD Shinde was the
Sr. PI of Juhu police station. On 29.07.2006, API Mr.
Patil was the night PI. On 29.07.2006, at 08.35 pm,
both Mr.Shinde and Mr.Patil were present in the police
station. He had taken the constable to the Sr. PI. He
...209/-
Exh.1124 209 (J-SC 317/10)
had no letter with him of his being deputed. He
enquired with Mr. Kamble whether he had order of his
deputation in writing. He did not show any written
order. One Mr.Bipin Bihari was then Addl. Commissioner,
West Division. The witness did not verify with the
office of Addl. C.P about deputation of Mr.Kamble.
Mr.Shinde also did not enquire with Mr.Kamble if
anything he had with him about his deputation. PI
Mr.Shinde also did not verify in his presence with the
Addl. C.P about deputation. PI Mr.Shinde also did not
give in writing to constable Mr.Kamble about his
deputation.
242. He could have made entry Exh.228 dated
29.07.2006. He did not make station diary entry as some
persons with the complainant had been to the police
station at that time. The entry was made in presence of
constable Mr.Kamble. Mr.Kamble did not disclose to PSI
Mr.Nalawade that, he had been deputed. The information
of deputation was given to him by PC Kamble only. There
is no mention in Exh.228 as to from where the
information was received. He did not ask PSI Mr.
Nalawade to record name of Kamble as informant. He did
not ask Sr. PI to verify and he himself also did not
verify the information. The witness denied that, he was
deposing false. He was suspended on the charge of
creating fabricated documents in the case of Chaturvedi
...210/-
Exh.1124 210 (J-SC 317/10)
and after suspension, he resumed his duty in August,
2009. The witness denied that he was deposing false.
243. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Anil Mahadev
Kadam (PW-26) Exh.229, that, on 11.11.2006, he was
attached to Versova police station and was on night
shift duty. He joined duties at 08.00 pm and was
deputed to work on Mobile Wireless Van No.1. ASI
Chavan, PH Kelkar, PN Rane and RTPC Mane were also
deputed on the said Wireless Van-1.
244. On 11.11.2006, at 20.18 hours, they received
wireless message to proceed towards Nana Nani Park.
They went to Nana Nani Park at about 20.28 hours by
J.P. Road. He saw that one injured person was lying at
one corner near Nana Nani Park. There were some police
officers in civil dress. Sarvankar and Sartape were
present there. They put the injured person in the
vehicle and at 20.36 hours, left for Cooper Hospital.
RTPC concerned conveyed the wireless message of going
towards Cooper Hospital. They reached at Cooper
Hospital at 20.57 hours. The injured was shown to the
Doctor. The doctor declared him dead before arrival.
Thereafter, one duty officer PSI Mr. Jadhav came to
him. He prepared panchanama of the vehicle. He took
photographs through a private photographer. Thereafter,
with the permission of the Control Room, they went to
...211/-
Exh.1124 211 (J-SC 317/10)
the limits of Versova police station at 22.30 hours.
While going from Nana Nani Park to Cooper Hospital,
Shri Sartape and Shri Sarvankar were in the vehicle.
They discussed in the vehicle and the witness was told
that, the said injured person was criminal person and
his name was Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta. In the
hospital, personal search of the deceased was taken. On
his personal search, they found Rs.918/-, one diary and
wallet. Case papers were also handed over to the
witness with the above articles by the doctor. His
signature was taken for acknowledgment. His buckle
number was 970043. The acknowledgment is at Exh.174A.
He handed over those articles to the Duty Officer Mr.
Jadhav. The wallet is at Article-11, telephone diary is
at Article-12, G.C. Notes collectively are at Article
-13 and coins are at Article-14 collectively.
245. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, when he received message at 20.18 hours he was at
Versova police station. It takes about 10 minutes to
reach Nana Nani Park from the police station. It is at
a distance of about half a kilometer. They were four
police officers and a driver in the Mobile Van. He did
not remember if photographs were taken when he was
present at Nana Nani Park. There was a pool of blood at
Nana Nani Park and one person was lying next to the
pool of blood. He and PN Mr.Rane lifted the injured and
...212/-
Exh.1124 212 (J-SC 317/10)
put him on a stretcher and kept him in the vehicle.
Since lifting the injured from Nana Nani Park and
handing over the body at Cooper Hospital, he was
present with the dead body. All other staff of the
Mobile Van were also present.
246. When he received the information at 20.18
hours, he did not know what had happened at Nana Nani
Park. It took about 20-25 minutes to reach Cooper
Hospital. He had got the information that, the injured
person was Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta and that there
were offences registered against him and he was injured
in the encounter with the police. The said information
was given by accused no.11 and accused no.22. It took
about 2-3 minutes to take the injured to the doctor.
Injured was taken to Casualty Department of the
hospital. The doctor was examining other patients.
There was one ward-boy present with the doctor. The
witness was standing outside, hence he did not know if
the doctor directed the ward-boy to remove clothes of
the injured. He went towards the vehicle. He was called
inside to receive the body. The he was handed over the
articles and the body. The cash amount was given
separately. He did not remember if he counted the
money. He did not verify the contents of the wallet.
PSI Mr. Jadhav was at a distance of 08-10 feet, when
the body was handed over to him. The body was taken on
...213/-
Exh.1124 213 (J-SC 317/10)
the stretcher to Mr. Jadhav by himself and by Mr.Rane.
The cash amount was Rs. 920/- and 75 paise.
247. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he was in the hospital till 22.30
hours. Accused no.11 was also in the hospital at that
time. He did not remember if accused Sartape was in the
hospital when he left the hospital. He saw Mr. Jadhav
for the first time in the hospital on that day. He
could not see if accused no.11 was with PSI Mr. Jadhav
when he left the hospital. He did not see Sr.PI Mr.
Sonawane when he was in the hospital. He could not say
at what time he reached the police station after
leaving the hospital. He did not remember if he reached
the police station prior to 00.00 hours on that day.
Esic Nagar is at a distance of about two minutes from
Versova police station.
248. It has come in evidence of Mr.Govind Krishna
Zajam (PW-27), Exh.230 that, since 2001 to 2007 he was
attached to Versova police station and worked as
Wireless Operator on the vehicle of Sr. PI known as
Peter Mobile. On 11.11.2006, he was working in day
shift. Shri Sonawane was the Sr. PI at that time. The
driver of the vehicle was Raghuvendra Phale, HC 990621.
The vehicle number was MH 014291. He joined the duties
on 11.11.2006 at 8 am. They went to Kandivali police
...214/-
Exh.1124 214 (J-SC 317/10)
quarters and brought PI Mr.Sonawane to the police
station. Thereafter, they along with PI Mr.Sankhe went
for patrolling within the jurisdiction of Versova
police station. They came back to the police station
at 14 hours. Thereafter they did not go anywhere. His
duty got over at 19 hours. He was relieved by PN 26515
Sawant. Shri Daddikar PN 28419 was the driver for the
night shift. Sr. PI uses only Peter Mobile and no other
vehicle. His statement was recorded by the SIT.
249. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, on 12.6.2010, SIT recorded his statement about
movement of the vehicle on 11.11.2006 for the first.
The witness expressed his inability to disclose
movements of the vehicle during the said period of
January 2005 to December 2007 and from November 2006 to
December 2006 and also movements of the vehicle in the
year 2007,except that on 11.11.2006. He did not hand
over any document to the SIT and did not refer any
document while deposing. He did not disclose to the SIT
that, Sr.PI uses only Peter Mobile vehicle. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of the
SIT. He did not maintain any record about movement of
the said peter mobile and the police station also did
not maintain any record regarding movements of the said
peter mobile.
...215/-
Exh.1124 215 (J-SC 317/10)
250. It has come in evidence of Mr.Bapurao Sangappa
Fulare (PW-28) Exh.231 that, on 10.12.2009, he was
called by police at Magazine Section at Naigaon Armory
situated at first floor. Another panch was present
there. PI Mr. Gaonkar informed him that, the SIT wanted
to seize arms and ammunitions in an encounter case of
Versova police station and requested him to act as a
panch. He gave consent. Then he was introduced to one
Patil Hawaldar in the armoury. The concerned Hawaldar
Patil, after making entries in the register, produced
four revolvers, three pistols, 40 rounds of 0.38 and 10
rounds of 9 mm and the same were handed over to the
officer concerned. Serial numbers of the revolvers and
pistols were written in the panchanama and so also
descriptions of the rounds.
251. The bullets were placed in a brown box and it
was covered with a brown paper and a label was affixed
on it. A string was tied to it and so also thereafter
it was affixed with label bearing signatures of both
the panchas and the officer concerned. The pistols and
revolvers were packed in a polythene bag and again
wrapped in a brown paper, tied with a string and
thereafter a label of signatures of the panchas and of
the officer was affixed on it. Each of the pistols and
revolvers was wrapped separately. Thereafter,
panchanama was prepared and both the panchas and the
...216/-
Exh.1124 216 (J-SC 317/10)
officer put their signatures on it. It was explained in
Hindi. The witness read the panchanama. The contents
of the same were as it had occurred on that day.
Panchanama is at Exh.232. The witness also identified
revolver butt no. 475 (Article 15), revolver butt no.
468 (Article 16), revolver butt no. 294 (Article 17),
revolver having serial No.N-405648 (Article 18),
revolver butt no.2912 (Article 19), one pistol having
butt no.2915 (Article 21), one pistol having serial no.
15179446 (Article 23), brown paper label (Article 20)
and another brown paper (Article 24).
252. One sealed envelope of FSL bearing Exhs.18A to
18C contained bottle. Sealed envelop of FSL bearing
Exhs.15A and 15B. It contained one packet bearing BL
No. 938/6 Exhs.5A and 5B. Sealed envelop of FSL bearing
Exh.16 of FSL was opened. It contained one packet
bearing BL No.938/6 Exh.6. Sealed envelop of FSL
bearing Exh.14 of FSL contained one packet bearing BL
NO. 938/6 Exh.4. Sealed envelop of FSL bearing No. 17
of FSL contained one packet bearing BL No.938/6 Exh.7.
Wrapper of Article 15 is marked Article 25. Wrapper of
article 16 is marked Article 26. Wrapper of Article 17
is marked Article 27 and wrapper of article 18 marked
as Article 28.
...217/-
Exh.1124 217 (J-SC 317/10)
253. It has further come in his evidence that,
Article 31 contained 5 sealed packets baring BL No.
975/2009. The first sealed packet contained two
packets, out of which one packet contained one box and
three bullets in it and also two other packets. One
contained 5 empties and other packet contained two
empties. The empties bore endorsement 0.38 KF 90 2.
The bullets in the box were marked as as Art.32/1
colly. 5 empties were marked Art.32/2 colly and 2
empties were marked Art.32/3 colly. The label on it
was marked Art.33. The second packet contained two
packets. The first packet contained 5 leads. The second
packet contained two bullet leads. They were same
bullets. The five leads were marked as Art.32/4 colly.
and two leads were marked as Art.32/5 colly.
254. The second sealed packet contained two boxes.
One packet contained five bullets in it and also one
another packet. One packet contained 5 empties. The
empties and bullets bore stamp 0.380 KF 90 2. The
bullets in the box were marked Art.34/1 colly. and the
five empties were marked as Art.34/2 colly. The second
packet contained five leads. The five leads were marked
as Art.34/3 colly. and label was marked as Art.35.
255. The third sealed packet contained two boxes.
One box contained two bullets in it. One packet
...218/-
Exh.1124 218 (J-SC 317/10)
contained three empties. Another packet contained 5
empties. The empties and the bullets bore stamp 0.380
KF 98 2. The bullets in the box were marked as Art.36/1
colly. The three empties were marked as Art.36/2 colly.
Five empties were marked as Art.36/3 colly. The second
packet contained five leads and three leads together.
The five leads were marked as Art.36/4 colly and three
leads were marked as Art.36/5 colly. The label was
marked as Art.37.
256. The fourth sealed packet contained one box
containing one bullet. There were three empties in one
packet. Another three empties were in another packet.
Three leads were in one packet. Three leads were in
another packet. Three leads were in another packet and
lastly three leads were in one more packet. The bullets
and empties had stamp of 9 MM 2Z 94 KF. The bullet was
marked as Art.38/1. The empties were marked as Art.
38/2, 38/3 and 38/4 respectively. The leads were marked
as Art.38/5, 38/6 and 38/7 respectively. The label was
marked as Art.39. The fifth sealed packet contained
four packets. One packet contained one box containing
three bullets in it. Another packet contained seven
empties. The empties and bullets bore stamp 0.380 2 01
KF. The three bullets in the box were marked as Art.
40/1 colly. and the 7 empties were marked as Art.40/2
colly. Five separate leads were collectively marked as
...219/-
Exh.1124 219 (J-SC 317/10)
Art.40/3 colly. The two leads were marked as Art.40/4
colly. The label was marked as Art.41.
257. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, the arms were not in a sealed condition when they
were handed over to the police officer at Naigaon
Armoury. There were three police officers with him at
that time. All the revolvers and pistols were taken in
possession by the police officer by name Gaonkar. He
did not remember if the bullets were in a sealed
condition prior to handing over to the police officer.
It was taken into possession by Mr.Gaonkar. The witness
further deposed that, it was not stated in the
panchanama that, that rounds were produced by Mr.Patil
in a sealed condition. He did not remember if the
rounds were in a sealed condition prior to handing over
to the SIT. He knew Hindi and Marathi and did not know
if the other panch knew Hindi and Marathi. The witness
denied that, the signatures on the panchanama and
labels were taken in the police station and that, he
never went to Naigaon Armoury.
258. It has come in evidence of Dr.Gajanan Sheshrao
Chavan (PW-29) Exh.236 that, on 12.11.2006, he, along
with Dr. S.M. Chavan, conducted postmortem on the dead
body of Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta, which was sent by
PSI Jadhav of Versova police station and was brought by
...220/-
Exh.1124 220 (J-SC 317/10)
P.C. 960428, along with panchanama and ADR form and
documents. Accordingly, the witness conducted external
and internal examination of the dead body and found
injuries i.e. firearm entry wounds and other injuries,
as mentioned in Postmortem Report (Exh.237). The bottle
(Article 29) bears his handwriting and signature. The
bottle contained three bullets (Articles 30/1 to 30/3).
The said bullets were sent to FSL vide letters and form
Exhs. 211 to 214.
259. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, at Post Graduation, his subject was Forensic
Medicine since January 1999. He started conducting
Postmortem, which included gunshot wounds. He had given
evidence in many medico legal cases. Following aspects
are important in a case of Medico Legal examination
namely, (1) Types of injuries, (2) In case bullet
injury the track of injury, (3) Whether victim has
consumed alcohol or not and (4)To ascertain nature of
weapon from the injuries.
260. These are important factors while preparing
notes. Injuries are classified as per their severity in
three grades namely; simple, grievous and dangerous.
All injuries above grievous are dangerous. He did not
recollect the gradation of injuries. The witness
further deposed that, he knew categories of injuries
...221/-
Exh.1124 221 (J-SC 317/10)
such as; injuries likely to cause death, sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death and lastly,
necessary fatal. He teaches his students the
differences in these three kinds of injuries. If injury
is caused to vital organ like brain heart, lungs, it
will be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Injury namely a small prick to a lung can
be said to be categorized as sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death. A person must die
because of such a small prick. Any organ which is
vital for the living of the person is vital organ like
kidney, spleen, liver, intestines. The witness denied
that, a small prick to these organs would be sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It would
depend on severity of injury. The gradation of injury
would solely depend upon the severity of injury. The
witness could not assign any reason as to how the
severity of injury can be explained with relation to
the gradation of injury. The dangerous injury and
grievous injury are same. If blood shows alcohol of
166 milligrams per 100 ml, then the person would have
consumed alcohol about more than 6 hours before death.
The stomach contents did not show any odour of alcohol
and hence it was concluded that consumption was before
emptying time of stomach. This is the only reason why
he stated that the said person had consumed alcohol 6
hours before. He could not show any reference that
...222/-
Exh.1124 222 (J-SC 317/10)
absence of alcohol odour in stomach contents shows that
it was consumed 6 hours before.
261. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in respect of the quantity found in the
blood, if alcohol is found in the blood, he would say
that consumption was beyond 6 hours but within 24
hours. He cannot tell the exact time of consumption in
that period. If a person consumed large amount of
alcohol its quantum decreases because of metabolism of
alcohol. The blood alcohol level decreases due to
metabolism approximately about 12 to 15 milligrams per
100 ml per hour. Quantum of alcohol will decrease with
the period of time. Primarily there are two kinds of
shocks Neurogenic and Oligenic. In Neurogenic shock
death is sudden. Oligenic shock is shock due to loss of
blood. Normally, in human body about 5-6 liters of
blood is present. To go in to an Oligenic shock about
1/3 of blood loss in required. As a result of loss of
blood in circulation in body, the blood pressure drops
and subsequently drops to such level which is known as
'not recordable'.
262. The witness further deposed that, in a number
of authenticated cases, the duration of such survival
and activity seems incompatible with the anatomical
damage, but in the face of absolute evidence, it must
...223/-
Exh.1124 223 (J-SC 317/10)
be admitted that it is highly unsafe to be dogmatic
about the limitation of such activity. The witness did
not agree that in the present case, the death was due
to combined effect of neurogenic shock and oligenic
shock. In Neurogenic shock the organs are pale without
any injury causing blood loss and in haemorrhagic shock
there is paleness of organs with injury and both are
also present in cases of Neurogenic and Oligenic shock.
The witness denied that, although injuries were present
in present case Neurogenic shock cannot be ruled out.
He could not give any reference to corroborate the said
contention.
263. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he prepared P.M. Notes on number of
occasions before. In few other cases his statement
regarding Postmortem was recorded by investigating
officer. He had not stated in P.M. Report that all the
five gunshot injuries collectively were in natural
course to cause death. He did not remember if he had
stated so to the SIT. The witness could not tell as to
why the said fact did not appear in his statement. He
did not state in the PM Report and to the SIT that
injury nos.1,2 and 4 would cause sudden instantaneous
death. He had not stated that, injury caused to the
left atrium will cause sudden death in the P.M.Report
and to the SIT. The witness denied that in the present
...224/-
Exh.1124 224 (J-SC 317/10)
case the death was only due to Oligenic shock and not
by neurogenic shock. The fact about period of
consumption alcohol was not stated in his statement and
also to the SIT.
264. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the procedure of taking hand wash is
not stated in the Postmortem Report Exh.237. He had not
tested the hand wash sample. There are different types
of methods of collecting hand wash samples. He had
collected hand wash sample by using routine tap water
available in the PM Room. The hand wash was taken to
verify if there were gun shot residues on the hand. The
witness denied that only by using water, proper hand
wash sample cannot be taken. The witness admitted that,
detection or absence of metal in the hand wash sample
will not prove or negative use of firearm. The person
might use the firearm with both the hands. In such a
case a different control sample is required to be
taken. He had not taken different control sample.
Police made inquiries about forwarding of hand wash
control sample. As the same was not specifically asked
for he did not forward the control sample.
265. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in case of firearms like pistol and
revolver the range of firing causing burning,
...225/-
Exh.1124 225 (J-SC 317/10)
blackening, singeing and tattooing are approximately
the same. For causing burning, the distance between the
muzzle and target would be about 10 cm in these weapons
and in blackening it would be about 10-15 cms and for
singeing it would be less than 60 cms. In the present
case, none of the injuries suggest that firearms were
short causing singeing, blackening, tattooing and
burning and hence were fired beyond 60 cms. Usually,
weapons have a certain range and beyond that they
cannot reach the target. In the present case, the
weapon was beyond 2 ft. and less than range of weapon.
266. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the 'intact bullet' means 'there is no
deformation to any portion of bullet'. Deformation
which is not visible to naked eye. He did not have any
reference to show that some other equipment is required
to establish if a bullet was intact or deformed. The
witness did not agree that for taking hand wash, both
hands should be carefully swabbed and this swab
especially between the web and figures should be
collected separately for both hands and such swab
should be taken with good clean cotton wool just
moisturized with distilled water and should be taken by
rubbing the residue if any of the webs, back of hand
and fingers and may be followed by similar swab with
approximate 5% nitric acid (AR grade) and control
...226/-
Exh.1124 226 (J-SC 317/10)
sample of cotton, distilled water and acid should also
be sent. The witness did not consider this written in
book Experience Teacher as an authority. He did not
have any book to show any contrary view. Bullet is of
great importance as per Forensic Science connecting the
weapon. Bullet is as important as injury for forensic
analysis.
267. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had sufficiently described the
bullet in the PM Notes. There was no difficulty in
measuring the diameter and length of the different
bullets. The witness denied that, there was no
difficulty in getting the bullets photographed. The
witness, on his own, deposed that, photographer was not
available. That was the difficulty. He could not wait
for the photographs to be taken, as he considered
handing over of the bullet immediately more important
than waiting to take photographs.
268. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he considers the book ''Forensic
Medicine'' 'Volume I' 'Mechanical Trauma' by C.G.
Tedeschi & William G. Eckert & Luke G. Tedeschi,' Year
1977 as an authority on subject. He did not put any
special mark on the bullet to identify the bullet
subsequently. The proposition as stated in the said
...227/-
Exh.1124 227 (J-SC 317/10)
book namely, (iii) the bullet should be marked for
later identification with an initial or other
identifying mark scratched or scribed on the metal is
correct, (iv) instead, the author recommends marking
the bullet just above the rifling marks on the ogive
but not squarely on the end of the nose, (v) when more
than one bullet is recovered, they can be numbered for
identification and record keeping. The number following
the identifying initial, such as A-1, A-2,........ The
properly marked bullets should be placed in separate
small plastic bags and rolled up and placed in sealed
and marked envelops or wrapped in cotton and placed in
small cardboard pill boxes that are properly marked for
identification. Identifying data should include date
and place of recovery, name of person recovering
evidence,and how bullet has any special identifying
peculiarities or characteristics they should be noted
are correct. X-ray of the body would have shown the
nature of bullet. He had taken X-rays and handed it
over to the police officer accompanying.
269. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Article 30/1 bullet lead is deformed
on the lower side and it can be seen with naked eye. He
had not stated in the Postmortem Report or to the SIT
that, intact means having normal, cylindrical and
conical shape. He had not stated in the Postmortem
...228/-
Exh.1124 228 (J-SC 317/10)
Report or to the SIT that, the description of the
retrieved bullet was stated as observed by examination
by naked eye by him. The witness further deposed that,
the bullet retrieved from injury no.4 was throughly
intact and hence he had stated it in PM Report. The
bullet comes in two parts, cartridge case and
projectile. Between the two gun powder is filled. In
case of revolver after firing the cartridge case
remains in the revolver and the projectile is fired.
Exh.265 was placed before the witness. According to the
witness, injury no.4 as shown in page no.3 on front
side and marked as 4 could be the said injury. The
track length of injury no.4 would be about 15-18 cm.
Because the track was through soft tissue, the bullet
did not encounter any hard obstruction. Usually the
obstruction to the projectile is on the front side.
270. The witness further deposed that, normally the
oozing of blood will be more in case of living person
than dead person. The purpose of sealing a sample is
that it should not be tampered till it reaches FSL. The
purpose of putting impression of seal on the form is to
enable the FSL to verify the seal on sample with that
of the form. He did not feel it desirable or necessary
to seal the sample in presence of two independent
persons. No other person can read the said seal vide
Exhs. 211 and 214. The witness denied that, he was
...229/-
Exh.1124 229 (J-SC 317/10)
tutored and hence he made certain contrary statements
in his examination in chief.
271. It has come in evidence of Mr.Jitendra Baban
Shivekar (PW-30), Exh.238 that, on 29.09.2012, when he
was having tea outside Versova police station, one
police constable Mr. Padvi in civil dress approached
him and asked him whether he was ready and willing to
act as a panch. Then he was taken inside Versova police
station and was asked to wait in a room. He was
introduced to two police officers by name Ghorpade and
Chalke, who were in civil dresses. He was informed
that, there was one wanted accused by name Sandeep
Sardar in an encounter case of Versova. The witness was
shown proclamation issued by Andheri Court. He read it,
which was in English. He was requested to act as a
panch as they wanted to publish the said proclamation.
There was one more witness present along with him when
the police officers gave the above information to him.
272. It has further come in his evidence that, in a
gray coloured vehicle, they were taken to Aram Nagar
police quarters, near 7 Bungalows at Andheri. He was
taken to room no.131 on the first floor of building no.
4. Mr.Ghorpade knocked on the door. An aged lady opened
the door. The police officer asked her name and she
disclosed it as Jijabai Sardar, who was the mother of
...230/-
Exh.1124 230 (J-SC 317/10)
Sandeep Sardar. The said proclamation was shown to her
and it was also read over and explained to her. The
said proclamation was affixed between room nos.131 and
132. Then they came back to the main entrance of the
building. There also the proclamation was affixed where
it could be seen by everybody. Thereafter, they again
sat in the jeep and came to 7 Bungalows police chowki.
There police officers clapped their hands shouted and
collected 12-13 persons. The said proclamation was
explained to the said persons in Marathi and Hindi and
the same was affixed outside the police station. Again,
they sat in the said jeep and went towards entrance of
Nana Nani Park at Andheri. There also the said officers
clapped their hands, shouted and collected persons and
the proclamation was read over and explained in Hindi
and Marathi. Thereafter, it was affixed at the entrance
of the said park.
273. Thereafter, again they sat in the jeep and
came back to Versova police station and again the
proclamation was affixed at the Versova police station.
Thereafter, he was taken inside the police station.
They wrote down about the activities carried out. He
was given the same. He read it. The another panch also
read it. Contents of the same were correct as had taken
place in his presence. His signature was at two places
at Sr.no.2. The panchanama is at Exh.239. The
...231/-
Exh.1124 231 (J-SC 317/10)
proclamation Exh.240 was the same.
274. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, in September 2010, he was working in organizing
events known as Corporate Events. His office was
situated at 4 Bungalows, MHADA. He had informed the
police that, he was working in Corporate Events' Office
and not working as driver. His occupation shown as
driver in Exh. 239 was false. He read the panchanama
cursorily, but did not read that his profession as
shown in Exh.239. The witness denied that, he was
knowing constable Padvi earlier. He was knowing what
was the duty of a panch and hence he did not ask Padvi
what was the work to be done by a panch. He did not ask
Padvi as to how much time it would take. Padvi also did
not inform him about time period. The witness denied
that, earlier he acted as a panch for three times in
different offences of Versova police station. He did
not know name and address of another panch. The witness
could not state crime number in which he acted as a
panch.
275. It has further come during cross examination
that, the proclamation had a seal of Andheri Railway
Court. He did not remember if all the blanks in the
said form were filled or not. He did not remember date
appearing in the said form. He was shown only one form.
...232/-
Exh.1124 232 (J-SC 317/10)
His signatures were not obtained on the said forms in
token of having seen them. There was only one form with
the police. In the police station he was only asked his
name, age, occupation and address. He was not asked if
he had acted as a panch or if any criminal case was
pending against him. They left Versova police station
at about 12.45 pm to 12.50 pm. He did not remember if
any of the officers made any station diary entry prior
to leaving Versova police station. There are about
10-15 police quarter buildings in Aram Nagar area.
Those are four storeyed. There was no board on the said
building. The police informed him that, it was building
no.4. The witness denied that, there was no room no.131
in the said building. There was no name on the said
room. Room nos. 130 and 132 are on either side of room
no.121. No inquiry was made in room no.130 and 132 by
the police. He did not enter into room no.131 to
verify whether the said person was in the room. No
identification documents were asked from the said aged
lady. No inquiry was made as to who were occupants of
the said room. He did not know the said old lady. He
was present outside room no.131 for about 10 minutes.
The police also did not enter into the room during the
said time. The proclamation was not affixed on the door
of room no.131. He did not know if the said aged lady
was asked if she knew English. Proclamation Exh.240
was shown to him in the police station. He did not see
...233/-
Exh.1124 233 (J-SC 317/10)
any other copies of Exh.240. He did not know what was
affixed between room nos. 131 and 132. Signature of the
said lady was not obtained. He did not know what was
affixed on the main entrance of the building so also at
7 Bungalows police chowki and Versova police station.
276. It has further come in his evidence that, 7
Bungalows police chowki was at a distance of 2 km from
the police quarters. The police did not have any
megaphone with them. No person was standing at the said
police chowki when he went there. He did not know
whether clapping of hands and calling of people was an
important aspect or not. It was written in the
panchanama that police officers called the people by
clapping of hands. The witness could not assign any
reason as to why the said fact was not stated in Exh.
239. He did not inform the police at police chowki that
he would go home as his home was nearby. The entire
panchanama was written in the police station. The
witness denied that, he was not called by the Versova
police at 12.30 pm and that he was not shown any copy
of proclamation. He also denied that, he did not
proceed to the police quarters namely room no.131,
building no.4 at Aram Nagar. The witness also denied
that, no lady by name Jijabai Sardar opened the door
and no proclamation was shown to her or explained to
her and that the police did not call the public at 7
...234/-
Exh.1124 234 (J-SC 317/10)
Bungalows police chowki and Nana Nani Park and did not
explain the people gathered, the contents of the
proclamation. The witness further denied that, no
proclamation was affixed between room nos. 131 and 132
at 7 Bungalows police chowki, Nana Nani Park and on
Versova police station.
277. It has further come in his evidence that,
there were no stairs to climb and to enter into Nana
Nani Park. The witness denied that, the proclamation
was affixed near the staircase of the main door of Nana
Nani park. The witness could not assign any reason as
to why near staircase i.e. portion marked A was so
written in the panchanama. The witness denied that, he
put his signature on an already prepared panchanama and
that he did not go anywhere and also that, he was a
habitual panch of Versova police station and that he
was deposing false.
278. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dattatray Ganpat
Sankhe (PW-31),PI,Exh.241 that, on 01.01.2008, he was
entrusted investigation of C.R.No.302/06 of Versova
police station, along with papers. At that time, a Writ
Petition was filed by Advocate Mr.Ramprasad Gupta,
brother of the deceased, and when he received the
investigation the said W.P was pending before the
Hon'ble High Court. An inquiry came to be conducted by
...235/-
Exh.1124 235 (J-SC 317/10)
the District Magistrate. As per the order of the
Hon'ble High Court, the inquiry was handed over to a
Judicial Magistrate.
279. It has further come in his evidence that, ACP
Dilip Suryawanshi, brother of Pradeep Suryawanshi
(Accused No.9) directed him to record statements of
witnesses u/s. 164. Exh.242 was a letter wrote by ACP
Dilip Suryawanshi to the Sr.PI of Oshiwara police
station. He recorded statement of witnesses Anil Bheda
and Singh u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. Certified copy of the
same is at Exh.243. Exh.244 was another letter written
by ACP Suryawanshi. Exh.245 was an application filed by
the witness to the Ld. C.M.M. As he was personally
harassed by ACP Mr. Suryawanshi, he prepared a noting
vide Exh.246 colly. Exh.247 colly. is a reply, as
sought by DCP Zone-9, in respect of noting Exh.246
colly. Exh.248 is a D.O. letter dated 23.04.2009 by ACP
Mr.Suryawanshi to the witness. Exhs.249 to 254 are C.A.
Reports and Exh.255 is a Histo-Pathological report. He
recorded statement of witness Mr. Gangadhar Tukaram
Sawant. He was acquitted in the offence registered u/s.
379 of the IPC.
280. It has come during cross examination of the
witness that, there was no stay on investigation of
crime no. 302 of 2006. He did not feel it necessary to
...236/-
Exh.1124 236 (J-SC 317/10)
file an affidavit in the Hon'ble High court Bombay and
point out these facts. The witness on his own deposed
that, there was no order rejecting the report of the
District Magistrate. The witness denied that, the
Hon'ble High Court rejected the report of the District
Magistrate. From the documents of investigation, that
were placed before him, in crime no.302 of 2006, he
formed an opinion that it was a genuine encounter case.
He had read the statements in C.R.No.302 of 2006 of all
the police officers who were made accused in the
present case. He formed an opinion after reading those
statements that, the encounter was a genuine encounter.
There was other evidence in the said file. He had
perused the said evidence and thereafter also he came
to the conclusion that it was a genuine encounter.
Statement of PW-1 was recorded in CR No.302 of 2006. In
the case papers submitted to the Hon'ble High Court,
investigation did not reveal that, the encounter was a
fake encounter. There was no evidence of any of the
family members of the deceased contending that it was a
fake encounter, in the file submitted to the Hon'ble
High Court Bombay. During investigation he had received
a letter dated 23.06.2008 about acceptance of report of
the District Magistrate by the Government of
Maharashtra. A reference was made to Exh.135 (Exh.P-9).
The government accepted the report on the basis of
documents (pages 1 to 248), which he submitted to the
...237/-
Exh.1124 237 (J-SC 317/10)
Hon'ble High Court. He had forwarded a letter to the
Ld. M.M. Railway Mobile Court while handing over papers
of CR No.302 of 2006. The witness denied that, he had
forwarded to the Ld. M.M case papers by numbering those
from 1 to 280. He had informed the SIT that papers were
forwarded by numbering those from 1 to 280.
281. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had informed that one Mr.Mohan
Sankhe, PI, Versova police station had also
investigated in CR No.302 of 2006 for first 5 days.
After reading panchanamas and statements recorded by
Mr.Sankhe, he came to the opinion that, the encounter
was genuine. After reading all the investigation papers
in CR No.302 of 2006, he did not find any involvement
of accused no.1 in the said offence. The record that
has been received from the Hon'ble High Court does not
contain pages 1 to 280, but those were pages 31 to 351.
Pages 1 to 30 were missing. He had given one photocopy
of the charge-sheet from pages 1 to 280 to the Ld.
Chief P.P.Mr. Borulkar. He had given the copy to Shri
Borulkar as he was diligently attending the Hon'ble
High Court regularly. In the said file the photocopy
set was not available. The said copy could be in the
police station. He was ready to produce the same. All
the crime reports of CR No.302 of 2006 were in the said
file. There were about 98 crime reports. They were of
...238/-
Exh.1124 238 (J-SC 317/10)
Mohan Sankhe, Patil, Phadtare and himself. The witness
denied that, the said crime (case) was still alive and
crime reports were being filed in the said offence 302
of 2006. C.R. No.302 of 2006 was still pending. He did
not know about the contents of the statements recorded
u/s. 164 of Anil Bheda and Ramrajpal Singh. He did not
know whether the said witnesses were under pressure or
not. He did not pressurize the said witnesses to give
any statement to the M.M. Recording of statements u/s.
164 was part of investigation in CR No.302 of 2006.
282. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in the year 1992, he was posted in
Airport Security. One charge-sheet in CR bearing No.42
of 1992 for offence u/s.379 of IPC was registered
against him and other police officers and he was
suspended in relation with the said offence. One crime
was registered by PSI Hiralal Jadhav in a case which
was registered on complaint of one Ravi Ghodke against
Sukhdev Khaire u/s. 302 and another offences of IPC.
Initially said offence was investigated by Shri Jadhav
then by Shri Phadtare and thereafter investigation was
handed over to him. He filed charge-sheet in the Court.
It was then committed to the Sessions Court and was
tried by HHJ Shri Shewale. He was directed to pay a
cost of Rs.2000/- by the Hon'ble Judge for non-
production of C.A. Report. The witness explained that,
...239/-
Exh.1124 239 (J-SC 317/10)
he had been to Jharkhand as per directions of the
Hon'ble High Court. Further cross examination discloses
that, in the year 2009, he was also in-charge of
Detection Branch of said police station. His duty was
to see that the concerned investigating officer
attended the court. Revision was filed by Sudhir Surve
against the initiation of Chapter proceeding, in which
a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed for non-appearance of
the police officers in the Court.
283. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 27.11.2008, ACP Mr.Suryawanshi
issued a memo to him about his being in civil dress in
the police station. The memo was at Exh.256. He had
charge of Sr.PI. On that day, after his duty he went
home and as soon as he reached home, he received a
message about bandobast and immediately he went back to
the police station. His cabin was closed and his
uniform was inside the cabin. He was discussing with
other officers. At that time, ACP Mr.Suryawanshi came
and noted as above. He did not explain. He did not make
note of it in station diary. DCP Shri Kaushik had filed
an affidavit on 22.1.2009 in the writ petition relating
to investigation in Crime No.302 of 2006. He did not
brief DCP Mr.Kaushik prior to filing of the affidavit.
He did not know what directions had been given by the
C.P to the DCP relating to filing of the affidavit by
...240/-
Exh.1124 240 (J-SC 317/10)
DCP Mr.Kaushik. He had not informed the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay that ACP Mr.Suryawanshi was
pressurizing him to record statements of witnesses u/w.
164 of the Cr.P.C. He did not inform the chief P.P in
writing regarding the same. He did not inform the Ld.
M.M that, he had preferred the application for
recording statements of witnesses u/s.164 because of
pressure of ACP Suryawanshi. He did not inform the
Commissioner of Police about it. Annexure P-10 of Exh.
135 was a copy of the affidavit filed by DCP Mr.Kaushik
before the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai. He had informed
ACP Mr.Suryawanshi prior to 27.1.2009 about him not
taking steps to get the statements of witnesses
recorded u/s.164. He did not state so to the SIT while
recording his statement. He did not disclose to the SIT
that, the accused no.9 was Sr. PI of Andheri police
station, while recording his statement. The witness
denied that, ACP Mr. Suryawanshi did not pressurize him
to record statements of witnesses u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C
and that he had not given directions in his official
capacity.
284. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sumant
Ramchandra Bhosale (PW-32), Exh.257 that, he was
working in DN Nagar police station since 2002 to 2009
as police Naik in Detection Branch and in the year 2006
Pradeep Suryawanshi was PI Crime. In 2006, the room
...241/-
Exh.1124 241 (J-SC 317/10)
from where the duties were assigned were opposite
detection branch room, but subsequently a new room was
constructed in the compound for the duty officer and he
was sitting in the said new room. Accused no.1 was
transferred to DN Nagar police station. He along with
his staff were occupying the old duty officer's room.
Staff of accused no.1 was deputed from other police
stations. Accused no.1 and his staff were not doing any
work of DN Nagar police station. Accused no.1 and his
staff was not participating in activities of DN Nagar
police station. In his staff, there was one Ratnakar
Kamble @ Ratu and also Tanaji Desai whom he knew.
285. On 11.11.2006, he was not on duty. On
12.11.2006, he resumed his duty at 2 pm. Then he went
for patrolling. He learned that there was an encounter
of one Lakhanbhaiyya. He returned to the police station
at 9 to 9.30 pm. He was called by PI Crime (accused no.
9). He was asked to accompany one constable to one Mid-
town Hotel, opposite Andheri Railway Station. He, along
with constable Milind More, started to go and at that
time, he was again called by accused no.9. He was told
to sit in a green Qualis vehicle which was standing
opposite office of accused no.1. He, along with More,
went to the Qualis vehicle. He was standing at the
Qualis vehicle and at that time constable M. More went
inside the police station and brought one pistol and
...242/-
Exh.1124 242 (J-SC 317/10)
rounds. The said Qualis vehicle was a private vehicle
and was used by squad of accused no.1. The said vehicle
used to be regularly parked outside the office of
accused no.1.
286. It has further come in his evidence that, one
Virendra@ Viru was sitting in the said vehicle. He used
to regularly visit office of accused no.1. One person
was driving the vehicle. Virendra was sitting next to
the driver in the said vehicle. At about 10.30 pm, they
went to Bhat Wadi at Ghatkopar through the said
vehicle. There were chawls next to the road. They were
taken to one of the houses in the said chowl. The
members of the squad of accused no.1- Ratnakar Kamble
and Tanaji Desai were present there. They took them to
one house. They introduced to one person by name Anil.
They told him that the said person was of great use to
accused no.1. Further it was told to them that, he had
fear from the gang of Rajan. They were asked to stay
to guard said Anil. The green coloured Qualis was
parked opposite the said house.
287. It has further come in his evidence that, at
about 11.30 pm, Ratu, Tanaji and Virendra left and the
witness and constable More stood as guard for night
till 9.30 am next day. On 13.11.2006, at 9.30 am,
Tanaji Desai, Ratu and Virendra @ Viru cam there and
...243/-
Exh.1124 243 (J-SC 317/10)
along with Anil sat in the said green coloured Qualis
and along with them, came to D.N. Nagar police station.
Anil was sitting in the back seat of the vehicle. After
the vehicle came to DN Nagar police station, he and
Milind More got down from the vehicle and proceeded to
their Detection Crime Branch. Desai, Viru and Ratu were
in the said vehicle. SIT recorded his statement on
02.02.2010. On 04.02.2010, he was called to the SIT
Office at Powai. One person was shown to him. It was
informed that the said person was Anil Jethalal Bheda,
Hindu, aged 50 years. He was the same person for whom
they had gone to Bhat Wadi, Ghatkopar. He could
identify his photograph. The witness identified accused
no.3 as Ratnakar Kamble.
288. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, since 1985, he was in police department and his
first posting was at L.A.-Naigaon. Then he was
transferred to DN Nagar police station in 2002. It was
his third posting. There was one Sr. PI and four P.Is
in DN Nagar police station. The witness denied that,
PIs are deputed to the concerned police station by the
Director General of Police. The posting of PI is done
by the Commissioner of Police. Sr. PI appoints one PI
as PI (Administration). There were about 180 constables
in DN Nagar police station in 2006. PI Administration
assigns duties to the constables. Entries are made in
...244/-
Exh.1124 244 (J-SC 317/10)
registers about assignment of duties to the constables.
He did not know if transfer order of other staff is
also placed before the Sr. PI and that he is permitted
to join. Similarly, transfer order of other constable
is also placed before the Sr.PI. The police staff
deputed at DN Nagar police station has to do work of DN
Nagar police station only. The officer of DN Nagar
police station can investigate into the jurisdiction of
other police stations. For that, intimation to Sr. PI
is required to be given. If private work is done by any
officer, memo and disciplinary inquiry can be initiated
against him. The police officer can carry out work of
other police station if he is so permitted by the DCP.
No police officer can form his own investigating team
without consultation of Sr.PI or DCP or ACP and if such
investigating team is formed, without such
consultation, memo and disciplinary inquiry is
initiated against such officer. Only by order of DCP
can a police officer or constable be transferred from
one police station to another police station while
investigating a case.
289. It has further come in his evidence that, the
police officer investigating a case cannot on his own
call for any other police constable of other police
station. Private vehicles can be used by the police
officer for investigation to maintain secrecy or for
...245/-
Exh.1124 245 (J-SC 317/10)
other such reason only with permission of Sr. PI or ACP
or DCP. The witness denied that, RTO number of such
private vehicle is noted in the log book of such police
station and that entries regarding private vehicles
used with permission of Sr. PI/ ACP/ DCP are maintained
by Sr. PI and or said officer. He had not maintained
vehicle register/ log book in the police station at any
time. He did not use any private vehicle during
investigation. He did not know the rule about
maintaining record of such private vehicles. Whenever
they leave the police station for investigation, entry
is made in the station diary and so also when they came
back, similar entry of return is also made in the
station diary. In such station diary, entry number,
date and time and purpose and place of visit is stated.
So also, on returning station diary entry number, date
and time and place of visit is stated. The names of
other police staff accompanying for investigation is
also mentioned in the station diary. If a vehicle is
taken, entry of such vehicle is also made in station
diary.
290. It has further come in his evidence that, the
entry of going out on 12.11.2006 was made in the
station diary. No entry was made about their returning.
He did not prepare station diary entry about going
towards Ghatkopar without producing towards Mid-town
...246/-
Exh.1124 246 (J-SC 317/10)
Hotel. It was responsibility of the officer who goes
out to make the station diary entry and sign it. If any
weapon is taken out of the police station entry is to
be made in the register. Said register is maintained
by the armoury in-charge. In the said register, entry
is about the make of weapon, and number of rounds and
officer receiving the weapon is made. The reason for
assigning the said weapon is not stated in the said
register. On returning on 13.11.2006, he did not make
any station diary entry. There was no document
available in the police station to show that on
12.11.2006, he, along with Ratu, Tanaji and Viru went
to Ghatkopar along with Milind More, in Green Qualis
vehicle. The person at Ghatkopar did not identify
himself as Anil and that on 4.2.2010 the person whom he
identified did not identify himself as Anil Jethalal
Bheda. Except in 2006 and 2010, he did not see the
said person. It would take him some time to identify
Anil Bheda if he is brought before him.
291. It has further come in his evidence that, he
had told the SIT that, Viru used to visit accused no.1
regularly and that Ratu and Tanaji took him to one
house. These omissions have been brought on record
through cross examination of the witness. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of the
SIT. On 4.2.1010, he was deputed to Airport Police
...247/-
Exh.1124 247 (J-SC 317/10)
Station, Santacruz. He did not make station diary entry
while going to the SIT office and coming from the SIT
office. The witness denied that, he did not go to SIT
office on 4.2.1010 and did not go to any place on
12.11.2006. He was only ordered to sit in green
coloured Qualis vehicle. The vehicle was identified by
its RTO number. He knew Ratu Kamble and Tanaji Desai
when they joined on deputation. The witness denied
that, they joined DN Nagar police station, but admitted
that, they were on deputation. Bhat Wadi, Ghatkopar is
a congested and densely populated area. Every house in
the said area had a municipality house number. He had
not seen the house number where he had gone. The
witness denied that, on 12.11.2006, he had not gone to
any house in any vehicle and that Viru, Ratnakar and
Tanaji were not present with him in the said vehicle.
The witness denied that he was deposing false at the
say of the SIT. The witness denied that, he could not
clearly see Ratnakar Kamble in the Court hall and that
he was prompted to identify him by PI Gaonkar. He did
not state in his statement that, accused no.9 called
him back and asked him to sit in green coloured Qualis.
Without making any station diary entry he was out of
the limits of DN Nagar police station from 09.30 pm to
12.11.2006 to 09.30 am of 13.11.2006. He did not make
any entry about his presence on 12
th
and 13
th
November,
2006. he did not carry any document when he went to the
...248/-
Exh.1124 248 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT for recording his statement. The witness denied
that, on 12.11.2006, accused no.9 did not give any
direction to him.
292. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Anil Anant
Hegiste (PW-33), Exh.259, that, on 29.09.2010, he was
called in Versova police station by a police constable.
Then he was introduced to officers Mr. Ghorpade and Mr.
Chalke from the SIT. One more person by name Shivekar
was also present there. He was taken through a jeep to
Seven Bungalow area. He did not know for what purpose
he was called except that he was to act as a panch. It
was a police colony. The jeep stopped below Building
No.4. He, along with Mr. Shivekar, Mr. Ghorpade and Mr.
Chalke got down from the jeep and went to the first
floor of the said building. Room No.131 was closed. Mr.
Ghorpade knocked the door of the said room. It was
opened by one old lady, who was mother of Sandeep
Sardar. Mr.Ghorpade spoke with her. One notice was
affixed between room no.131 and room no.132. It was a
proclamation. The witness expressed his ignorance as to
about what the said proclamation was. There was a
staircase to go to the first floor and after affixing
the notice they came down by the said staircase and
affixed the proclamation on the left side of the
staircase. Then they went to the vehicle and came to
Seven Bungalow Police Beat. At Seven Bungalow Police
...249/-
Exh.1124 249 (J-SC 317/10)
Beat, Mr.Ghorpade called and collected public by
clapping hands. About 10 to 12 people gathered there.
The proclamation was read over in Marathi and English.
The proclamation was affixed on the door next to the
said police chowki. Thereafter, again, they got into
the vehicle and came to Nana Nani Garden.
293. At Nana Nani Garden, they got down from the
vehicle. Mr.Ghorpade collected people by clapping hands
and proclamation was read over to them in Marathi and
English. There were about 8 to 9 steps which led up
from a gate. The proclamation was affixed on the said
gate near the staircase. The staircase was only at one
gate. Then again, through the police vehicle they came
to Versova police station. A copy was affixed on the
gate of the police station. Earlier also the copies
were affixed. Then he was taken in to the police
station and a panchanama was prepared. Their signatures
were taken. The panchanama was not read over to him.
Mr. Shivekar put signatures on the panchanama. He had
not seen the proclamation when he first went to the
police station. (As the witness resiled from his
earlier statement and declined to fully support the
prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put questions to
the witness as per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the
Evidence Act).
...250/-
Exh.1124 250 (J-SC 317/10)
294. During further evidence, the witness deposed
that, he had been running a canteen opposite Seven
Bungalow Chowki for the last two years. Prior to that,
he was working in Hotel Grand-Hyatt and even prior to
that, he was working with an Estate Agent. The police
staff of the Beat and persons from Aram Nagar Colony
used to visit his canteen. Food tiffins were not sent
by him to the inmates of Versova police station. He had
acted as a panch on 2-3 occasions prior to the said
panchanama and even after recording the said
panchanama. He did not know what were duties of a
panch. Police used to call him and take his signatures.
He did not see the document when he put his signatures.
He would not put signatures on any document brought by
any person. He would be in trouble after he put
signatures without reading the document. He did not
feel it necessary to inquire on what documents his
signatures have been obtained before putting signatures
on Exh.239 i.e. the panchanama. He did not ask the
police about the said document, as he was sure that the
document would contain the details of the places that
he had visited.
295. It has further come in his evidence that, he
could read and write Marathi. Contents in Exh.239 were
the same and were true and correct. It was stated in it
...251/-
Exh.1124 251 (J-SC 317/10)
as the events occurred before him. At the time of
deposing before the Court, he came to know that the
proclamation was pertaining to Sandeep Sardar. The
proclamation was with seal of the Ld. Magistrate of
Railway Court. The witness could not say if the
proclamation was issued as Sandeep Sardar was not
found. He came to know the said fact on reading the
panchanama. The witness denied that, he was not
disclosing true and correct facts before the Court at
the say of the police personnel, who visited his
canteen and to help the accused Sandeep Sardar. The
witness also denied that, he put signatures on
panchanama Exh.239 after reading the same.
296. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he acted as panch in many panchanamas of Versova
police station. He did not know details namely date,
purpose, name of accused etc. of the said panchanama.
He signed the panchanama on the day it was prepared. He
read the date as 29.09.2010. Therefore, he was stating
that, he put signatures on the panchanama on that date.
The witness admitted that, it was true that without
showing the panchanama he could not have stated on
which date the panchanama was prepared.
297. It has further come in his evidence that, he
read name of Sandeep Sardar in the panchanama on the
...252/-
Exh.1124 252 (J-SC 317/10)
date of his deposing before the Court. Therefore, he
said that, the panchanama pertained to Sandeep Sardar.
He had heard name of Sandeep Sardar for the first time
in the Court. When he was called, he was at the place
of his business. He was asked only to come as a panch.
He was told that, he was to put signatures on the
panchanama. He did not sign the panchanama in Seven
Bungalow Chowki. He did not hold any license to run the
canteen. He was under pressure of the police, as he did
not have license and he signed the document as per
their say.
298. It has further come in his evidence that,
Building No.4 is Ground plus four storeyed. He had not
gone to that building before. He could not tell as to
how many rooms were there at the first floor. The
witness denied that, there were no numbers such as 131
and 132 on the rooms. It has further come in his
evidence that, all the rooms were in one line. The
police made enquiries only in one room. He did not know
name of the lady, who opened the door. No documents
were asked from the lady about her identity. He did not
know what conversations took place between the lady and
the police officer. It took about five minutes at the
room where they went and to came down. He was not
knowing why did he go to room no.131. He did not know
what documents were affixed outside the room no.131.
...253/-
Exh.1124 253 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not know in which language the contents of the
said documents which was affixed were. He did not see
the document which was affixed at all other places. It
was not mentioned in the panchanama that, Mr.Ghorpade
clapped hands at Seven Bungalow Police Chowki and at
Nana Nani Park. He did not know as to what was stated
to the public at both those places. The witness denied
that, there were no staircases at Nana Nani Park gate
and that, he did not go to Building No.4, Seven
Bungalow Police Chowki or Nana Nani Park. The witness
also denied that, the police did not talk anything at
those places in his presence and that, he was not
called at Versova police station and that he did not
put signatures on the panchanama. The witness
categorically deposed that, he did not know contents of
the panchanama when he put signatures on the
panchanama.
299. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shamshuddin
Mohd.Yunus Ansari (PW-34),Exh.260, that, on 17.12.2009,
while proceeding to his residence from KEM Hospital he
stopped at the canteen at Naigaon and met police
officer by name chalke. He, his friend and Mr. Chalke
went to first floor of one small building adjacent to
the main building of Police Headquarters. They went to
a room marked as Magazine Shaka. Another officer Mr.
Gaonkar was present there. One officer by name Patil
...254/-
Exh.1124 254 (J-SC 317/10)
was sitting behind a table. Gaonkar talked with him.
Patil took out one revolver. Gaonkar signed in the
register and thereafter the said revolver was given to
him by Patil. The witness was informed that the said
revolver was involved in an offence registered at
Versova police station and they were going to seize the
same. The revolver had number '347' painted on it. It
was put in a plastic bag and then wrapped in a brown
paper. One label was prepared and his signature was
taken on it and then it was pasted on the said brown
paper. The wrapper was tied with a string and then it
was sealed. Thereafter, panchanama was prepared. His
signature was taken. It was read over to him and he
found it to be correct. Signature of his friend was
also taken on the panchanama. The panchanama was
explained to him in Hindi. It is marked as Exh.261.
Another signature was of Firoz. The witness was shown
the sealed packet bearing BL No.975/2009. It was
opened. It contained one revolver in a plastic bag
bearing Ruger Police service-6 revolver bearing tag
number BL-975/09 and Exh.8 and bearing Sr. No. 21934 on
lower portion of butt. The witness could not identify
as to whether it was the same revolver or not, as there
was no number written on it with oil paint. Label (Art.
42) had his signature on it.
...255/-
Exh.1124 255 (J-SC 317/10)
300. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, prior to one year he was working as a
construction labour contractor for 7-8 years. He was
doing the business under a particular name. He had
about 5-8 laboures working under him. He did not
maintain any record about the payments made. He did not
pay income tax though he had PAN Card. He did not file
income tax returns. Some criminal cases were registered
against him in Jogeshwari police station, but he did
not know if there were any cases registered against his
friend Feroz Munna. Four cases were registered against
him in the year 1989 bearing C.R.Nos.72/89,181/89,
272/89,331/89. The witness denied that in the year
1998, case No. 365/98 was registered against him by
police officer Shirsat.
301. It has further come in his evidence that, he
acted as a panch in Meghwadi police station in more
than one cases. There were three cases under Arms Act
in which he acted as a panch. The witness did not
remember if 2 or 3 other cases u/s.307 or 302 of the
IPC were also there in which he acted as a panch. He
had deposed as a panch only once. The witness denied
that the panchanama was read over to him by police
officer concerned from this case. The police did not
give any details to him. The witness tendered his
summons Exh.262. He was told that, he was to depose in
...256/-
Exh.1124 256 (J-SC 317/10)
the case where he was a panch relating to the revolver.
On seeing police officer Mr.Chalke he came to know in
which case he had to depose. He was not sitting with
Chalke and Gaonkar between 2 to 2.30 pm. He was with
the constable during that period.
302. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, from KEM Hospital he along with his
friend Feroz were proceeding towards a dispensary of
Dr. Chiklekar at Dadar and meantime, they stopped to
have break-fast and after taking break-fast they came
out. He met Chalke at about 11.45 am to 12 noon. At
12.30 pm, when the panchanama started he came to know
that it was 12.30 pm. Then Chalke also took break-fast
and then within two minutes they went to the first
floor. He did not know name of the hotel. From the
hotel, they turned left and at some distance he was
shown the police headquarters building. There was no
police person at the gate of the said headquarters.
He did not see whether there were any rooms to the
right or left of staircase. He did not see as to how
many storied the said building was. He did not see if
there was any other building in the said compound. He
did not see if vehicles were standing in the building
compound. His motor cycle was at first parked at the
hotel.
...257/-
Exh.1124 257 (J-SC 317/10)
303. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not observe as to how many rooms
were there on the first floor. There was only one table
and one person behind the table. One cup-board was next
to the said person behind the table. He did not listen
to the conversation between Gaonkar telling the said
person the purpose of the said visit. The witness
denied that, he did not know name of the person behind
the table. Then he entered the room along with Gaonkar,
who went ahead and spoke to Patil. The witness stayed
behind. After conversation and making entry in the
register, Patil gave revolver to Gaonkar. He took it
out from the cup-board. He did not see him taking it
out from the cupboard. He did not know if there were
any weapons in the said cupboard. He did not know as
to how many cupboards were there. Mr. Patil showed the
revolver to Mr.Gaonkar and then made entry in the
register.
304. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not know if Patil told Gaonkar that it was the same
revolver that he had asked for. It was not sealed or
packed when it was handed over to Gaonkar. The witness
denied that, there were rust marks on the said weapon.
He did not take the said weapon in his hand. Mr.
Gaonkar also did not take the weapon in his hand to
show the witness closely. The witness denied that, he
...258/-
Exh.1124 258 (J-SC 317/10)
could not see the number on the said weapon. The number
was written in white oil paint and he could see it from
a distance. He did not know if the said weapon had mark
M on it when it was seized. He did not see if letter
M was written in oil paint on the said weapon.
305. He did not know from where the plastic bag was
brought. He did not know from where the brown paper and
string came. He did not know about the seal which was
attached to twine thread (Art.43). He did not remember
the colour of the seal. It was similar in colour.
Versova was impressed on the seal. Seal was put on
the hot lac. The seal was metallic. He did not know
from where the seal was brought. Gaonkar did not show
him the said seal. The lac seal had words Versova
police station impressed on it. While preparing the
panchanama, Gaonkar did not inform him that he was from
Versova police station. He did not inform the witness
that, he had come from Versova police station. He did
not know from Gaonkar that he was from the SIT. No
details of the case were told to him. He was only told
number 302.
306. The witness denied that, he did not go to
Armoury at Naigaon with Mr. Gaonkar and that nothing
was seized in his presence. The witness also denied
that, he was a habitual panch of police. He knew Chalke
...259/-
Exh.1124 259 (J-SC 317/10)
and Gaonkar who worked at Versova police station. He
further denied that, he was deposing at their say and
just put signatures on the document without witnessing
any event between Gaonkar and Patil. He and Munna did
not sign the said register. The witness denied that,
the panchanama was not read over and explained to him
and that he did not understand the same and that put
signatures at the say of Gaonkar and Chalke.
307. It has come in evidence of Mr. Kiran Tukaram
Sonone (PW-35), Exh.263 that, between May 2007 to
November 2009, he worked as Sr. Inspector at Oshiwara
police station. On 29.6.2011, PSI Mr. Chalke had come
to his residence and gave details about case bearing
Crime No. 246/11 and showed him notings dated 4.4.2009
and 28.4.2009 and made inquiries about the said
notings. After seeing the said notings, he perused the
papers of CR No.302/06 u/s. 307, 353 IPC, 3, 25,27 of
the Arms Act registered at Versova police station. The
said crime was given to Oshiwara police station for
further investigation. The said case was initially
investigated by PI Dilip Patil and PI Phadtare of
Oshiwara police station. After transfer of PI Patil,
the investigation was handed over to PI Sankhe of
Oshiwara police station.
...260/-
Exh.1124 260 (J-SC 317/10)
308. It has further come in his evidence that, the
notings which were shown to him were pertaining to
recording of statements of witnesses u/s. 164 of
Cr.P.C. PI Sankhe had placed his notings before him and
the witness had made notings on it. The notings had his
remarks and signature on it. In this matter, PI Sankhe
used to discuss with him about the case and also about
recording of statements of witnesses u/s. 164 of
Cr.P.C. Since there was a writ petition filed before
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by the brother of the
deceased, the case papers were handed over to the
Hon'ble High Court. Mr.Sankhe had discussed about
recording of statements u/s. 164 with the Chief PP Mr.
Borulkar and it was his opinion that it would not be
appropriate to record statements u/s.164 when the
matter was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay.
309. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, during that period, ACP Mr. Dilip Suryawanshi was
the ACP of DN Nagar Division. He was insisting on
recording of statements u/s.164. PI Mr. Sankhe was not
keen to record such statements. Therefore, ACP
Suryawanshi was pressurizing him and therefore he
discussed the matter with the witness and hence the
said notings were made.
...261/-
Exh.1124 261 (J-SC 317/10)
310. It has further come in his evidence that, Exh.
246 (colly.) were the said notings which were placed by
PI Sankhe. On the fourth page and fifth page his
notings and remarks in his handwriting appear. Contents
were true and correct. The said notings were forwarded
to DCP, Zone-9 Mr. Kaushik. He had made certain remarks
on the notings and sent those back for clarification to
him. He forwarded the same to PI Mr Sankhe. There is
signature of DCP Mr.Kaushik on Exh.246, which the
witness identified. It is also marked as A. It was
on 4
th
of April.
311. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, during that period, he received one DO dated
24.4.2009 Exh.248. It was received by him and he
forwarded it to PI Mr.Sankhe. The notings bore his
signature and that of Mr.Dilip Suryawanshi. It is
marked A. In Exh.248, ACP Suryawanshi made reference
to another letter Exh.242, which was sent by ACP
Suryawanshi. The noting was in his handwriting and it
bore his signature. He forwarded the same to PI Sankhe.
He replied the said letter on the very next day. The
reply was dated 28.1.2009 having his signature on it.
Contents were true and correct. It is at Exh.264. On
28
th
, PI Sankhe forwarded another noting to him which he
forwarded to DCP, Zone-IX, Exh.247. It has his
signature. It is marked as B. Contents are true and
...262/-
Exh.1124 262 (J-SC 317/10)
correct. The remarks came back from DCP Zone-IX. During
that period, he was on sick leave and hence PI Sankhe
who was holding charge, received it from DCP, Zone-IX.
His statement was recorded by the SIT. Exh.242 bore
signature of Mr. Dilip Suryawanshi. It is marked as
A.
312. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, in police station, cases are classified in
'A','B', or 'C' Summary. The investigating officer
after considering the entire investigation puts up the
report before the Sr. PI for classification of the case
as B summary with or without prosecution. The report
along with the investigation papers is forwarded to Sr.
Officer, who peruses the investigation papers to verify
the contents of reports and notings and if it is found
to be correct and in consonance with the investigation
he signs the notings in approval. Then the same is
forwarded to the ACP. It is true that, all the
documents along with report are to be placed before the
Ld. Magistrate for final orders. The Ld. Magistrate,
summons the complainant, and then passes appropriate
orders.
313. It has further come in his evidence that,
crime No. 302/06 was investigated by PIs Mohan Sankhe,
Patil, Phadtare and then Dattatray Sankhe. Dattatray
...263/-
Exh.1124 263 (J-SC 317/10)
Sankhe was the last investigating officer.
Investigation papers done by other prior officers were
handed over to Dattatray Sankhe. Whenever Mr.Sankhe
carried on investigation in said offence, the witness
was informed by Mr. Sankhe about it and also had access
to the investigation file. Mr.Sankhe received the file
of investigation papers in 2008. Before that Mohan
Sankhe, Patil and Phadtare had already completed the
investigation and arrived at a conclusion. He did not
feel it necessary to re-investigate after the
investigation came to Mr.D.Sankhe. He was satisfied
with the investigation and conclusion arrived at by the
earlier investigating officers and hence, he did not
direct to re-investigate.
314. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, CR No.302/06 was registered against
deceased Ramnarayan Gupat @ Lakhanbhaiyya u/s. 307 of
IPC, as an attempt was made on the life of the
officers. As per the FIR, it was on the officers who
had gone to accost him. As per the FIR, attempt was
made on life of officers with a weapon. As per FIR,
the officers retaliated in self defence which resulted
in certain injuries being caused to the deceased which
led to his death. As per the investigation papers, the
incident took place near Nana Nani Park, Versova. All
the above observations, were supported by the
...264/-
Exh.1124 264 (J-SC 317/10)
statements, panchanamas and other investigating
material in crime No. 302/06.
315. It has further come in his evidence that, he
remembered that there were statements of witnesses
Manoharrao Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh. As per
investigation paper of CR No.302/06 it was a case of
genuine encounter and not murder. C.R. No.302/06 was
not classified as B Summary with or without
prosecution till date. Abated summary was proposed
because of death of Ramnarayan Gupta. The report of
abated summary was placed before him by PI Mr. Patil.
He endorsed the same report and placed the same before
ACP Mr.Awate. If Ramnarayan had survived it could have
resulted in his prosecution. An inquiry was to be
conducted by the District Magistrate in cases of firing
and encounter. In this case, inquiry was conducted by
the District Magistrate Special Land Acquisition
Officer-4 (SLAO-4). The report of SLAO-4 finding the
death of Ramnarayan Gupta in encounter in self-defence
was accepted by the State Government i.e. Home
Department (Spl.). The Government of Maharashtra has
not challenged the finding of the SLAO-4.
316. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Mr. Dilip Patil received the notice of
the complaint lodged by brother of the deceased before
...265/-
Exh.1124 265 (J-SC 317/10)
NHRC. Mr. Dilip Patil filed reply with the NHRC. The
reply was based on findings and conclusion based on
documents of C.R.No.302/06. The NHRC dismissed the
complaint. Till January 2008, Mr. Patil was attending
the Hon'ble High Court in the writ proceedings. Name of
accused no.1 did not appear in any of the investigation
papers of Crime No. 302/06. Said investigation papers
did not disclose that the officer who had gone to
accost the deceased were part of team of accused no.1.
The said investigation papers did not disclose the
presence of accused no.1 at Nana Nani Park at Versova.
No stay was granted on the investigation of C.R. No.
302/06 by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ
proceeding. The witness denied that, ACP Suryawanshi
was not pressurizing to record statements of witnesses
u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.
317. It has come in evidence of Mr. Raisingh Zabu
Chavan (PW-36), Exh.266 that, on 28.6.2010, he was on
duty in Thane Central Prison. API Mr. Ghorpade from the
SIT came to the central jail to take signature of
accused Hitesh in a Versova case and tendered a request
letter written by Mr. Prasanna. There was an order of
the Court along with the said letter. Copy of the order
is at Exh.267 (colly). The officer had come to take
specimen signature of the accused. He called accused
Hitesh from custody and informed him that, his
...266/-
Exh.1124 266 (J-SC 317/10)
signature was to be taken. The accused informed that,
he could not write and so also he could not write
Gujarati. The witness identified accused no.5 before
the Court. Then the accused was sent back to his
barrack. The API put the said remarks accordingly on
the said letter in his presence and took signature of
the witness on Exh.267. It is marked as A. His
statement was recorded by the SIT on 28.06.2011. It
also bore rubber stamp which was affixed by him.
318. During cross examination, the witness admitted
that, except Exh.267 addressed to the Superintendent,
he had not taken any order of the Superintendent on the
said letter, but he met the superintendent. Entry of
every person who enters the jail is taken there. All
the inmates in judicial custody were under the control
of DIG or Superintendent. He had no other document to
establish except Exh.267 that Mr. Ghorpade visited the
jail. There was nothing in writing available except
Exh.267 that Hitesh was shown the same letter and read
over the order. The accused was in special barrack no.
3. The witness admitted that whenever any accused
entered or left special barrack, entry was made in that
regard. There was no evidence to show that, on
28.9.2010 accused no.5 was taken out of the special
barrack.
...267/-
Exh.1124 267 (J-SC 317/10)
319. It has further come in his evidence that, he
had not stated in Exh.267 that, contents of Exh.267 and
the order were explained to accused no.5. He had not
taken thumb impression of accused no.5 on Exh.267. He
did not have any document to show that, Mr.Ghorpade
came to jail on 28.6.2011. No order of the
superintendent of the jail was taken in writing seeking
permission about visit of Mr. Ghorpade. No record was
maintained about police taking statement of the jail
officers. Mr.Ghorpade inquired with accused no.5 about
the language he understood. The witness had informed
the SIT while recording his statement that Mr. Ghorpade
made inquiries with accused no.5 about the language he
understood. The witness could not give any reason as to
why the same was not stated in his statement. He felt
that, copy of Exh.267 (Colly) should be given to the
accused no.5.
320. It has come in evidence of Ms. Astatu Mana Arya
(PW-37) Exh.268 that, she had been working as the
Divisional Engineer at Ghatkopar Telephone Exchange of
MTNL since 1
st
July, 2010. On 11.11.2010, Sub-divisional
Engineer working under him by name Mr.Babar received a
letter Exh.269 from the SIT. She replied the letter on
12.11.2010. The letter was related to the name and
address of the subscriber from where the telephone
numbers bearing nos. 25099140 and 25150405 were being
...268/-
Exh.1124 268 (J-SC 317/10)
operated. Both were PCO numbers. Printouts were taken
by her from Customer Service Management System
maintained by her office. The data only can be accessed
but cannot be altered. The telephone number 25106405
was in use when she gave the printouts. It was in the
name of Ramji H. Sangoi, at F7/2, Ground floor,
Horseshoe Valley, Jivdaya Lane, Ghatkopar(W). It was
installed on 18
th
April, 2002. Its original number was
25150405 and on 12
th
August 2010 it was changed to the
present number. Telephone no.25099140 was installed on
31
st
December, 2001 and it was in the name of Ramji
Sangoi on the same address. It was surrendered by the
subscriber on 28.10.2009. The letter received is at
Exh.270 (colly.).
321. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, she did not examine the forms of the above
telephone connections. She did not have any document to
show that, random inspection was carried out of those
two telephone numbers. She did not know that those two
connections were used by Mr. Sangoi for his personal
use only or as PCO. She did not know that, the details
were required with respect to a particular offence.
The witness denied that, Exh.270 was written at the
behest of the SIT. She could not say whether those two
telephone numbers did not stand in the name of ''Ramji
H.Sangoi''. The address stated in the subscribers
...269/-
Exh.1124 269 (J-SC 317/10)
details was correct. There could be two addresses
namely correspondence address and installation address.
She had supplied correspondence address and also stated
installation address in Exh.270. The witness denied
that without considering record of the MTNL, she
prepared Exh.270. The witness could not depose as to
whether on the said address one person by name Ramji
Nanji Sangoi stayed and not Ramji H. Sangoi.
322. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dheeraj Ugamraj
Mehta (PW-38), Exh.271, that, he ran a shop by name
'Trisha Collections' near Lakshdeep Hospital Road, Jain
Mandir Road, Sector-9, in building JN-2/81, Vashi. He
knew Anil Bheda and Pandeyji. On 11.11.2006, at 12.15
pm, Anil Bheda and Pandeyji had been to his shop. At
12.40 pm, one Nilesh came to his shop and stated, your
friend has been taken away by someone (Tuzya Mitrala
Konitari uchalun gheun gele). He further informed
that, friend of the witness was taken in a Qualis
vehicle by 5-6 persons in civil dress. Therefore, he
tried to call Anil Bheda, but the phone was shown to be
switched off. He informed this to one Girish Nepali.
He received one call from PCO on his mobile bearing No.
9324349531 from one person who introduced himself as
the brother of Pandeyji. The witness told him about the
incident, which he heard from his friend Nilesh. Then
at 14 to 14.15 hours, he received one missed call. He
...270/-
Exh.1124 270 (J-SC 317/10)
called on that number. The person on the other end
introduced himself as Adv.Gupta, brother of Pandeyji.
The witness informed him about the incident.
Adv.Mr.Gupta asked him to lodge a complaint in police
station. At 2.30 pm, he went to the house of Anil
Bheda and from mobile of the witness called Gupta to
enable him to talk with wife of Anil Bheda. Mr.Gupta
stated that, there was danger to the life of Anil Bheda
and Pandeyji and hence, he gave the witness phone
numbers and fax numbers of police. Mr. Gupta also
stated that, Anil and Pandeyji would be killed in a
fake encounter. Again at 5 pm, he went to house of
Aruna Bheda and inquired about Anil Bheda. Then he took
Aruna Bheda with him and left near Vashi Bus Depot, as
she wanted to go to Vashi police station to lodge a
complaint regarding Anil Bheda. At 8 to 8.30 pm, when
he was watching T.V., he learned about encounter of one
Lakhanbhaiyya.
323. The witness further deposed that, on
12.11.2006, he received a telephone call from Mr.Gupta
who informed that, his brother was killed in a police
encounter and further informed him that, Pandeyji's
name was Lakhanbhaiyya. On the request of Mr.Gupta, he
showed his shop from where Pandeyji was taken away.
After 15-20 days, he met Mr.Bheda and inquired with him
as to what had happened. Mr.Bheda informed him that,
...271/-
Exh.1124 271 (J-SC 317/10)
he had been to Shirdi. He was contacted by one Avi @
Santosh Shettiyar and one advocate Ms.Falguni
Brahmbhatt and asked to give statement before DCP
Mr.Prasanna. On 27.08.2009, he went to the office of
DCP. Then he went to Powai police chowki, where
Mr.Ghorpade and Mr. Gaonkar made inquiry with him. He
was taken to DCP Office at Bandra, where his statement
was recorded. On 04.09.2009 and on 01.02.2010 his
statements u/s.161 of Cr.P.C were recorded at DCP
Office by the SIT. He gave statement as told by Avi
and Adv. Falguni. Again on 28.08.2010, he was called by
the SIT for identification of one person. He identified
Avi. He came to know that his name was Santosh
Shettiar. His mobile no. was 9820261059. The mobile
nos. of the witness were 9224394910 and 9029547613.
324. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he carried out business of selling stones as per
zodiac sign, which was a science. He had not studied
said science. He did not have degree in that regard.
There was course available regarding the said science.
He did not feel it necessary to attend the course in
that regard when he started his business. He was doing
the said business for about 7-8 yrs. i.e. since 2002
till date. He did course in the year 2007 from Rajendra
Gemology Institute in Fort, which issued a certificate.
It was a government recognized institute and he had the
...272/-
Exh.1124 272 (J-SC 317/10)
said certificate, which he could produce. The zodiac
stones were precious stones and not semi-precious
stones. A certificate of genuineness and authentication
was issued at the time of purchase of such stones.
There were many precious stones which were not
available in India. Semi precious stones were sold as
precious stones. Such semi precious stones would not
match with zodiac sign. No certificate was issued by
person selling semi precious stones.
325. The witness has further deposed that, a person
doing this business has to maintain stock of stones
and certificates. Each stone has to tally with the
certificate available in stock. The stones are sold on
the basis of carat. It is necessary to mention the
carat and number of stones in the stock register. He
maintained record of the stones sold to customer, so
that it can be exchanged. Diamond is one of the
precious stones used for zodiac signs. The witness on
his own deposed that, it is a separate science.
According to him, Scorpio sign matches with diamond. In
the Gemology Institute one is taught to identify
precious stones with literature. The relationship of
zodiac sign is also taught. Literature is provided
regarding the same. It was not available with him. He
did not bring his certificate on that day as he forgot
but he would produce it on next date. The witness
...273/-
Exh.1124 273 (J-SC 317/10)
denied that, the diamond is associated with zodiac sign
Aries. Emerald is associated with Zodiac sign Virgo.
Emerald is associated with zodiac sign Taurus. Sapphire
is associated with Zodiac Sign Pisces. The witness
denied that, sapphire is associated with zodiac sign
Taurus not with zodiac sign Pisces. Aries falls in the
month of January, Taurus in June, Leo in May, Cancer in
April, Pisces in December, Scorpio in August, Capricorn
in September, Sagittarius in November. Ruby is
associated with Leo. The witness denied that, Ruby is
associated with Cancer. Topaz is associated with
Pisces. The witness denied that, it is associated with
Scorpio. Turquoise is associated with Capricorn. The
witness denied that, it is associated with Sagittarius.
Rajendra Gemology Institute does not teach relationship
of zodiac sign with stones. It only teaches about
stones. He did not do any course relating to
relationship between zodiac sign and stones. The
witness denied that, he had deposed wrongly about the
relationship between zodiac signs and stones and that
he had no knowledge in this regard and that, he was
deposing falsely in relation to that regard and that,
he had not done any course relating to the stones and
that, he was doing any business in such stones.
326. The witness further deposed that, he was
having PAN Card since 2002. he was filing Income Tax
...274/-
Exh.1124 274 (J-SC 317/10)
returns since 2002. His source of income in this was
shown as from the business of sale of such stones. He
was paid for the stones in cash. He maintained cash
book of his business. He started the business in 2004.
He had not maintained certificates relating to each and
every stone. He sold stones in cash. He did not prepare
any invoice. He prepared invoice of some transactions
only and did not prepare invoices of other
transactions. He showed profit for paying tax only of
the transactions of which invoices were prepared.
Entries regarding only those transactions were
maintained in his books of accounts. Other sales were
unaccounted. Same accounting procedure was followed
from 2004 till date. There was business account in
bank. The deposits in the said account were only of
transactions made by invoice, other deposits were not
made in the bank. His income was taxable since 2004.
He had not paid any tax on unaccountable sale. He had
not disclosed his true income from 2004. he did not
remember his PAN Card Number. AIFBM8434M was his PAN
Card number. He did not have registration under VAT but
he was registered under Sales Tax. The Sales Tax could
be payable on the value of invoice. He had paid sales
tax for the invoices which he prepared and he had filed
returns accordingly from 2004 till date. He had not
disclosed the unaccountable transactions to Sales Tax.
...275/-
Exh.1124 275 (J-SC 317/10)
327. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he took the said shop on lease from
Jain in 2005. He was related to him. He paid deposit
of Rs.10,000/- and monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-. He
vacated the same in the year 2007. He paid deposit as
well as monthly rent in cash. He had not taken
deduction for the expenses of Rs.18000/- from income
tax from 2005 to 2007. He had not taken any receipt of
any payment made to Mr.Jain. Except his words, he had
no documentary evidence to show that he was conducting
business in the said shop from 2005 to 2007. The entire
area of shop of Trisha Collection was about 300
sq.feet. In 2006, Trisha Collection was dealing with
Mobile handsets. There was no license under Bombay
Shops and Establishment Act of Trisha Collection. The
shop could be about 30x10 ft. It had two separate
shutters. Trisha collection was shop no.1 and Shop no.2
was Vaishnavi Collection. The two cabins were made
behind the shops. One had to pass through the shop to
go to the cabins. The owner of shop no. 2 was one
Yogesh. The shops were situated in residential area.
There were four shops in the said building. One
residential flat on ground floor was converted into
four shops. The four shops were occupied by Trisha,
Vaishnavi Cosmetics, his shop and that of Nilesh. All
the four shops were situated in that 300 sq.feet. He
did not take any permission of the society to conduct
...276/-
Exh.1124 276 (J-SC 317/10)
his business. All shops had different individual
entrances. There were other shops in the vicinity of
the said building. His shop used to be open from 10.00
a.m to 8.00 p.m. The other shops opened prior to 10.00
a.m. and closed after 8.00 p.m. Number of people and
vehicles used the said road.
328. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Nilesh was dealing in Real Estate. He
did not know his full name. He was also a tenant of
Dilip Jain. Nilesh was doing his business from 2006
till he left. He used to meet Dilip Jain. He did not
interfere and take interest in customers of other shops
like Nilesh and vice versa. He did not introduce his
customers to Nilesh and neither did Nilesh do so. From
other shops no one would know what was happening in his
shop. He could not see who was sitting outside his
shop. Similarly person outside could not see who was
sitting in his shop. There was no acquaintance between
his customer and that of Nilesh as their business were
different. He did not know names of customers and
visitors of Nilesh and so also Nilesh did not know
names of his customers and visitors. Nilesh did not
introduce his customers and visitors to him nor did he
introduce his customers and visitors to the witness
during the period 2006 to 2007.
...277/-
Exh.1124 277 (J-SC 317/10)
329. The witness further deposed that, he did not
have any documentary evidence to show that, he supplied
stones to relations of Bheda. He did not have any
documentary evidence to show that he had sold Rudraksha
Mala to father in law of Bheda. He did not have any
documentary evidence to show that, he used to sell
Rudraksha from his shop. So also, he did not have any
documentary evidence to show that he sold stones to
Pandeyji. He knew Anil Bheda since 2004. He used to
meet Bheda daily in Temple. Pandeyji was introduced to
him by Anil Bheda in about September 2006. He
introduced Pandeyji as his close friend whom he knew
earlier. After such introduction Anil Bheda was always
accompanied by Pandeyji to his shop. He used to visit
occasionally the house of Anil Bheda. The witness
denied that, during that period when he went to house
of Bheda he saw Pandeyji present. Pandeyji used to
visit house of Bheda. He asked what relation Pandeyji
had with Bheda. Bheda told him that they were doing
Real Estate business together. He was more close to
Bheda than Pandeyji. It was so because he knew Pandeyji
for only few months and did not know about his past.
Anil Bheda had disclosed that 3-4 criminal cases of
cheating were pending against him. After knowing about
this, he started keeping distance from Anil Bheda. He
felt that Anil Bheda should not visit his shop because
of his criminal antecedents. Slowly he distanced
...278/-
Exh.1124 278 (J-SC 317/10)
himself from Anil Bheda. The visit of Anil Bheda
reduced to his my shop after he got the knowledge about
those criminal cases. He created circumstances so that
Anil Bheda could not visit his my shop. Earlier Anil
Bheda used to visit 2-3 times to his shop. Thereafter,
he started visiting once or twice in a month. He wanted
to disassociate himself from Anil Bheda. He also
suspected the antecedents of Pandeyji because of his
association with Bheda. He did not make any inquiries
about criminal antecedents of Pandeyji. As visits of
Anil Bheda were lessened, so also that of Pandeyji. He
did not know where Pandeyji resided. He was not
informed about the past of Pandeyji by Anil Bheda. The
witness denied that, he was informed by Bheda that
there were 5-6 serious offences registered against
Pandeyji. He got the knowledge after his death. When
Gupta used to call him he had knowledge that number of
cases were pending against Pandeyji. He came to know
that time that Pandeyji's name was Ramnarayan@
Lakhanbhaiya. He learned that he had relations with
certain gang.
330. The witness further deposed that, on
11.11.2006, he had knowledge that cases had been
registered against Anil Bheda. Hence he was not pleased
seeing Anil Bheda in his shop and he did not respond to
him as he would have done earlier. He was happy that
...279/-
Exh.1124 279 (J-SC 317/10)
the said two persons offered to wait outside his shop.
He knew Mr. Sawant through Dilip Jain. Sawant saw Anil
Bheda and Pandeyji coming to his shop and also leaving.
Nilesh did not see them coming in shop or going out.
One could not see from shop of Nilesh so also he could
not see inside the shop of Nilesh from our respective
shops. At that time Nilesh was standing outside the
shop on the road. he could not see where Pandeyji and
Anil Bheda were standing. He could not see whether they
were standing together or alone and if any person or
both persons were waiting. Distance between the shop
and the road was about 10 feet. The incident of Anil
and Pandeyji coming to his shop and leaving hardly took
about 5 seconds. When Nilesh gave the information at
that time he was in the shop with Sawant. He did not
remember if he had stated to the SIT while recording
his statement that Nilesh told him that the customer
who used to regularly visit his shop had been taken
away in a Qualis Vehicle. Omission as regards to word
regularly has been brought on record from his
statement dated 01.2.2010.
331. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it did not happen that on 11.11.2006
after he came to the shop at 10.30 a.m., Anil Bheda and
Pandeyji came to his shop and sat in the chair. He had
stated to the police accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did
...280/-
Exh.1124 280 (J-SC 317/10)
not happen that tea vendor came to his shop and they
had tea. He had stated to the police accordingly on
27.08.2009. It did not happen that they had tea and
then left from his shop. He had stated to the police
accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did not happen that
thereafter he was engaged in his customers. He had
stated to the police accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did
not happen that, he received telephone call between
11.00 to 11.15 a.m. from PCO. He had stated to the
police accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did not happen
that he told the said person that Anil Bheda and
Pandeyji had left some time before and thereafter the
other person disconnected the phone. He had stated to
the police accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did not happen
that he again received phone call from same person and
he told him to call them on their mobile number. He had
stated to the police accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did
not happen that, said person informed him that said
mobile was switched off. He had stated to the police
accordingly on 27.08.2009. It did not happen that, he
asked the said caller his name and he stated that he
was his friend and disconnected the call. He had stated
to the police accordingly on 27.08.2009.
332. The witness further deposed that, from
27.08.2009 till 01.02.2010, he did not make any
grievance to anyone about giving his statement dated
...281/-
Exh.1124 281 (J-SC 317/10)
27.08.2009 under pressure. He did not file any
application or complaint in that respect in the court.
He did not take advice from any advocate also in this
regard. He did not write any statement to DCP Prasanna
that, statement dated 27.08.2009 was false and made
under pressure. No officer had accompanied him on
27.08.2009 when he visited the SIT. He was alone with
DCP Mr.Prasanna when his statement was recorded. Mr.
Prasanna was asking questions and he was answering
them. He did not disclose to DCP Prasanna that actual
facts were something different and under pressure he
was stating otherwise. DCP Prasanna had on that day
asked him that he should make truthful disclosure. Some
other person was typing the statement. He personally
read the statement, after it was typed. Then he stated
that the contents were true and correct, DCP Prasanna
signed the same. He did not ask DCP Prasanna to allow
him to write on the statement that he had stated so
under pressure. He did not ask Mr.Prasanna to cancel
the contents of the statement. He did not ask DCP
Prasanna not to sign the statement and to score out the
portions with which he had been confronted above.
333. The witness further deposed that, when his
statement was recorded u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. on
04.09.2009, he was alone with Ld. Magistrate. The Ld.
Magistrate informed the purpose of his production
...282/-
Exh.1124 282 (J-SC 317/10)
before him. The statement recorded by Ld. Magistrate
was by way of questions and answers. Nine questions
were asked by the Ld. Magistrate and then he narrated
his version. He did not not inform the Ld. Magistrate
at that time that his statement dated 27.08.2009 was
recorded under pressure and its contents were
incorrect.
334. The witness further deposed that, by not
paying sales tax, he was committing an offence.
9224394910 was his mobile number. It was activated on
23.10.2005. The said telephone was in his name. He did
not know any Dheeraj J.Mehta'' nor was such person
related to him. 9029547613 also was his mobile number.
It was in the name of Dheeraj U.Mehta. He had named his
business by name ''M.S. Enterprises''. There was
business by name ''Balaji Jewellers'' being conducted
at Shop no.6, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. The said business was
in the name of Pravin Jain. He was not related to him.
He was working in the said shop from 2000-2002. On
25.08.2009, he was not working in Balaji Jewellers at
Shop no.6. The other phone number 9029547613 was
activated on 25.08.2009. For the said telephone, he
gave address as NL-4, Building no.14, Room No. 10,
Sector 11, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. It would have happened
that for the said telephone number the address could
be ''Balaji Jewellers'', Shop no.6, Plot no.21, B.
...283/-
Exh.1124 283 (J-SC 317/10)
Road, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. Wrong address was submitted
to the mobile service provider. He was residing in
building no.14, room no.10, Nerul, since 2004 till
today. He did not know ''Dheeraj V. Mehta''. Said
Dheeraj V. Mehta was not known to him neither he was
related to him. No Dheeraj V. Mehta resided at building
no.14, room no.10, Nerul. 9221298528 was his mobile
number. It was activated on 05.05.2007. It would be
incorrect to say that he was Dheeraj V. Mehta. He had
four mobile numbers 9324349531,9029547613, 9221298528,
9224394910 between 2005 to 2009. All these numbers were
prepaid numbers. Mobile numbers 9224394910 and
9324349531 were operational in 2006. Prior to his first
meeting on 26.08.2009 with Falguni Bramhabhatt, he did
not have any conversation with her on the phone. He
spoke with her on 26.08.2009. He had called her. He did
not remember her mobile number. He spoke to her in the
night. He did not remember for how much time he spoke
with her. He also spoke to her on next day morning on
phone. He did not remember if he had called her or if
she called him. He did not remember for how much period
he spoke with her. He had been to the SIT on 27.08.2009
for recording his statement at about 12.00 noon. He did
not inform DCP Mr. Prasanna that, he had spoken with
advocate Falguni prior to recording his statement.
Thereafter, he used to talk with Advocate Falguni daily
about 2-3 times. He used to talk with her about the
...284/-
Exh.1124 284 (J-SC 317/10)
case. On 27.08.2009, when he went to meet DCP Mr.
Prasanna, advocate Falguni was sitting outside. He had
informed DCP Mr. Prasanna that she was his advocate. He
did not inform DCP Mr. Prasanna before, during or after
recording of statement dated 27.08.2009 that advocate
Falguni was not his advocate and that he was giving
statement because of pressure of Avi. He spoke with
Advocate Falguni on 1
st
and 2
nd
of September 2009. He did
not remember if he called her or she called him.
335. The witness further deposed that, his
statement was recorded by the Ld. M.M. on 04.09.2009 in
the afternoon session. He did not remember if he spoke
to Advocate Falguni on 04.09.2009 at 1.10 p.m. and 3.09
p.m. He had not informed the Ld. Magistrate that, he
was giving the statement under pressure of Avi. The
witness denied that, Advocate Falguni was his advocate
and that, being his advocate he was regularly
consulting her on phone and that, he was consulting her
as the brother of the deceased was pressurizing him to
be an eye witness in this case. There was no pressure
from Complainant Gupta that he should act as a witness
in this case. The witness denied that, advocate Gupta
called him and asked him to sign the statement as per
his say and that no trouble would caused to him as he
was an advocate. He had informed the SIT on 27.08.2009
that advocate Gupta called him on mobile and requested
...285/-
Exh.1124 285 (J-SC 317/10)
him to be a witness and to sign on the document
prepared by him and that as he was an advocate, he
would not come in any trouble. It did not happen that
Adv. Mr.Gupta used to continuously call him and request
him to be a witness and thereafter being irritated, he
switched off his mobile number. He had stated to the
SIT that advocate Gupta used to call him on his mobile
and requested him to help him and was assuring him that
no trouble would be caused to him and further he
refused and thereafter being irritated he switched off
his number. After discussion with Mrs. Aruna Bheda, it
was decided to lodge complaint only regarding Anil
Bheda. He did not know if she lodged missing complaint
relating Anil Bheda or not. He did not inform Adv.
Gupta that he had advised Aruna Bheda only to lodge
complaint in respect to Anil Bheda. He had dropped
Aruna Bheda at Vashi Depot so that as per his advice
she could go to Vashi Police Station to lodge missing
complaint relating to Anil Bheda. He did not meet her
or talk with her on phone. He was worried about Anil
Bheda as he was his friend. He had gone to meet her
thereafter. At that time Aruna Bheda informed that she
had lodged a missing complaint. Thereafter repeatedly
he used to receive phone call from Mr.Gupta
continuously. He had not informed Mr.Gupta that Aruna
Bheda had lodged missing complainant about Anil Bheda.
He did not inform him about the missing complaint of
...286/-
Exh.1124 286 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil Bheda as he felt that he would also ask him to
lodge missing complaint of his brother. He did not wish
to lodge complaint as he had by that time got knowledge
about criminal antecedents of brother of Advocate
Gupta. He was not desirous of lodging complaint as
brother of Advocate Gupta belonged to a gang and he was
scared. He did not want to be a witness and as it
involved a gang he did not agree to be a witness hence,
he refused to act as a witness to advocate Gupta and
he switched off his number. The witness denied that,
thereafter he agreed to be a witness as Advocate Gupta
threatened him that if he did not become a witness, he
would be in trouble. After showing Advocate Gupta the
shop, he closed his business in the said shop. Dilip
Jain had not removed him from the said shop. He closed
the shop at said address as he was afraid.
336. The witness further deposed that, he had
stated to the police that thereafter he tried to call
upon the number of Anil Bheda and the phone was shown
to be switched off and that, he asked Nilesh the
description of his friend. The witness could not assign
any reason why these facts did not appear in his
statements dated 27/08/2009 and 01/02/2010. The witness
could not assign any reason as to why the portion
Girish Nepali was friend of Pandeyji and Bheda did
not appear in his statement dated 01.02.2010 before
...287/-
Exh.1124 287 (J-SC 317/10)
police. The witness did not remember as to whether he
stated to the police on 01.02.2010 that Girish Nepali
asked him if Anil Bheda and Pandeji had come. It would
be incorrect to say that on 11/11/2006 he called Girish
Nepali. He could not state from which PCO number he
received phone call on 11/11/2006 on his mobile. It did
not occur to him after all the events which took place
on 11/11/2006 that he should note down the PCO
telephone number. The omission as regards to, not
answering to Adv. Gupta and disconnecting the phone has
been brought on record. The witness denied that,
between 2.00 & 2.15 p.m. on 11/11/2006, he did not
receive any missed call. It would be incorrect to say
that the first call of Advocate Gupta was received by
him on 11/11/2006 at 3.00p.m. He did not remember if he
received three calls from Advocate Gupta between 3.00
to 3.30 p.m. on 11.11.2006. He had stated to the police
that he had given the phone numbers to wife of Anil
Bheda. Omission as regards to, giving the phone
numbers, has been brought on record from the statement
dated 1.2.2010. He did not remember if he had stated to
the police on 1.2.2010 that she told him to wait till
5 pm and then decide further course of action. This
also has been brought on record and omission is
pertaining to Aruna telling him. He did not state to
the police that, he refused to call on number 100 as he
did not want to get involved. He did not remember if he
...288/-
Exh.1124 288 (J-SC 317/10)
stated that while seeing T.V. at 8 to 8.30 pm, he
learnt about the encounter. Omission as regards to
timing has been brought on record. Omission as regards
to, Gupta asking him to show place from where Pandeji
was taken away has been brought on record from
statement dated 1.2.2010. The witness did not remember
if he stated that, Avi had collected his visiting card.
This has also been brought on record pertaining to name
of Avi as an omission. He did not state to the SIT
that, they wanted to speak about encounter of
Lakhanbhaiyya. Omission as regards to encounter has
been brought on record. Omission as regards to, 'who
are inside' has been brought on record from the
statement dated 01.02.2010. He did not state to the
police that, he asked them what help was required. He
did not state to the SIT that, Avi and his friend told
that, he and Anil Bheda were witnesses in the said
case. He did not state to the SIT that he received
phone call on 26.08.2009. Omission as regards to date
26
th
has been brought on record. He also did not state
that, on the phone Avi asked him to meet at Sanman
Hotel, outside Nerul station to meet the advocate. He
did not inform the SIT that, Falguni Brambhabhatt was
not his lawyer. He did not state to the SIT that, she
had come there to discuss about police inquiry relating
to the encounter. He did not tell the SIT that, he was
told that he should only disclose that Pandeji and
...289/-
Exh.1124 289 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda had come to his shop, had tea and then left the
shop.
337. The witness further deposed that, he had not
stated to the SIT that, he should not disclose about
the fact. Question pertained only to non disclosure. He
had not stated that he was to state to the police that,
he did not know details about the case. He had not
stated to the police that, he was asked to call DCP
Mr.Prasanna to take his appointment next day morning.
The witness produced certificate of Gemology Exh.274
and its copy Exh.274A, which were taken on record. He
did not remember if he had stated that vehicle was
arranged so that he could go to the office of DCP and
that this portion did not appear in his statement dated
1.2.2010. He also did not state that, they went to the
office in the vehicle of Adv. Faluguni and that, he
came in the vehicle at Andheri, Seepz. He did not
remember if he stated to the SIT on 1.2.2010 that
inquiry was made by Mr. Ghorpade and Mr.Gaonkar. Name
of Ghorpade and Gaonkar did not appear in the statement
dated 1.2.2010. The witness denied that, the classes of
Rajendra Diamond were not conducted in the Fort area
and that, his photograph was not on the certificate.
He also denied that, he had produced bogus certificate
and had not attended the classes. Sector 9 extended
from radius about half to one kilometer. In sector 9 A
...290/-
Exh.1124 290 (J-SC 317/10)
there were 3-4 lanes. There were no other divisions in
sector 9. There was lane between sector 9 and sector
9A. Jain temple was considered as as a landmark in
sector 9. The witness denied that, the said building
was known as Gehlot Plaza. In 2006, he was not residing
at the above address at Nerul. In 2006, he was
conducting business from Building JN 2, Building No.
81A, Sector 9A, Vashi. Jain mandir was at the distance
of 10 minutes from his shop and was next to his shop.
Lakshdeep Hospital was at a distance of five minutes
walk from his shop and it was a landmark sign for his
shop. To locate his shop the landmark could be near
Lakshdeep Hospital.
338. The witness further deposed that, he did not
remember of on 11.11.2006, he received about 9
telephone calls from Adv. Gupta between 3 to 6 pm and
also that, how many calls were received. He received
3-4 calls on 12.11.2006. He did not remember the phone
number from which he received the said calls. Mr. Gupta
used to call him only from one telephone number and not
from different numbers. He did not have record to show
that, he sold stones to Avi. He met Avi for the first
time in August' 2009 in his office. He could not tell
the exact date. He did not have visiting cards in 2006.
He had not given his residential address to any of his
customers. He never entertained any customer at his
...291/-
Exh.1124 291 (J-SC 317/10)
house. To maintain privacy of his family he never took
any customers to his house or gave them the address.
On the day Avi came to his office, he did not give him
his residential address. There was no land-line
available in his house. There was no mobile phone in
the name of his wife. Avi had come alone when he came
to his shop. Avi did not state that he would send his
friend to him or to his residence. He did not give his
mobile number or telephone number of his shop to Avi.
On the day Avi came to his office, as usual he closed
his shop at 8.00 to 8.30 pm and went home.
339. The witness further deposed that, Shabri Hotel
was the nearest hotel to his shop at Vashi. He had
called Avi to Shabri Hotel. When he called Avi at
Shabri Hotel, he thought that he had come to collect
stones. Avi had not disclosed which stone he wanted.
The witness denied that, he was in the shop when he
received his phone call. He could have called Avi to my
shop to show him the stones. He did not have any stones
to show to Avi. The other two persons with Avi at
Shabri Hotel were not known to him. He did not ask
their names to Avi. He did not ask Avi why he had
brought other persons with him. Before the day, he met
Avi at Shabri Hotel, he knew about Lakhanbhaiya from
Adv. Gupta. He left the place between 2006 to 2009 as
he did not want to be a witness in this case. He had
...292/-
Exh.1124 292 (J-SC 317/10)
not witnessed anything on 11.11.2006 and hence, he did
not want to be a witness in this case. He was not
interested in meeting anyone in connection with this
case and hence, he shifted residence between 2006 to
2009. He was taken aback when Avi disclosed that he
wanted to talk about case of Lakhanbhaiya. He declined
to talk to him about the case as he had not witnessed
anything on 11.11.2006 and as he did not want to get
involved in this case. He did not state to them that he
had not witnessed anything when he stated about Pandeji
and Bheda. It was necessary that he should have told
them that he did not witness anything. He felt that he
should keep himself away from the case even after
getting to know that case had restarted. He did not
want to get involved as witness in the said case. He
asked Avi what he should do but he did not tell him
that he was ready to help him. Avi did not discuss the
details of the case with him. Avi did not disclose how
the case was restarted and on whose behest and who were
the witnesses. Avi had not threatened him. The witness
denied that, there was no reason for him get afraid. As
he was a stranger to the witness, he was worried. Avi
did not state to him that if he did not discuss the
case, harm would be caused to the witness.
340. The witness further denied that, he had taken
the two mobile phones in different names and addresses
...293/-
Exh.1124 293 (J-SC 317/10)
as he did not want to get involved in this case and
that, he took the phone numbers on bogus addresses.
After 01.02.2010, his statement was not recorded in
this matter. The witness denied that, he agreed to
become a witness in this case as Advocate Gupta
pressurized him and threatened him with his arrest and
trouble to his family and that, he agreed to become a
witness because of above pressure and threat and in
order to facilitate the SIT to implicate the accused.
The witness further denied that on 11.11.2006 Anil
Bheda and Pandeyji did not come in his shop and that,
he deposed in Examination in chief falsely and on the
say of Ramprasad Gupta and the SIT.
341. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 22.11.2011 he came alone to the
court and it was his first time. He came to the court
when he received summons. He did not bring it that day.
He asked Mr.Gaonkar that on constable be provided to
him in the evening to accompany him on 22.11.2011. He
was not threatened on 22.11.2011. He did not request
the Court for such police assistance. Same constable
used to accompany him from the station and to the
station. That day also, he came with the said constable
and he would also go with the same constable. The
constable was of the SIT. Before coming to court, he
did not seek any police assistance from the SIT. After
...294/-
Exh.1124 294 (J-SC 317/10)
coming to court, he asked for police assistance from
Mr.Gaonkar. He used to wait in the room outside the
court along with Mr.Gaonkar and constable. Mr.Gaonkar
and Mr.Chalke were also present. He used to wait in a
room for about 5-10 minutes before his evidence. There
was no restriction for him to sit in the court. He was
not threatened against sitting in the court. The
witness denied that, he used to discuss the case with
Mr.Ghorpade, Mr.Chalke and Mr.Gaonkar and deposed
falsely on their say. He used to come from Vashi to
V.T. Station and then to the Court. He was not afraid
to come from Vashi to V.T. Station and he used to
travel alone.
342. The witness further deposed that, his
statements in this case were not recorded on 02.02.2010
and 27.09.2009 by police. From 2006 till 27.08.2009, he
was in Bombay. The witness denied that, on 26.8.2009
and 27.08.2009 Avi did not meet him, and that he did
not call Avi on 26.08.2009 and 27.08.2009. The witness
denied that, Avi did not provide any Indica car and
that, Avi did not introduce advocate Falguni to him.
The witness further denied that, Avi did not visit him
for purchase of stone or otherwise and that, he did not
give any visiting card to Avi. There would be a
difference between ''tere dost ko leke gaye'' and
''tere doston ko leke gaye''. The witness further
...295/-
Exh.1124 295 (J-SC 317/10)
denied that, Avi was not Santosh Shettiyar and that, he
had named Avi on say of the SIT. It did not occur to
him to advise complainant to lodge a complaint as he
was an advocate. The witness denied that, he did not
meet any person by name Avi more so at Hotel Sanman,
Hotel Shabri or at Andheri Seepz. The witness denied
that, he knew Adv. Falguni prior to 27/08/2009 and
that, when he received call from the SIT, he himself
contacted Advocate Falguni. The witness denied that,
Avi did not provide him vehicle Indica car and that,
Advocate Falguni never asked him not to disclose any
fact about the incident and that, he was falsely
stating so about Advocate Falguni. The witness further
denied that, Avi did not introduce him to Advocate
Falguni and that, he was disclosing about the
involvement of Avi and Advocate Falguni as stated in
his examination in chief on say of SIT.
343. The witness further deposed that, Sector 9 and
sector 9-A were different areas. His shop was situated
in Sector 9A and not in Sector 9. Trisha Collection was
divided in three parts. Trisha Collections and
Vaishnavi Cosmetics were facing the road. There was
passage between these two shops leading to his shop. He
did not remember if he had informed the SIT while
recording his statement on 27/08/2009 that Dilip Jain
had partitioned the shop in three parts namely Mobile
...296/-
Exh.1124 296 (J-SC 317/10)
Shop, Cosmetic Shop and his shop. He stated portion
marked A in his statement by mistake. Statement dated
27/8/2009 was read over to him and he also read the
said statement. He did not point out that this portion
was written and stated as a mistake. He came to know
about the said mistake when he read it just before the
court. He had deposed earlier that shop was divided in
four parts, he came to know that it was a mistake that
shop was divided in three parts. On 01/02/2010, when
his other statement was recorded by DCP Mr.Prasanna, he
read over to him his earlier statement dated 27/8/2009.
At that time also he did not inform DCP Mr.Prasanna
pointing out the said mistake. The witness denied that,
there were only three shops in Trisha Collections and
he was deposing falsely that there were four shops
therein.
344. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in the said shop of Trisha Collection,
Dilip Jain and his two staff members used to be
present. he did not know names of two staff members.
Yogesh and his wife used to conduct business of
Vaishnavi Cosmetics from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 -8.30 p.m.
He knew them. On 11/11/2006, Yogesh and his wife were
present in their shop. He did not know if Dilip Jain
and his staff members were present in their shop.
Trisha Collection shop was open on that day and some
...297/-
Exh.1124 297 (J-SC 317/10)
persons were present in the said shop. After the
information given by Nilesh, he came out of the shop at
around 1.00 p.m. for the first time. When he came out,
Yogesh and his wife were present in the shop. He did
not make any inquiries with them. They also did not
give him any information about two persons being taken
away. So also the persons in the mobile shop did not
give any information nor did he make any inquiries with
them. Nilesh was present with him when he came out of
the shop. Nilesh was there for about 15-20 minutes. The
witness denied that, he and Nilesh did not make any
inquiries with any shops about the incident. He made
inquiries with the shop owners of the Vaishnavi
Cosmetics. Then he again went to his shop. He did not
inform any of the shop owners that Nilesh gave him
information about the incident. He had not disclosed
name of Nilesh to Advocate Gupta. The witenss denied
that, he had not disclosed name of Nilesh to Aruna
Bheda.
345. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, before the incident, he had met
Girish Nepali once or twice. He used to come with Anil
Bheda and Pandeyji. He was not acquainted with the
witness. The witness was not knowing his full name. He
did not know about his residence and profession. He
never called him and he also never called him prior to
...298/-
Exh.1124 298 (J-SC 317/10)
incident. On 11/11/06, he did not have number of
Girish Nepali. He did not call Girish Nepali on that
day. Nilesh was not knowing Girish Nepali. The witness
had business only of selling stones and no other
business. He was not into Real Estate.
346. The witness further deposed that, he had
stated to the SIT on 27/8/2009 that his friend Sawant
who worked as an Accountant came to the shop at about
12.15 p.m. Anil Bheda and his friend Pandeyji came to
his shop and as there was no place to sit in his shop
he stated they would wait outside and at about 12.40
p.m. Nilesh came to his shop. He had not stated so to
the SIT on 27/8/2009. He had not stated to the SIT on
27/8/2009 that Nilesh told him that his friend had been
taken away and he asked him how it happened and he
replied that his friend who used to regularly visit his
shop had been taken away in a Qualis vehicle by 5-6
persons and he asked if they were police persons and he
replied that the persons were wearing civil dress. He
did not state to the SIT on 27/8/2009 that after 10-15
minutes he received a phone from one Girish Nepali. He
had not stated to the SIT on 27/8/2009 that he told him
about the incident and he told him that he would
receive another phone call after some time and he
should disclose all the facts to him. He had not stated
to the SIT on 27/8/2009 that the caller from the PCO
...299/-
Exh.1124 299 (J-SC 317/10)
introduced himself as brother of Pandeyji and made
inquiries about him and so also he disclosed the
incident to him. He did not state to the SIT on
27/8/2009 that when Guptaji introduced himself as
brother of Pandeyji he again informed him about the
said incident and he asked the witness to lodge
complaint in police station. Omission pertained only to
said incident. He had not stated to the SIT on
27/8/2009 that Advocate Gupta requested to him to go to
the house of Anil Bheda and to contact with wife of
Anil Bheda. It did not happen that Advocate Gupta told
him on the phone that wife of Anil Bheda would come to
his shop and he should take her to Vashi Police station
to lodge complaint and that he declined to do so. He
had not stated to the SIT that, wife of Anil Bheda
would come to his shop and he should take her to Vashi
Police station to lodge complaint and that he declined
to do so. He did not state that he went to house of
Anil Bheda and called from his mobile to Gupta to
enable him to talk with wife of Anil Bheda and then he
stated that there was danger to the life of Anil Bheda
and Pandeyji in a fake encounter and gave him phone
numbers and fax numbers of police and he gave those
numbers to wife of Anil Bheda and thereafter after
speaking to Aruna Bheda, she asked him to wait till
5.00 p.m and then decide further course of action and
then he left.
...300/-
Exh.1124 300 (J-SC 317/10)
347. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state to the SIT on 27.8.2009 that, he went to house
of Aruna at 5.00 p.m. and made inquiries about Anil and
took her to Vashi Bus Depot as she wanted to go to
Vashi police station to lodge a complaint regarding
Anil Bheda and then he went out. Guptaji met him three
to four days after 12/11/2006 and introduced the person
with him as his cousin brother and he also was an
advocate. At that time advocate Gupta started crying
and stated that his brother was dead but he wanted to
take action against police who had killed him and asked
him to help him. He did not accede to his request.
Both stated that the witness should not worry as they
both were Advocates. The witness denied that, they also
requested him to state that Bheda and Pandeyji were
taken away in his presence and that he should be an
eye-witness to the said incident and that, they asked
him to be an eye witness. They asked him to be a
witness. The witness denied that, advocate Gupta
requested him to state that Bheda and Pandeji were
taken away in presence of other shop keepers. He did
not state to the SIT that, he knew one person by name
Avi who had come to his shop in August,2009 for gems
stones and took his visiting card and left. He had not
stated to the SIT that, his wife called him at 8.30
p.m. and told that one person by name Avi had come to
...301/-
Exh.1124 301 (J-SC 317/10)
house and he spoke with him on the phone and he
introduced himself as friend of Avi and he replied to
his query that Avi was the person who had come to his
shop in the morning and he asked him to ask Avi to call
him and that he received a phone call from PCO and he
stated that he had called for gems stones and further
he asked him how he got his residential address. He
had not stated to the SIT that, he stated that he had
been to the shop and that as the shop was closed he had
been to his house and wanted one stone urgently and he
called him at Hotel Shabri in Vashi where he came after
15-20 minutes with two other persons and stated that
they wanted to speak about the encounter of
Lakkhanbhaiyya and about Pandeyji and Anil Bheda who
had been taken away from outside his shop and case was
going to restart. He had not stated to the SIT that,
he asked who the other persons were and he told that
they were relatives of police officers and he inquired
about what help he wanted. He did not state to the SIT
that, they asked him to go to his village for some days
and that himself and Anil Bheda were witnesses and
police could make inquiries with them and he refused
as his business could be affected. He did not state
that, they stated they would call him next day morning
and accordingly he received a phone call of Avi who
asked him in the alternative to keep the shop closed
for 8-10 days and accordingly he closed his shop for
...302/-
Exh.1124 302 (J-SC 317/10)
8-10 days. He did not state to the SIT that, during
that period he received phone calls from Avi and that
he was told that if police called him he should take
time of 3-4 days. He further stated to the SIT that,
he received phone call from police on 26/08/2009 and as
per advice given by Avi he took 2-3 days time on that
day. He received a phone call from Avi and he was asked
to meet at Sanman Hotel at Nerul Railway Station to
meet advocate where he went and met advocate Falguni
and they spoke about the case and that she was not his
lawyer. He also did not state to the SIT that, she
stated that she came to discuss about the inquiry
relating to encounter and that he should disclose that
Pandeyji and Bheda had come to his shop had tea and
left and he did not know the details of the case and
that he should not disclose that Pandeyji and Bheda
were taken away from outside his shop. He did not state
to the SIT that he called DCP Mr. Prasanna next day and
that Avi arranged the Indica vehicle so that he could
go to the office of DCP and after one hour on 27/8/2009
he came down to Andheri Seepz and thereafter he
reached Powai Police Chowki in a vehicle of Advocate
Falguni along with her and then police officer Ghorpade
and Gaonkar present there, made inquiries with him.
348. The witness denied that, Advocate Gupta
requested him to file affidavit in court and that he
...303/-
Exh.1124 303 (J-SC 317/10)
refused. On 11/11/2006 Advocate Gupta did not make any
inquiries about the address of his shop nor did he
disclose the address of his shop. Even thereafter he
did not disclose the address of his shop to Advocate
Gupta. He had not disclosed to the SIT that Nilesh had
a shop next to his shop. He never showed the shop of
Mr.Nilesh to the SIT as he was never asked by the SIT.
He did not express his willingness to show the shop of
Mr.Nilesh to the SIT. He did not take the SIT to shop
of Mr.Nilesh. There was a college near his shop on the
opposite side. His shop was at a junction. People
resided opposite his shop. There was no shop in the
building next to his shop. The witness denied that,
there was a hotel in the building next to his shop.
There was a hotel and shops in the building opposite
the college.
349. The witness further deposed that, Mr. Dilip
Jain was not present in the shop on the day of
incident. The witness denied that, his shop was in the
same premises where he resided. He met Mr. Dilip Jain
on 11/11/2006 at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. He informed
Mr.Dilip Jain about the information given by Mr.Nilesh.
Mr.Dilip Jain did not make any inquiries about the
incident. The witness denied that, Mr.Anil Bheda and
Mr.Pandeji did not visit his shop on 11.11.2006 and
that there was no person by name Mr.Nilesh and that he
...304/-
Exh.1124 304 (J-SC 317/10)
did not have any shop next to his shop. The witness
further denied that, he did not meet Mr.Nilesh and he
did not disclose information on 11/11/2006 and that, he
did not disclose name of Mr.Nilesh to Aruna Bheda. The
witness denied that, the SIT and Mr.Nilesh told him to
tell that Mr.Nilesh gave the information and hence on
their say he was stating so false.
350. The witness further deposed that, the Ld.
Magistrate recorded his statement twice. At both the
times, he had not received any notice from police. On
both the occasions he was telephonically informed to go
to Court of the Ld.Magistrate. He did not remember name
of the police officer who had telephoned him, but he
was officer from the SIT. At that time, he had not been
asked to go there along with his identification proof.
At both the times, he had personally gone to the Ld.
Magistrate and talked with him and informed him that,
he had come to give his statement. At first time near
about 2 to 2.30 hours were required to record his
statement. At the second time, near about 1 to 1.30
hours were required to record his statement. At both
the times, no policeman met him either before recording
his statement or soon after recording his statement.
The constable from the SIT who was standing outside the
court was knowing that his statement had been recorded.
He did not remember whether at both the occasions the
...305/-
Exh.1124 305 (J-SC 317/10)
said constable was present. Both the times police from
the SIT had asked him whether he was ready to give
statement to the Ld. Magistrate. He did not remember
whether at the second time, he informed the Ld.
Magistrate that his statement had already been recorded
by him. His first statement was recorded by the Ld.
Magistrate was shown to him, Article 43 was the same.
It had his signature. The SIT recorded his statement on
1.2.2010. He read his statement recorded by the Ld.
Magistrate- Art.43. At that time, he had also read his
earlier statements recorded by the SIT on 27.8.2009 and
28.8.2009. The witness denied that, he had stated
portion marked A in his police statement dated
1.2.2010.
351. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the SIT again recorded his statement on
28.8.2010. At that time, the SIT had not read over his
statement. He did not remember whether on 28.8.2010 he
had stated to the police that his statement had already
been recorded on 2.2.2010. He had not stated to the
police that on 2.2.2010 he had not given any
information about person named Avi, though he was known
to him. The witness denied that, he had stated portion
marked A in his supplementary statement dated
28.8.2010. The witness further deposed that, he had not
stated before the Ld. Magistrate when his second
...306/-
Exh.1124 306 (J-SC 317/10)
statement was recorded that he knew Anil Bheda, he was
dealing in grains and as the witness was visiting Jain
Mandir regularly, he came to know him. He was working
as an agent in APMC Market, he had provided stones to
the relatives of Shri Bheda. The father in law of Anil
Bheda wanted Rudraksha Mala and hence, the witness
visited his house also in that regard. At that time he
was introduced to his wife Aruna Bheda. He also knew
one friend of Bheda by name Pandeji, who was dealing in
real estate. He had also purchased stones from the
witness. The witness on his own deposed that, at that
time he was not asked about it. So also, he had not
stated before the Ld. Magistrate that he received one
call from PCO on his mobile bearing No. 9324349531. The
witness further deposed that, at that time, he was not
asked about it. Omission is restricted only to mobile
number. He had also not stated in his second statement
before the Ld. Magistrate that he collected his
visiting card and left. The witness on his own deposed
that, at that time he was not asked about it. He had
also not stated in his second statement before
magistrate that he stated that he had been to the shop
and as shop was closed, he had been to his house. It
did not happen that, when he asked Avi as to how he
came to know his residential address, he did not reply.
He had not stated portion marked A in his second
statement before the Ld. Magistrate, Art.42. He had
...307/-
Exh.1124 307 (J-SC 317/10)
also not stated to the Ld.Magistrate in his second
statement that, he had supplied stones to friends of
Avi, Avi had a shop in market and after some days he
came to know that, his name was Santosh Shettiar. For
some days they met personally, thereafter they had
conversation on mobile phone. His mobile number was
9820261059, that his other mobile numbers were
9224394910 and 9029547613 and that the said Avi was the
local person and had come to his house and hence he did
not identify him. The witness on his own deposed that,
at that time, he was not asked about it. He had not
stated in his second statement before the Ld.
Magistrate that, he asked him who Lakhan Bhaiya was. He
had not stated in his second statement before the Ld.
Magistrate that, he asked him who were the two persons
with him, and that he stated that they were the
relatives of the police officers who were inside. He
did not state before the the Ld. Magistrate while
recording his second statement that he should go to his
village for some days and that, he was told that
himself and Anil Bheda were the witnesses in said case
and police were likely to inquire and hence he should
go to the village. The witness deposed that, this was
not asked to him. He did not state before the Ld.
Magistrate while recording his second statement that,
he received phone call from Avi, the next day morning
and that he stated that if he could not go to the
...308/-
Exh.1124 308 (J-SC 317/10)
village, he should keep his shop closed for 8 to 10
days and that he closed the shop for one week as he did
not want any hassles, that he was told that the police
wold call him and that he should take time of 3-4 days.
The witness deposed that, this was not asked to him.
He did not state before the Ld. Magistrate that, he
received a phone call from the SIT on 26.8.2009 and
that, as per say of Avi he took time 2-3 days from
them. The witness deposed that, this was not asked to
him.
352. The witness denied that, he had not stated
before the the Ld. Magistrate while recording his
second statement that, Ms. Falguni Brambhatt was not
his lawyer and that she had come there to discuss about
the police inquiry relating to the encounter and that,
he was told that he should only disclose that Pandeji
and Bheda had come to his shop, had tea and left the
shop and that, he should not disclose about the fact
that Pandeji and Bheda were taken away from outside his
shop and also that, he was to state to the police that
he did not know any details about the case. He could
not give any reason as to why the said portions did not
appear in his second statement before the the Ld.
Magistrate.
353. The witness further deposed that, he did not
...309/-
Exh.1124 309 (J-SC 317/10)
state before the Ld. Magistrate that, Adv. Falguni was
with him when his statement was recorded on 04.09.2009.
The witness on his own deposed that, Adv. Falguni was
with him at that time. He did not tell before the Ld.
Magistrate that, after recording of his first two
statements, he was in contact with Anil Bheda, on 27
th
and at the time of recording statement u/s.164 he gave
statement as stated by Avi, as he was afraid at that
time as Avi had visited his house and to protect his
family, he gave his statement as per their say. The Ld.
Magistrate recorded his statement as told by him. While
recording the statement the Ld. Magistrate did not ask
him any questions. The witness denied that, he gave his
second statement before the Ld. Magistrate (Art.42)
only under pressure of the police and that, after his
first statement, there was no progress in the
investigation and that, therefore police detained him
and obtained his second statement. The witness denied
that, he gave his false second statement before the Ld.
Magistrate because of the pressure of police and that,
he was deposing false at the instance of the police.
354. It has come in evidence of Mr.Mohandas Narayan
Sankhe (PW-39), Exh.277 that, on 11.11.2006, when he
was working as day duty PI Incharge in Versova police
station, at about 8.50 pm, accused No.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi (then PI of DN Nagar police station) came
...310/-
Exh.1124 310 (J-SC 317/10)
to his police station and stated that, he along with
his team had gone to nab wanted criminal Ramnarayan
Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya at Nana Nani Park and that, the
said criminal fired at him from revolver and hence he
fired on him from firearm with him. As Ramnarayan Gupta
was injured, he was taken to the hospital. As per his
complaint, the witness recorded FIRC.R.No.302/06-,
which bore his signature. Proforma is at Exh.278. While
recording the complaint, accused No.9 Suryawanshi
received a phone call of Mr.Sarvankar (Accused No.22).
Accused No.9 informed the witness that, the injured had
been declared dead. Thereafter, the witness called two
panchas for panchanama. Accused No.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi produced two bullet shells which he seized
and sealed under panchanama vide Exh.279. The signature
on the reverse side of typed complaint Exh.278 bore
signature of Accused No.9 vide Exh.281. Shells Art.46
colly. and Art.45 brown envelop before the Court were
the same. Entry regarding the same was at Exh.282.
355. The witness further deposed that, thereafter,
he along with Accused No.9 and two constables went to
the place of incident. He prepared a panchanama of
place of incident in presence of panchas. He introduced
Accused No.9 to the panchas. Accused Suryawanshi showed
the place of incident to him and to the panchas. The
place was near Nana Nani park on the link road,
...311/-
Exh.1124 311 (J-SC 317/10)
opposite Magnum Opus Building. Accused No.9 Suryawanshi
introduced two constables in civil dress stating that
they were deputed to protect the place of incident.
He, along with the panchas, examined the place of
incident. There was an electric pole bearing No.KBU
12061, near the place of incident. There was pool of
blood near the said pole. One revolver was also lying
near the pool of blood. Between the pool of blood and
the gate of Magnum Opus building, one empty bullet
shell was lying. They took photographs of the place of
incident with the help of a private photographer
Mr.Shrama. He took measurements of the place of
incident and position of pool of blood and other
places. He checked the cylinder of the revolver, which
was lying there. He found two cartridges and one empty
shell in the cylinder. One finger print expert by name
Sawant examined the revolver for prints. The witness
examined the revolver. It had wooden stock. He seized
the revolver, packed and sealed the same. The two live
bullets in the said revolver had hammer mark on it. It
had mark- .32 KF S & WL. He seized the bullets and
packed those separately and sealed the packet. The
empties also had hammer marks. The empties had mark .
32 KF S & WL. He seized the same, packed and sealed
the empties in different packets. Then he seized the
empty shell, which was lying on the place of incident.
It had mark KF 94 9 MM 22. He seized, packed and
...312/-
Exh.1124 312 (J-SC 317/10)
sealed the said empty shells separately.
356. The witness further deposed that, he collected
blood sample from the pool of blood lying there and
also collected bloodstained soil (earth) and plain soil
(earth) from the place of incident in different
bottles. Each of those bottles were packed and sealed
separately. Accordingly, he completed the panchanama
vide Exh.283. Art.47 white sealed packet (BL-938/06),
Art.49 revolver, Art.48 label, Art.51 colly.- shells
and Art.52 label before the court were the same. So
also, shells Art.53, bullets Art.54 colly. and labels
Art.55 before the Court were the same. The police
personnel who were in civil dresses, were Accused No.15
API Palande and Accused No.18 PSI Pattade. Then he came
back to the police station and made entry in station
diary vide Exh.285. Accordingly, accused API Sarvankar
and API Palande came to police station. Accused API
Sarvankar took out empty shell from his revolver. So
also, accused API Palande took out the empty shell from
his revolver. The shell produced by accused Sarvankar
had mark 'KF 98 380 2' and that of accused API Palande
had mark 'KF 01 380 2'. Each of the shells were packed
separately and labels were affixed. Accordingly,
panchanama was prepared in presence of panchas vide
Exh.286. An envelop Art.59, Art.60 empty shell (of
accused Palande), the label on envelop Art.61 and
...313/-
Exh.1124 313 (J-SC 317/10)
envelop before the Court were the same. So also, outer
brown packet Art.62, empty shell Art.63 (of accused
Sarvankar) and envelop Art.64 before the Court were the
same. The entry as regards to the panchanama was made
in station diary vide Exh.287. He also recorded
statements of Accused No.11 Sartape, accused no.17,
accused no.3 Kamble, accused no.16 Kadam, accused no.19
Kokam, accused no.13 Sakpal, accused no.20 Sardar and
accused no.2 Desai. So also, he recorded statements of
inquest panchas Rohidas Shinde and Birju Deonath and of
photographer Vinayak Raundal and that of
RamrajpalSingh and Manohar Kulpe. He forwarded the dead
body to J.J. PM Center from Cooper Hospital along with
ADR Form, which was signed by PSI Jadhav vide Exh.288
and request form of P.M. Exh.289. He then received
viscera from the P.M. Center.
357. It has further come in his evidence that, the
marks on the bullet read as KF .32 S & WL. Similarly,
marks on other shells were KF vide Exh.285. On
13.11.2006, he forwarded the viscera bottles that he
received and the seized articles to the FSL. He
forwarded the said property to the FSL under five
letters vide Ex.290 (hand-wash), Ex.291 (blood for
alcohol) Ex.292 (one sealed bottle of 3 bullets) Ex.
293 (blood for blood grouping). Along with these forms,
he annexed xerox of letter of JJ PM vide request letter
...314/-
Exh.1124 314 (J-SC 317/10)
dated 13.11.2006 Exh.294. He forwarded the FIR and the
documents to the Ld.M.M on 13.11.2006. He carried on
investigation till 15.11.2006. As per directions of
superiors, he handed over investigation to Dilip Patil
of Oshiwara police station. The documents were also
forwarded to Oshiwara police station. He was called by
the SIT on 21.04.2010, at 10
th
Court of Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri. His statement was
recorded by the Magistrate u/s. 164 of Cr. P. C vide
Exh.295.
358. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, Re-investigation of an offence could be directed
in cases where the complaint false or where the
investigation was not carried out properly. Such
reinvestigation generally did not take place under
fresh FIR or C.R. It was in continuity of the old FIR
and CR. The earlier investigation was part and parcel
of reinvestigation. If during the course of
reinvestigation, fresh FIR or CR was registered then
the earlier CR was required to be classified as
summary. If earlier investigation was false, it was
required to be classified as B Summary. B Summary
could also be with prosecution. The classification was
forwarded through the ACP to the Court. During the
course of his investigation, he did not come across any
evidence to doubt the genuineness and correctness of
...315/-
Exh.1124 315 (J-SC 317/10)
the information received during investigation of CR No.
302 of 2006. During his investigation, it was revealed
that, encounter took place at Nana Nani Park, Versova
and at no other place. He confirmed that the site of
the encounter was at Nana Nani Park, Versova when he
visited the said Nana Nani Park for drawing panchanama.
It was again reconfirmed from the staff of the mobile
patrol van who had taken the injured from Nana Nani
Park to Cooper Hospital.
359. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11.11.2006, ASI Madhukar Abaji
Chavan was in-charge of Mobile Patrol Van. He was
assisted by about four constables of Versova police
station namely, Kelkar, Kadam, Rane and Mane. He did
not know if their full names were Bhaskar Kelkar, Anil
Kadam, Pravin Rane and Mahindra Mane. At the time of
his investigation, he verified from those officers the
carrying of deceased Ramnarayan Gupta from Nana Nani
Park, Versova to Cooper Hospital. He had learnt from
his investigation that said mobile patrol van received
message at 08.18 pm and reached Nana Nani Park at 08.28
pm. It was revealed from his investigation that,
deceased Ramnarayan Gupta was taken from Nana Nani Park
at around 20.36 hours and reached Cooper Hospital at
about 8.57 hours. The mobile van reached Nana Nani Park
in about 10 minutes of receipt of the information.
...316/-
Exh.1124 316 (J-SC 317/10)
Whenever any injury was caused to an accused or any
victim, he should be carried preferably to the nearest
Government Hospital. The nearest Government Hospital to
Nana Nani Park was Cooper Hospital.
360. The witness further deposed that, from
11.11.2006 to 15.11.2006, when he was investigating,
Ramnarayan Gupta never approached him with a complaint
that his brother Ramnarayan Gupta was kidnapped from
Sector 9, Vashi and was eliminated in a fake encounter.
On 11.11.2006, between 8.50 pm to 10.35 pm, Ramprasad
Gupta did not approach him at Versova police station.
During this period, no constable from Versova police
station approached him stating that Ramprasad Gupta had
come to the police station regarding this case. During
this period, no advocate on behalf of Ramprasad Gupta
approached him regarding this case. He left Versova
police station to go to Nana Nani Park, Versova for
drawing panchanama at 10.45 pm. The entire process of
drawing panchanama and seizure at the place of incident
took place till 1.35 am. He himself, the panchas and
other constables of his police station were present at
the place of incident from 11 pm to 1.35 am. He had
mentioned names of all the officers and the panchas in
Exh.283. Between 11 pm on 11.11.2006 to 1.35 am on
12.11.2006, he did not see Ramprasad Gupta or any of
his advocate at the place of incident. During that
...317/-
Exh.1124 317 (J-SC 317/10)
period, he was also not approached by Ramprasad Gupta
or his advocate. He did not see Ramprasad Gupta or any
of his representatives taking a video clipping or
photographs with the help of mobile. He called the
panchas of Exh.283 at the spot through a constable and
they were present till 1.35 am. The Panchas left the
spot after completion of the panchanama and taking
signatures on panchanama Exh.283. He recorded
statements of Madhukar Chavan and four constables of
patrol van.
361. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, investigation revealed that, accused
no.9 had received secret information that a member of
Chhota Rajan Gang who was involved in offences of
murder, robbery, extortion etc. and such other serious
offences, was to come at Nana Nani Park to meet his
associates. It was revealed that, accused no.9
forwarded this information immediately to his superior.
It was further revealed that, PI Suryawanshi received
information that this person was an extremely dangerous
person. It was also revealed that, Sr. Police Officer
of Versova police station instructed accused no.9 to
form a team consisting of accused nos.11,17 and 19. It
was also revealed that, accused no.9 called team
members to his chamber and introduced team members,
accused no.13, accused no.15, accused no.18 and accused
...318/-
Exh.1124 318 (J-SC 317/10)
no.22 and other staff of DN Nagar police station. It
was further revealed that, accused no.9 gave
description of the person who was to come to Nana Nani
Park to the team members. PI Surywanshi and others
prepared a plan as to how to carry out the operation.
The said team left the police station at 6.55 pm armed
with service weapons for the said operation. It was
also revealed that, accused no.9 made two teams. At
about 8.10 pm, one rickshaw came near the electric pole
from Versova and stopped and one person got down from
the said auto rickshaw. The said person was loitering
near the place and informant of accused no.9 pointed
out at the said person being an associate of Chhota
Rajan gang. It was further revealed that, at that time
accused no.9 signalled presence of the said person to
his two teams and as decided the two teams proceeded to
accost the said person. The said person sensed police
presence and he took out a revolver from his waist and
pointed it towards accused no.9. It was also revealed
that, at that time, accused no.9 warned the said person
stating, ==|+ r= +|=ln |= r ! +| = +| ! Please surrender. It
was also revealed during investigation that, the said
person did not heed to the caution and fired in the
direction of accused no.9. Thereafter, the said person
fired in the direction of second team. Then accused no.
22 called out stating that, ==|+ = +| = +| ! r= +|=ln |= r !
before the second shot was fired by the said person. It
...319/-
Exh.1124 319 (J-SC 317/10)
was also revealed that, from those two shots fired, the
police officers felt immediate threat to life of the
police officers and public nearby and for the safety of
the people around and to accost the accused, accused
no.9 fired two rounds at the said person, as there was
no option. It was also revealed that, second team
fired two rounds towards the said person. Total five
shots were fired at the said place towards Lakhan.
Fifth shot was fired by accused no.11. Lakhan was
injured and fell down and there was weapon in his hand.
When the said person fell down, the weapon fell off his
hand. At that time, the team members went near the said
person and found that he was injured and bleeding and
hence they made a call to the mobile patrol van.
362. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it was also revealed during
investigation that, request to the people around to
carry the said person to hospital was turned down by
them. Two such persons who were approached for help
were, Ram Rajpal Singh and Manohar Kulpe. It was also
revealed that, those two persons were the same persons
whose names were revealed by the officers who have
witnessed and being present at the time of incident. It
was confirmed during investigation that, Lakhanbhaiya
fired on the police team. Generally identification
marks were put on the property itself besides the
...320/-
Exh.1124 320 (J-SC 317/10)
identification marks being put on the labels/ packets
containing the property. Such marking was not made on
the property. He did not put any marking on any of the
four empty shells produced by accused no.9, accused no.
15 and accused no.22 to facilitate identification as to
which empty was produced by which person. The witness
denied that, if any empty shells were shown to him, he
could not identify from whom the said shells were
seized. He would be able to identify the same only with
reference to the panchanama. The marking on the shell
KF pertained to Khadki Factory, .38 was the caliber and
98 was the year of manufacture. All the bullets
manufactured by Khadki Factory of .38 caliber in 1998
would bear the same marking. Thousands of bullets with
similar markings were released to the forces.
363. Further cross examination discloses that,
after coming back from the place of incident and
seizure of empties from accused no.9, it was revealed
during investigation that, accused no.9 had fired in
self defence. After coming back from the place of
incident and at the time of production of empties by
accused no.15 and accused no.22, it was revealed during
investigation that, only these two officers besides
accused no.9 had fired in self defence. Whenever an
encounter occurs, special report is to be forwarded by
the police station to superior officers. In this case,
...321/-
Exh.1124 321 (J-SC 317/10)
he had forwarded special report to DCP Mr.Chaube. The
witness denied that, the said report was forwarded for
verification as to the encounter. According to him, it
was forwarded only by way of information. The report
was transmitted through the police station to DCP
Mr.Chaube. He would have to verify if DCP Mr.Chaube
came to the police station to verify the contents of
the special report regarding this case and that there
was a station diary to that effect.
364. Further cross examination discloses that,
Maharashtra Police Manual, Schedule 15 Rule 150 (3),
sub-rule 6 pertained to sealing of samples and not
relating to the sealing of other property. The bottle
containing bullets received from JJ Hospital had wax
seal on it. He could not open the bottle to examine
the bullets. The witness denied that, he could see the
bullets from the glass container. He saw the packet
which came from JJ Hospital containing bullets. He did
not see the glass bottle. He did not open the packet
and see the contents. From the time the property was
received from the hospital, till it was forwarded to
the FSL, it was the property of the police station.
All properties of the police station were required to
be entered into Muddemal Register. He did not remember
if entries regarding the property received from JJ
Hospital was made in Muddemal Register. If the entries
...322/-
Exh.1124 322 (J-SC 317/10)
were made, those would be made in the Muddemal Register
of Versova police station. After checking the registers
at Versova police station, he could state if such entry
was made in station diary and / or Muddemal Register.
After seeing the station diary entry dated 12.11.2006
the witness deposed that, such entry was not available
in the station diary register. The Muddemal entry nos.
148/06 and 149/06 stated in Exhs.285 and 287
respectively were made on his instructions. Those
station diary entries were made after the entries were
made in Muddemal register. The muddemal entry no.147/06
stated in Exh.282 was made on his instructions. The
Muddemal register entry pertaining to the articles
received from JJ Hospital would be after Muddemal entry
no.149/06. After the muddemal entry was made, the
property was kept in custody of the officer in-charge
of Muddemal. The muddemal register entry number was
also noted on the packet of the said muddemal for
subsequent retrieval of the said property. The
forwarding letter contained description of the property
forwarded to the FSL. The witness denied that, muddemal
register entry number was required to be made on the
forwarding letter if it was so marked on the packet. On
perusal of Exh.290 to Exh.293, it did not reveal that
any muddemal register entry number was put on the
packet.
...323/-
Exh.1124 323 (J-SC 317/10)
365. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Exhs.290, 291 and 292 were prepared on
12.11.2006, but were sent on 13.11.2006 at 3 pm.
Accordingly, station diary entry was made vide Exhs.297
and 297A. Exh.297 denotes going of the staff of Versova
police station from Versova police station to the FSL
with muddemal in this case. The witness denied that, on
12.11.2006, he handed over Exh.290, Exh.291 and the
muddemal to the police mentioned in Exh.297. He did not
withdraw the property from the Muddemal on 13
th
, as the
property was in his custody between 12.11.2006 to
13.11.2006. He did not make any entry in the station
diary or in investigation papers that he was holding
the property received from JJ Hospital. He did not make
any entry in the Muddemal register that the property
which was received from JJ Hospital was in his custody.
He did not have any authority to hold the property
between 12.11.2006 to 13.11.2006. The witness, on his
own, deposed that, he did not require any authority as
he was I.O. He denied that, he withheld these
properties in his custody in departure to the regular
procedure adopted in the police station. Witness on his
own deposed that, it was Sunday and hence he kept it in
his custody. He had not taken any acknowledgment of
receipt of the said articles by ASI Patade. The Outward
No. of Exhs. 290 to 293 was same. He did not remember
if Exhs.290 to 292 were prepared at the same time.
...324/-
Exh.1124 324 (J-SC 317/10)
Except description of the property, all other contents
of Exhs.290 to 293 were the same. Exhs.290 to 293 were
prepared under his supervision in his presence. He had
dictated it and the writer typed it. He only changed
description of the article and prepared the subsequent
letters. As the property was to be sent on 13
th
, Exh.293
was dated 13
th
. When he prepared Exhs.290 to 292, he
knew that the property was to be forwarded on 13
th
. Exh.
297 was written by Duty Officer PSI Mr.Pradhan. He did
not verify if Exh.297 was made correctly. The station
diary entry Exh.297, did not bear the date or outward
number 6522/2006 of Exhs.290 to 293. The station diary
entry did not reveal complete address of the addressee.
Exh.297 did not reveal number of packets sent to
Kalina.
366. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the number of rounds taken by an
officer, either from the police station or from armoury
was noted against his name. His signature was also
taken on such endorsement. Whenever the rounds were
returned by the officer, such endorsement was also
taken. The officer did not sign when he returned the
rounds but the person who received the said rounds,
signed on such endorsement. If any round was used, the
said officer had to give explanation as to where the
said round was used. Station diary entry was made
...325/-
Exh.1124 325 (J-SC 317/10)
relating to the use of the round by the officer. All
the details including FIR number was noted in such
station diary. He had not put any special
identification mark on the single shell found at the
place of incident on 11.11.2006. 9 mm was caliber of
the gun. The 94 could be the year of manufacturing.
He did not know for what 2Z stood for. Thousands of
bullets bearing mark KF 9 MM 94 2 Z were given to the
police force. If two shells of the same mark were shown
to him, he could not differentiate between the two.
Same would be with respect to '.38' shells. On
11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006 throughout he was at the
police station.
367. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the entries in Exhs.298 to 300, V3-
pages 97 to 99 were correct. Station diary entry no.14
pertained to registration of offence bearing C.R. No.
302 after complaint of accused no.9 was recorded.
Contents of the same were correct. Exh.301 (V3-page 83)
photocopy was marked as Exh.301A. As the bullets which
were recovered from the revolver found at the place of
incident had hammer marks on it, it implied that the
said bullets were attempted to be fired but they did
not fire. It was revealed that, some offences were
pending against the deceased. His statement Exh.302 was
recorded before the District Magistrate.
...326/-
Exh.1124 326 (J-SC 317/10)
368. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, this was the only case which he had
investigated in which cross firing was involved. The
weapons involved in cross firing were considered as
property involved in that case. When he received
information about the case in CR 302 of 2006, all the
weapons involved in this case were property in that
case. When FIR was lodged in CR No.302 of 2006, the
name of accused no.11 was not disclosed by the
complainant as the person who fired the gun. The
witness denied that, he did not receive information
while recording FIR that accused no.11 was not in the
team. After seizure of articles 49, 51 and 54 on that
day, he deposited it with the Muddemal of police
station and on the next day, he forwarded it to the
FSL. He had forwarded it to the FSL mainly for two
reasons that whether the revolver was in working
condition and if the bullets were live bullets. The
witness denied that, by working condition meant he had
sent the said revolver, Art.49, to ascertain if it was
fired as stated in the complaint of CR No.302/06. He
did not seize the arms of accused no.11. He did not
make any efforts to collect scientific evidence as to
whether the weapon of accused no.11 was used or not.
The entries Exhs.282, 285, 287 and 297 pertained to
investigation carried out by him in CR No.302 of 2006.
...327/-
Exh.1124 327 (J-SC 317/10)
He had not made station diary entry regarding recording
of statements in CR No.302/06. He had written crime
report about the investigation carried out by him in CR
No.302/06 between 11.11.2006 to 15.11.2006 and the
same had been countersigned by his superior officers.
369. It has come in evidence of Smt. Aruna Anil
Bheda (PW-40), Exh.305 that, in the year 2006, she was
residing at C-45, Room No.1, Sector 29, Diamond CHS,
Vashi on rental basis with her husband Anil Jethalal
Bheda and son Parth, who was studying in St. Mary's
School. Earlier her husband Anil was working as a
trading agent in APMC, but as he suffered losses in
said business, he started doing real estate business.
Anil Bheda had two friends namely, Pandeyji @
Ramnarayan and Dhiraj Mehta. Both of them were also
carrying on business of real estate. Dhiraj Mehta was
also conducting business of selling stones relating to
zodiac signs. Pandeyji and Dhiraj Mehta used to visit
her house in relation to property dealing therefore,
she knew them personally. On 11.11.2006, her husband
was at home and she had been to the school with her son
at 9.30 am. She returned home at 10.45 am. She met her
husband and Pandeyji at the building gate when she was
returning home. They informed that, they were going to
Maruti temple and hence, Pandeyji, her husband Anil
along with her son left in an auto rickshaw. They
...328/-
Exh.1124 328 (J-SC 317/10)
returned back at 11.30 am. Then at 12.15 pm, her
husband and Pandeyji left the house, stating that, they
were going to refill mobile and that further they would
be going to Dhiraj Mehta for property deals. At that
time, her husband had a mobile of Reliance Company
having number 9323053863. At about 2.30 p.m., Dhiraj
hurriedly came to her house and stated that, 4-5
persons took away Anil and Pandeyji in a Qualis Vehicle
from outside the shop. This information was given to
him by shop owners adjacent to his shop. Dhiraj also
told her that, he received a phone call of one Girish
Nepali and that he had informed the incident to him. So
also, he received a phone call from brother of Pandeyji
by name Gupta. He stated that he had informed Gupta
about the incident.
370. Dhiraj further told her that, Guptaji told him
to immediately lodge a police complaint. Dhiraj told
her that he had informed Guptaji that he would contact
her and then decide further course of action. Then
Dhiraj came to her house. At that time also, he
received a phone call from Gupta. Dhiraj handed over
his phone to the witness. Then she talked with Mr.
Gupta. Mr. Gupta (the complainant) informed her that
along with his brother, Anil Bheda's (the husband of
the witness) life was in danger. The complainant asked
her to fax Higher Officials and further stated that, he
...329/-
Exh.1124 329 (J-SC 317/10)
was apprehending that they would be killed in a false
encounter and gave her names and addresses of officers
whom she should fax. She discussed with Dhiraj. At 5
pm, Dhiraj came back to her house and asked if she had
received any information about Anil Bheda. At about
6.00 to 6.30 p.m., Dhiraj left her behind Vashi depot
on his motor cycle. Then she alone went to Vashi police
station and lodged a complaint about her husband Anil
Jethalal Bheda. The police registered a missing
complaint bearing No.51/06. Her statement was recorded
vide Exh.306. Missing complaint was at Exh.307.
Thereafter at 9.30 pm, she gave photograph of her
husband Anil to Vashi police vide Exh.308. On the next
day i.e. on 12.11.2006, in the morning, she read the
Gujarati newspaper and learnt that, Pandeyji @
Ramnarayan had been killed in a police encounter.
Therefore, she called Dhiraj Mehta and informed him
about the news of encounter. On advise of Dhiraj
Mehta, at 11.30 am, she went to Vashi police station
and inquired about the missing complaint she had
lodged. There she met Sr. Officer Mr. D.B. Patil. At
about 5 p.m., she and her brother in law Dhiraj Bheda
and his wife went to police station to make inquiry
about her husband Anil Bheda. At that time, her husband
Anil Bheda came to the police station. Sr. Inspector of
DB Marg police station called them in his chamber and
made inquiry. Their statements also came to be
...330/-
Exh.1124 330 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded. Her husband Anil Bheda informed her what had
happened on 11.11.2006. Then they both sat in a Qualis
Vehicle. There were two policemen in plainclothes in
the said vehicle. They went to her house and took some
clothes and her son Parth and again sat in the said
vehicle. Then she went to her parents' house at
Ghatkopar, Bhatwadi and she and her husband and two
policemen had been to Bhatwadi. The plainclothes
policemen examined the said house. They locked the
rear door from inside. Two other constables came for
night shift to her house. After the two constables
arrived, the earlier two police left the house. The
night shift constables were sitting in the outer room
of the house of her parents. The Qualis vehicle was
parked in front of the house of neighbors. The
policemen used to take away Anil Bheda saying that,
they were taking Anil to DN Nagar police station. The
said two plainclothes policemen were accused no.2 and
accused no.3. Accused nos.2 and 3 had given their
mobiles nos. to her. Mobile No.9870341323 was of
accused Desai and 9870213457 was of accused Ratnakar
Kamble. Her husband returned back home at 6.30 pm in
the said Qualis vehicle. He stated that, he was going
out for some period. Then she, her husband Anil and son
went to Kolhapur in the same Qualis vehicle. At that
time, she, her husband, her son, driver and one more
person were present.
...331/-
Exh.1124 331 (J-SC 317/10)
371. Then they went to Sion and then took bus of
Konduskar and went to Kolhapur. They reached Kolhapur
on 14.11.2006 at 6 am. They stayed in a hotel. They
stayed in Room No.102 and the person who accompanied
them stayed in Room No.103. His name was Hitesh Solanki
@ Dabbu (accused No.5). At about 10-10.30 am, she, her
husband, son and accused No.5 Hitesh Solanki took
darshan of Goddess Mahalaxmi. Her husband and accused
No.5 went to the Court of Battis Shirala, where a case
was pending against her husband. They were in Kolhapur
for 4-5 days. Then they came back to Ghatkopar in the
bus of Konduskar. After sometime, her husband and
accused No.5 went to DN Nagar police station. She
received a telephone call from her husband stating
that, as there was danger to his life, he could not
come home and that he was going to reside in a hotel at
Andheri(W) and she was asked to contact him on the
telephones of accused Nos.2 and 3. She used to call her
husband on the numbers given of accused nos.2 and 3.
During the said period, she was residing with her
parents at Ghatkopar. Her son was studying in a school
at Vashi. He was absent from the school during that
period. Her husband Anil returned back in December and
after 2-3 days, they went back to her house at Vashi on
15.12.2006.
...332/-
Exh.1124 332 (J-SC 317/10)
372. The witness further deposed that, while they
were staying at Vashi, complainant Gupta and his
brother came to her house and inquired about clothes or
money of Pandeji with them. Her husband informed Mr.
Gupta what had happened on 11.11.2006 in her presence.
Mr.Gupta informed her about a Writ Petition in the
Hon'ble High Court. Her husband told that, there was
danger to his life as well as to her life and that of
their son, hence they would not approach the Hon'ble
High Court. They received phone call from accused No.5,
who asked them to leave the said place and further
asked them to change the area. Therefore, on
31.12.2006, they shifted to premises at JN 2/21,
Mahalaxmi Society, Vashi. Her statement was recorded
by the SIT on 3.9.2009. Again, on 5.1.2010, she, along
with her husband went to Andheri Court. Two advocates
and Shri Chalke of the SIT were with them. Accused No.
5 had engaged the said advocates. Her statement was
recorded by the Magistrate vide Exh.310. On 20.1.2010,
she and her husband went to Thane Jail for test
Identification Parade. Police officer Mr. Ghorpade and
Magistrate Mr. Rane were present there. In the parade,
she identified accused No.5 as he had taken them to
Kolhapur and had stayed with them for four days. She
also identified accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said test
Identification Parade as they had accompanied them from
...333/-
Exh.1124 333 (J-SC 317/10)
Vashi police station to her house and from her house to
Ghatkopar, Bhatwadi. On 25.3.2010, the SIT called her
and her husband at Kolhapur at the place where they
were staying. They went to Majestic Hotel at Kolhapur
on 27.3.2010. Mr. Ghorpade and two panchas were present
there. They examined passenger diary. There was entry
in the name of Rakesh Shah pertaining to room no.116
dated 14.11.2006 till 17.11.2006. Accordingly, her
statement was recorded. Her husband was receiving
threats as he was witness in this case. He was
threatened so that he should not support the
prosecution and not to attend the Court and give his
evidence.
373. On 13.03.2011 after 11.15 a.m., some unknown
persons kidnapped her husband. She made complaint in
Vashi police station on the same day. Police registered
an offence bearing No.124/11 vide Exh.312. Thereafter,
she preferred a petition before the Hon'ble High Court
bearing No.754/11. She received a letter at Bhatwadi
address on 20.4.2011 vide envelop Exh.313 and letter
Art.65. On receipt of the said letter, she gave an
application to the Commissioner of Police at Vashi to
grant her police protection. Her husband was the main
witness in the encounter case of Lakhanbhaiyya and he
was kidnapped, hence she sensed danger to her life.
Officer from the SIT Mr. Chalke had been to her house
...334/-
Exh.1124 334 (J-SC 317/10)
and showed her one CD and on it there was writing about
conversation between Anil and unknown person. The
officer played the said C.D. on his laptop. She heard
the conversation, which was recorded. The voice of one
of the two persons in the conversation was of her
husband Anil Bheda. Her husband used to record the
conversations by which threats were given and her
husband used to play the said conversations to her.
The said threats were received on 11.3.2011 and
12.3.2011. Her husband Anil played the said
conversations on 11th and 12th. The CD(Art.67) played
before her in the Court. The CD was opened. It
contained 10 files. The file by name 031111441500 was
played. The 'wah gav me gaya hai' was in the voice of
Anil Bheda. In the said conversation the first voice
was of unknown person and the reply was by her husband.
So also, file name 031114160500 was played. The
conversation 'Mai kidhar Koparkhairane me raheta hu'
and 'Anilbhai konsa kapada pahene hai ye mereko kaisa
malum padega' were in the voice of Anil Bheda. In the
said conversation the first voice was of Anil Bheda and
the reply was by unknown person.
374. Likewise, file name 031115382800 was played.
The voice calling to Koparkhairane was of Anil Bheda.
In the said conversation the second voice was of Anil
Bheda and the first voice was of unknown person. File
...335/-
Exh.1124 335 (J-SC 317/10)
name 031123032200 was played. In the said conversation
the first voice was of Anil Bheda and the second voice
was of unknown person. File name 031211341900 was
played. In the said conversation the second voice was
of Anil Bheda and the first voice was of unknown
person. The louder voice was of Anil Bheda. File name
031211353200 was played. In the said conversation the
second voice was of Anil Bheda and the first voice was
of unknown person and so on. The louder voice was of
Anil Bheda. File name 031213175400 was played. In the
said conversation the first voice was of Anil Bheda and
the second voice was of unknown person. The louder
voice was of Anil Bheda. In conversation Kya bola was
in the voice of her husband and thereafter of unknown
person. File name 031220125400 was played. In the said
conversation the second voice was of Anil Bheda and the
first voice was of unknown person. File name
031220402300 was played. In the said conversation the
second voice was of Anil Bheda and the first voice was
of unknown person.
375. The witness further deposed that, after 13
th
when her husband was kidnapped she did not see him
thereafter. On 21.7.2011, a report was filed in the
Hon'ble High Court stating that, one body was found of
which DNA matched with that of Anil Bheda. Her
statement was recorded by the SIT. Vodafone was the
...336/-
Exh.1124 336 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile service provider of her husband on which the
above phone calls were received. The mobile no. was
9833676351. The said mobile handset was with her
husband when he was kidnapped. On 12.11.2006, outside
Vashi police station her husband Anil Bheda informed
her that, Pradeep Sharma's men had taken him and his
friend Pandeji in a Qualis vehicle from Vashi Sector-9.
Then they were taken to Andheri DN Nagar police
station. He was produced before Mr. Sharma. He
further told her that, Pandeji was killed in an
encounter and that police officer by name A.T. Patil
mediated on his behalf and hence he was released. That
time, one Qualis vehicle was standing at a distance and
he told her that they have to go in the said vehicle.
There were two policemen in plainclothes named Desai
and Rattu.
376. The witness further deposed during re-
examination that, affidavit Exh.335 was given to her by
Accused no.5. She did not have land-line connection on
11.11.2006. Anil was acquitted in the case of Battis
Shirala. She went to sector 9 and sector 15 on
13.3.2010 by different routes. She did not remember if
she informed while recording Exh.310 that Mr. Chalke
was with her on that day. She did not state that Mr.
Chalke came with her to Andheri Court while recording
Exh.310. She remembered mobile no. of accused no.5,
...337/-
Exh.1124 337 (J-SC 317/10)
which was 9820995118.
377. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, she was married to Anil Bheda in 1988. It was an
arranged marriage. At that time, Anil Bheda was
residing at Borivali with his grandmother, parents, two
sisters and younger brother. At that time, she was
residing with her parents, elder brother and younger
brother and sister. Both the families were resident of
Mumbai. In 2006 also both the families were resident in
Mumbai and were in contact with one another. At the
time of marriage, Anil Bheda was working on sale
counter of Grain Merchant at Masjid Bunder. After
marriage, they were residing in Mumbai at Borivali. He
was working there for 56 years till the market shifted
to APMC. Thereafter, he was also serving in APMC after
break of 23 months. Thereafter, he received a
partnership offer and he continued the business in
partnership. He was dealing in business of food-grains
for a period of about 5-6 years. Because of partnership
dispute, the said business was closed down and
subsequently Anil started dealing in real estate. She
could not state the exact year since when Anil was
working or carrying on business in APMC. She could not
even approximately state the period till which he was
carrying on business in APMC and the exact year in
which he started real estate business. The witness
...338/-
Exh.1124 338 (J-SC 317/10)
denied that, Anil was dealing in food-grains in APMC
market in the year 2006. She did not know Bharat Singh
Ramsingh Rajput. Hence, she could not say if Anil Bheda
was carrying on business with him. The witness denied
that, Anil Bheda used to purchase foodgrains from said
Bharat Singh and sell it further in 2006. She did not
know if a case was registered with regard to the
dealings of foodgrains between Bharat Singh and Anil
Bheda and also that, if it was alleged that Anil Bheda
purchased stolen foodgrains from Bharat Singh and sold
it to one Mohd. Batatawala. She did not know if the
said case was registered in Sangli. One case was
registered against Anil at Sangli but she did not know
its details. She was not having any knowledge of the
business activities of her husband. She did not know if
all the income was being deposited in bank by Anil. The
money which he earned was being handed over to his
parents. She did not know if he was paying Income tax
and if he had a PAN card. She did not know with whom he
was dealing in his business of real estate. She did not
know if her husband was buying and selling properties
or if he was buying properties and selling them after
developing the properties. Anil had suffered losses in
the partnership business as after the dispute, partners
left and Anil had to bear all the losses. She did not
remember the quantum of losses. She came to know about
the loss suffered from the family members. Her husband
...339/-
Exh.1124 339 (J-SC 317/10)
did not inform her that he had suffered loss. He was
not carrying on business of real estate in any specific
name. He carried on real estate business for 45 years.
He was not successful in the real estate business also.
Inspite of not being successful, he continued to carry
on real estate business for 45 years. Being not
successful meant not earning properly. They shifted to
Navi Mumbai in the year 1999 or 2000. He started real
estate business after they shifted to Vashi. They
shifted from Borivali to Vashi. The house at Borivali
was of his parents. She did not know on what basis the
house at Vashi was taken. She was being paid about
5000/- rupees per month for domestic expenses. He was
earning more than 5000/- rupees per month, when they
shifted to Vashi. She did not know in which year Anil
and Pandeyji got together and degree of relationship
between Anil and Pandeyji and also in which year Anil
and Dhiraj Mehta became friends. She met Dhiraj Mehta
after they shifted to Vashi. She met Dhiraj through
her husband Anil. She also met Pandeyji through her
husband Anil. She was introduced to Pandeyji as another
person who was dealing in real estate. The witness
denied that, Anil and Pandeyji were carrying on real
estate business together. She met Pandeyji for the
first time while returning from Open day of her son at
the gate of their building. Anil was with Pandeyji at
that time. They were leaving the building. They were
...340/-
Exh.1124 340 (J-SC 317/10)
standing outside the gate. Pandeyji along with Anil
Bheda used to visit her house with relation to real
estate business. Pandeyji used to visit once or twice
every month. She did not know if Anil was meeting
Pandeyji outside. The witness denied that, Pandeyji
and Anil Bheda together used to meet regularly in the
office of Dhiraj and that, Anil and Pandeyji used to
regularly conduct their business together from the
shop of Dhiraj. Pandeyji had his own mobile phone. She
did not know if Dhiraj had his own mobile. 9324378877
was mobile number of Pandeyji. This mobile was first of
Anil and he had given it to Pandeyji. This was informed
to her by Anil. She asked Anil why he had given his
mobile number to Pandeyji but Anil refused by refusing
her interference in his business. There were
commercial premises around her building. The witness
on her own deposed that there were one or two
commercial premises. Till 2006, the commercial premises
and residential premises increased. The witness denied
that, she was residing in the same house in 2006 when
she came down to Vashi in the year 1999-2000. She
resided in the house for a period of three years 1999
to 2000 and then they shifted to another house where
they stayed for a period of one year. Again they
shifted their residence and stayed there for one year
and they shifted to another residence in the year 2006.
In November 2006, she was residing in sector 29. Shop
...341/-
Exh.1124 341 (J-SC 317/10)
of Dhiraj was in sector 9. It took about 5-10 minutes
from sector 29 to reach sector 9 by auto rickshaw. It
was about 2530 minutes by walk. There were many
commercial premises on the way from sector 29 to sector
9. she did not know if there were shops selling mobile
phones, SIM cards and recharge vouchers on the way from
sector 29 to sector 9. There could be such shops. When
they shifted to Vashi, her son Parth was about 2-3
years old. She did not know which school he went
first. In 2006, he was studying in St. Mary's School.
She did not remember in which year he was admitted in
St. Mary's School. The said school was in sector no.
10. Till 2006, Parth was studying in the same school.
She did not know if it was a practice to give an
application to the Principal for taking leave from the
school. The witness denied that, if a student remained
absent then written leave note was forwarded to the
Principal. The witness on her own deposed that, she
used to personally go to the school.
378. The witness further deposed that, not even one
deal was finalized by her husband either independently
or along with Pandeyji and/or Dhiraj Mehta in the real
estate business. Anil had no other business source than
real estate business. She asked Anil from where he got
the said amount. Anil informed that he received the
amount from his elder brother, Pravinbhai who was then
...342/-
Exh.1124 342 (J-SC 317/10)
expired. Pravinbhai used to make suitcase covers.
Pravinbhai had his wife and one daughter. He expired in
2007 or 2008. Anil did not leave any savings. Her
parents were maintaining her. They were getting income
from rent of shop. She did not know what income they
received. She was never informed by Anil that his
brother was paying the amount for domestic expenses to
Anil. She came to know of the said fact after death of
Pravinbhai. That fact was disclosed when they all
relations were having discussion. She could not state
specifically as to who disclosed this fact first. Since
last 5-6 months, the relatives of Anil have cut off
their relations with her. She did not know if Anil knew
the source of income of Pandeyji. She was introduced to
Pandeyji as Pandeyji by Anil. She did not know if
Pandeyji was accused in case in Thane Nagar police
station of dacoity, in Deonar police station relating
to robbery, in Wagle Estate police station relating to
dacoity, in Chembur Crime Branch, L.T Marg police
station with relation to Chhota Rajan Gang, Sewree
police station in 1989, 1994 of Kasturba Marg police
station for possessing illegal Arms, in 1995 in Dahisar
police station, in 1997 at Wadala police station u/s.
302 of IPC, in Sewree in 1997 u/s. 302 of IPC, in 1997
at Kalamboli police station under Arms Act and u/s. 302
of IPC. She had learnt about these cases against
Pandeyji that day for the first time. She also learned
...343/-
Exh.1124 343 (J-SC 317/10)
that day for the first time about alleged links of
Pandeyji with Chhota Rajan gang. On being asked, after
getting to know about the past history of Pandeyji and
his affiliation to Chhota Rajan gang, did it occur to
her that day that her husband was associated with
Pandeyji having a criminal background, the witness
answered that, it was not proper.
379. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember in which sector she was residing in 2003 and
also the address where she was residing in 2003. She
did not remember Shailesh Khandare. She did not hear
name of Shailesh Khandare from Anil in 2003. She did
not remember if a case bearing CR 71/2003 dated
17.4.2003 was registered at Kasturba Marg police
station by GB CB CID for alleged offences u/s. 420,
465, 467, 468 471, 474 with 120 (B) against Anil. She
only knew that one case was registered against Anil.
She did not know if the case pertained to obtaining of
loan from State Bank of India of Rs.18 lacs. She did
not know if Shailesh Khandare was co-accused with her
husband in that case. In this case, Anil was arrested
and subsequently he was released on bail. She did not
make any arrangement of legal assistance for bail. His
elder brother Pravinbhai made necessary arrangements.
After he was released on bail, she came to know in what
case he was in jail. It did not occur to her that her
...344/-
Exh.1124 344 (J-SC 317/10)
husband was doing such kind of real estate business.
She did not know if Anil was knowing Pandeyji in 2003.
She did not remember if there was discussion between
herself, Pandeyji and Anil with regard to this case.
She did not know if the said case was still pending.
He did not inform that he had been acquitted from this
case. She did not know in which bank account the said
sum of Rs.18 lacs was deposited. She did not know the
premises flat no.504, Jai Neptune CHS, Neptune Bldg.,
Mid Chowky, Malad, Marve Road, Malad(W), Mumbai. Her
husband did not mention any fact of taking loan for
purchase of said flat. She had never heard the above
address. She had never heard address A-5/19, Worli Sea
Road Society, A.G Khan road, Worli, Mumbai-18. She did
not know if a case was registered bearing CR No.
104/2003 by MRA Marg police station for taking loan
fraudulently of Rs.11 lacs from LIC and accordingly
offence was registered u/s.465, 467, 468, 471, 474,
420 and 120 (B) of IPC against Anil. She did not know
Satish Shantaram Desai, Area Manager, LIC Housing
Finance Ltd., fourth floor, Jivan Prakash Bldg., D.N.
Road, Mumbai. She did not meet him anytime in April
2001. She did not remember if she met Satish Desai in
August 2002. The witness denied that, she along with
Anil had gone to office of Satish Desai in August 2002
for taking loan of Rs.11 lacs. She did not know if loan
was asked for purchase of property of flat no.504, Jai
...345/-
Exh.1124 345 (J-SC 317/10)
Neptune CHS, Neptune Bldg., Mid chowky, Malad Marve
Road, Malad (W), Mumbai. The witness denied that, she
along with her husband submitted agreement of sale and
asked for loan of Rs.11 lacs. She did not remember if
loan was sanctioned in name of Shailesh Khandare and
she along with Anil collected the said loan and she
signed the voucher no.1533 along with her husband.
380. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, she did not know if Anil had assured
LIC Housing Finance to pay monthly EMI of Rs.10,000 for
240 months. She did not know if offence bearing C.R.No.
19/03 was registered by Economic Offneces Wing, Crime
Branch, CID, Unit-1, Crowford Market. She was not
called by MRA Marg police station in CR No.104/03 to
record her statement. The witness denied that, Anil was
conducting business of food-grains under name and style
Parth Traders in Shop No.N-13, APMC market, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai. In the year 2003, Anil Bheda had asked from
UCO Bank, cash credit facility of Rs.75,00,000/-
against food-grain stock. She did not know if in the
document submitted to UCO Bank, it was disclosed that
Anil Bheda had account in State Bank of Hyderabad,
Vashi and Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank, Vashi. She did not
know Manish Mehta, Nimesh Mehta and Darpan Mehta. She
did not know if from these three persons Anil had
purchased by agreement dated 13.7.2001, flat at
...346/-
Exh.1124 346 (J-SC 317/10)
Lousiana premises CHS. She did not know if on
verification it was found that Anil possessed
negligible food-grain stock. UCO Bank registered
offence against Anil and Vinod Mehta at Katurba Marg
police station and in all the four cases, Anil was
arrested and released on bail. When Anil was arrested
she got knowledge in which case he was being arrested.
She also knew, when bail was granted, in which of the
cases out of these four, he was granted bail. She did
not know if in all these four cases, charge sheet had
been filed and cases were pending in the court. She did
not know if Anil was giving attendance to police
station after release on bail. The witness denied that,
when these cases were registered, she and Anil knew
Pandeyji. Pandeyji started visiting their house since
2005. She did not know since when Anil knew Pandeyji.
In 2006, she was residing in one bedroom flat. The
witness denied that, Pandeyji was residing at their
house and hence Guptaji asked if his clothes and money
was with them. The witness denied that, Pandeyji was
residing at their house and hence they informed Guptaji
that they did not have his money or clothes. She did
not inform Guptaji that Pandeyji was not residing with
them and hence they did not have his clothes or money.
She or Anil did not ask Guptaji as to why he had come
to ask them about money and clothes of Pandeyji.
...347/-
Exh.1124 347 (J-SC 317/10)
381. The witness further deposed that, Maruti
temple was at a distance of 10-15 minutes walking
distance from her house. The witness denied that,
Pandeyji used to frequently have breakfast at their
house and he had breakfast at her house for the first
time on 11.11.2006. Anil had gone that day to refill
his mobile bearing No. 9323053863. It was prepaid
mobile connection. The mobile given to Pandeyji by
Anil was also prepaid mobile connection. When Anil and
Pandeyji left, she and Parth were alone in the house.
After they left she was doing her household work. She
did not know or see how Anil and Pandeyji left and in
which direction. Anil informed that they were going to
shop of Dhiraj. Pandeyji did not inform that. She did
not see whether they left together or separately
outside the building. She did not receive any message
from Anil after 12.15 pm that he had reached shop of
Dhiraj. She did not receive any message from Anil that
Pandeyji was with him at shop of Dhiraj. She did not
receive any message from Dhiraj that Anil and Pandeyji
had reached his shop and also that they left the shop.
she was not knowing the exact location of Anil and
Pandeyji from 12.15 pm to 2.30 pm. She did not know if
Anil and Pandeyji were together or separate from 12.14
pm to 2.30 pm. She did not know whether Anil refilled
his mobile and from where. Anil did not disclose with
...348/-
Exh.1124 348 (J-SC 317/10)
regards to what property he went to Dhiraj. He stated
that he was going to collect papers of some property.
Dhiraj did not disclose that he had handed over papers
of the property to Anil and Pandeyji. She did not ask
him about the same. Dhiraj did not disclose at what
time Anil and Pandeyji were taken away from outside his
shop. He also did not disclose at what time they
reached his shop. She did not ask him as to why he was
giving such message after two and half hours of their
departure from her home.
382. The witness further deposed that, she had been
to the shop of Dhiraj. There were three shops including
that of Dhiraj. The witness denied that, there were
four shops at that time. She knew Girish Nepali, who
had come along with Pandeyji regarding property deal.
She did not inquire with Dhiraj if Girish Nepali was
present in the shop when the incident occurred. Dhiraj
did not inform that he had witnessed the incident. She
did not ask Dhiraj how Giirsh Nepali came to know about
the incident. She did not ask Dhiraj as to how Gupta
came to know about the incident. Dhiraj did not
disclose full name of Guptaji. She did not ask Dhiraj
as to why he did not go directly to the police station
or call the control room and inform about the incident.
Before speaking to Guptaji on phone of Dhiraj on that
day, she had neither met said Guptaji nor spoken to
...349/-
Exh.1124 349 (J-SC 317/10)
Guptaji. She did not refuse talking with Guptaji. She
did not ask Guptaji as to why life of his brother was
in danger. She did not inform Guptaji that there was no
danger to her husband's life as he had not done any
wrong and that Guptaji should go and inform the police.
She did not inform Guptaji that if he apprehended
danger to life of his brother, he should inform the
police. She did not ask Guptaji as to why he was
apprehending that his brother would be killed in false
encounter. She heard about false encounter for the
first time on 11.11.2006. She did not ask Guptaji what
he meant by false encounter. She personally did not
write down names and numbers of the police officers.
She dictated it to Dhiraj and he wrote it down. She
decided to wait till 5 pm after her telephonic
conversation with Guptaji was completed. She had also
spoken with Ganesh Iyer during the same telephonic
conversation. Guptaji informed her that Ganesh Iyer was
his friend and she should talk with him. She did not
know who Ganesh Iyer was. She did not know what
relationship was of Ganesh Iyer with Pandeyji. She did
not remember her conversation with Ganesh Iyer. She
also spoke with Ganesh Iyer, who only asked her her
residential address. She did not ask Ganesh Iyer why he
wanted her residential address. She was also scared at
that time. The witness on her own deposed that, she was
scared from the time Dhiraj gave information about the
...350/-
Exh.1124 350 (J-SC 317/10)
incident. Ganesh Iyer was a stranger to her. She had
never met or spoken to Ganesh Iyer, before in-spite of
that she gave her address to Ganesh Iyer. The witness
on her own deposed that, she was scared and was not
understanding and hence she gave the address. She
informed Guptaji and Ganesh that she was scared. They
did not inform her that she should not be scared and
that they would take her to the police station. The
witness denied that, Guptaji and Ganesh pressurized her
to go to police station to lodge complaint. Out of
Ganesh and Guptaji, one of of them only told her once
to lodge such complaint. She did not tell them that
they should come there and together they could go to
lodge complaint. She knew to write Gujarati and Hindi.
It did not occur to her that she should write a
complaint and send it by fax through any communication
center. She had informed Guptaji that she did not know
how to fax. Inspite of not knowing how to fax, she took
down the fax numbers from Guptaji. It did not occur to
her that she should write the complaint and ask Dhiraj
to fax the same. She had informed Guptaji that she
would not send complaint by fax. She did not ask Dhiraj
if he knew how to send a fax. She did not approach any
educated, respectable neighbour of her building
requesting him that she wanted to send a fax to the
Police Commissioner and Higher officials and he should
help her out. We' as in we did not want......
...351/-
Exh.1124 351 (J-SC 317/10)
hassles appeared on page 40/3 of her examination in
chief meant, herself, Dhiraj and Anil. Dhiraj left her
house at about 3-3.15 pm. Before Dhiraj left, she had
decided that they would wait till 5 pm. She had decided
to wait as she felt that she would receive some news
about Anil by that time. She was at her house from 3 pm
to 5 pm on that day. It did not occur to her that she
should go to shop of Dhiraj and make inquiries if the
incident had really occurred. It did not occur to her
that she should go and make enquiries if there were any
witnesses to the said incident and that she should
contact her other relatives and family members of Anil
and make inquiries as to which police had taken away
her husband. Advocate was engaged for proceeding to
release Anil from jail in all the four cases. She did
not know said advocate. Pravinbhai had engaged the
services of the advocate. At that time, Pravinbhai was
residing at Parel. She did not inform Pravinbhai about
it. The witness on her own deposed that, he was a heart
patient even when Anil was arrested in the four cases.
383. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Vashi police station was at a distance
of about 35 minutes walk and 15 minutes drive from her
residence. She did not ask Dhiraj if he had received
any information about Anil. It was decided that only
she would alone go to police station and lodge missing
...352/-
Exh.1124 352 (J-SC 317/10)
complaint and Dhiraj would not do so. The witness
denied that, she was not assured about the occurrence
of incident and hence she decided to lodge missing
complaint. The witness admitted that, if some persons
take away forcefully any person, then it would not be a
missing case. The witness on her own deposed that, she
was scared and hence she lodged missing complaint. She
had not informed the police officer who recorded her
missing complaint that in fact her husband had been
taken away forcefully and that since she was scared she
was lodging a missing complaint. It would take about
10 minutes walk and about 2-3 minutes by motor cycle to
reach Vashi police station from Vashi Bus Depot. She
did not request Dhiraj to accompany her to police
station since she was a lone lady. She did not request
Dhiraj to also give his statement since he had informed
her about the incident and had knowledge about the
incident. She did not ask Dhiraj to call the adjoining
shopkeepers for recording their statements since he
stated that they had witnessed the incident. She did
not inform the police officer that Guptaji and Ganesh
Iyer had expressed fear that her husband would be
killed. She did not inform the police that when her
husband went missing, one person by name Pandeyji was
with him and that her husband was missing from Sector 9
of Vashi.
...353/-
Exh.1124 353 (J-SC 317/10)
384. The witness further deposed that, after
lodging missing complaint in Vashi police station, she
went home alone. She reached home in about 10-15
minutes. When she had been to police station with
Dhiraj, Parth was alone in the house. She had locked
the child inside the house when she went to police
station. The key was with her. When she went back home,
she opened the lock and went inside. She did not
remember when she left police station. She could not
state for how much time she was in the police station.
She returned at 9.30 p.m. As she had locked the house,
she did not feel afraid about her son being alone in
the house for the period of about 3 hours when she had
gone to the police station. She did not feel it
appropriate to take her son to the police station and
lodge missing complaint about his father in his
presence. It did not occur to her that she should keep
her child with some neighbour. She felt that if Anil
returned and saw the lock, he would go away. The
witness on her own deposed that, her residence was on
the ground floor and the sliding window was open. She
did not feel that anyone would harm her child by using
the sliding window. Parth spoke with the police
officer from the sliding window. There was no lock to
the sliding window but a box grill protection was
attached to the said window. She did not remember if
...354/-
Exh.1124 354 (J-SC 317/10)
her statement was recorded when she handed over the
photo to police. Police did not acknowledge receipt of
photograph. She had not seen the constable who had
come to her residence to leave message about the
photograph. She saw the constable for the first time
when she left the police station after giving the
photograph. She did not know if he had seen her for the
first time.
385. The witness further deposed that, she learned
from Gujarati newspaper on 12/11/2006 that Pandeyji was
member of Chhota Rajan gang. She was shocked learning
about it. It did not occur to her as to how her husband
was associated with a member of Chhota Rajan gang. The
witness denied that, it did not occur to her as she
already knew that Pandeyji was member of Chhota Rajan
gang. She came to know from the newspapers about which
police station had done the said encounter. It did not
occur to her that she should go and inform the said
police station that said person used to come to her
house but they did not know that he belonged to Chhota
Rajan gang. The witness denied that, she and her
husband Anil were harbouring Pandeyji in their house
knowing fully well that he belonged to Chhota Rajan
gang and that, her husband was also involved along with
Pandeyji in criminal activities. The witness further
denied that, they were committing offences under the
...355/-
Exh.1124 355 (J-SC 317/10)
guise of property deals.
386. The witness further deposed that, name of her
husband was not mentioned in the newspaper article
which she read on 12/11/2006. She understood what was
written in the said article in newspaper. She
remembered some details of the said article. It was
stated in the article that Pandeyji fired on the
police. It was also stated in article that police fired
on Pandeyji in self defence. She did not contact the
concerned police station and inquire about Anil. The
witness on her own deposed that, she was scared. She
did not approach Versova police station to confirm
about the incident as informed to her by Dhiraj. She
had gone to Vashi police station on 12/11/2006. She did
not show the article to the police in Vashi police
station and inquire with regard to the said article and
her husband in that regard. When she called Dhiraj from
PCO after reading the article, he did not inform her
that he had learnt about the encounter from the
television news, the previous night. Dhiraj did not
inform on night of 11/11/2006 about the encounter of
Pandeyji. She had shown the article to Dhiraj on
12/11/2006 when he came to her house. He read the
article. He did not disclose that he had seen the news
pertaining to the article on television the previous
night. She did not mention about the encounter to the
police officer Mr. D.B.Patil of Vashi police station on
...356/-
Exh.1124 356 (J-SC 317/10)
12/11/2006. She did not ask the police officer
Mr.D.B.Patil on 12/11/2006 to confirm about the
incident that appeared in the newspaper article from
Versova police station. Even when D.B.Patil directed
the constable to send wireless message, she did not
request D.B.Patil to confirm the incident dated
11/11/2006 as disclosed to her by Dhiraj, from
Commissioner of Police, by sending wireless message.
She did not ask Mr.D.B.Patil to call Dhiraj and to
confirm the alleged incident of 11/11/2006 which he had
disclosed to her when D.B. Patil informed her that
police would make efforts to trace out her husband. The
witness denied that, she was satisfied with the fact
that her husband's name did not appear in the article
of encounter. After reading the article she was
concerned about whereabouts of Anil and when he would
return. She did not contact the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai and the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to
inquire about whereabouts of Anil. She did not make
inquiries on 12/11/2006 with her relatives and
relatives of Anil about whereabouts of Anil. She did
not call Anil on his mobile after she read the article
and before she went to police station. It did not
happen that Anil called her on 12/11/2006 and asked her
to come to police station. It did not happen that she
went to the police station for the second time on
12/11/2006 because Anil had called her on the phone and
...357/-
Exh.1124 357 (J-SC 317/10)
asked her to come to police station. She had never
stated at Vashi police station at any time till date
that Anil Bheda had called her on 12/11/2006 and hence
she went to police station. It did not happen that Anil
Bheda called her in the evening of 12/11/2006 and asked
her to come to Vashi police station. She did not go to
Vashi police station on 13/03/2011. She had been to
police station on 13/03/2011. Her statement was
recorded. The witness was shown Ex.312. Portion marked
'A' was read over to the witness. She stated so to the
police. The witness on her own deposed that, the first
paragraph, Portion marked 'B', was written by the
police officer on his own on perusal of the earlier
record available with the police station. She was
residing at the address mentioned in Ex.312 since last
one year. The address as stated in Ex.312 was disclosed
by her to the said police officer. She gave the mobile
number as stated in Ex.312. She met the police officer
Patil Jyotiram Ganpati on 13/03/2011 for the first
time. She had been to Vashi police station before
13/03/2011, thrice, i.e. once on 11/11/2006 and twice
on 12/11/2006. On 11/11/2006 and 12/11/2006, she was
not residing in Mahalaxmi society. She did not produce
any document in 2006 that she was residing in Mahalaxmi
Society since one and half months. She did not inform
or submit any documents to the police during her said
three visits that her husband carried on business of
...358/-
Exh.1124 358 (J-SC 317/10)
readymade garments. She did not inform or submit any
documents to the police during her said three visits
that her husband used Maruti Alto car number
MH04AY7960. She did not know in whose name the vehicle
was and when it was purchased. The said vehicle had
been attached by bank when it was parked outside
Mahalaxmi society. She did not know if the address of
Mahalaxmi was mentioned in bank records. Mahalaxmi
society was in sector no.10. She had informed on
13/03/2011 that the car was found parked near bus stop
of sector 15. The police officer seized the car after
she lodged complaint Ex.312 and thereafter it was taken
to the police station. Subsequently, police handed over
possession of the said car to her and she got it parked
outside Mahalaxmi society. She acknowledged receipt of
the said vehicle to the police station. One of the
police constables left the car at Mahalaxmi society
from police station. The officer prepared duplicate
keys of the said vehicle. The keys were handed over to
her. The keys were with her. After lodging complaint
Ex.312, she went to reside with her parents. She came
back and did not see the vehicle and went to the police
station where she learnt that the bank had seized the
vehicle. She knew that Anil had purchased the said
vehicle. She did not know that he was paying the
instalments for the car. She did not know from where
Anil got money for purchase of car.
...359/-
Exh.1124 359 (J-SC 317/10)
387. The witness further deposed that, she had not
stated to he police during her three visits in 2006
that her son's name was Parth and he was studying in
Mahavir Kalyan Ratnashram, Somgad Dist. Bhavnagar,
Gujrat in VIII standard. On 11/11/2006, she had only
lodged one missing complaint of her husband Anil and
given his photograph. On the first visit to the police
station on 12/11/2006, she only made inquiries and did
not submit any documents. On 12/11/2006, during her
second visit, she withdrew the missing complaint and
herself and Anil did not submit any documents to the
police. Her statement and so also statement of Anil was
recorded on 12/11/2006 by Vashi police. The witness was
read over portion marked C in Ex.312. The said
portion C was written by the concerned officer on his
own. He had written the same by taking out record of
2006. She had not tendered any document or statement
during her three visits in 2006 stating that on
11/11/2006 at 11.00 a.m., her husband had gone to meet
Shri Ramlakhan @ Lakhanbhaiya at sector number 9,
Vashi. She had not tendered any document or statement
during her three visits in 2006 stating that some
unknown persons in plainclothes had forcefully taken
away her husband and Lakhanbhaiya in white coloured
Qualis jeep. She had not tendered any document or
statement during her three visits in 2006 stating that
...360/-
Exh.1124 360 (J-SC 317/10)
her husband and Lakhanbhaiya were being beaten in the
vehicle when they were taken away. She had not tendered
any document or statement during her three visits in
2006 stating that after reaching Bhandup, Mumbai,
Lakhanbhaiya got down from the vehicle and sat in
another vehicle and the said persons took her husband
to D N Nagar police station, Mumbai and so also that
her husband did not return home late in the evening and
he also could not be contacted. She had not tendered
any document or statement during her three visits in
2006 stating that her husband Anil had disclosed the
incident of 11/11/2006 to her and that with regards to
false encounter of Lakhanbhaiya, on the directions of
the Hon'ble Court offence has been registered against
the police officers and that they have been arrested
and her husband was the prime witness and this fact
was disclosed to her by her husband.
388. The witness further deposed that, she did not
state portion marked B of Ex.312 on 11/11/2006 while
recording Ex.306. She was afraid and hence portion
marked B in Ex.312 was not stated in Ex.306. After
taking down her complaint Ex.312, the Investigating
officer Patil read over the contents to her before she
signed the same. She understood the contents of Ex.312
and then she signed on Ex.312. She did not inform
Mr.Patil that as contents of Portion B of Ex.312 were
...361/-
Exh.1124 361 (J-SC 317/10)
not as per her say, she would not sign the same. She
did not inform Mr. Patil that he should either score
out the portion B or make appropriate corrections in
portion B and then she would sign the document. The
witness on her own deposed that, her mental condition
was not proper, she was afraid the incident had
reoccurred after 2006. She knew four officers of the
SIT Mr.Prasanna, Mr.Gaonkar, Mr.Chalke and Mr.Ghorpade
as they were investigating the case of 2006. She had
faith in these four officers of the SIT. When she was
going with Anil to the SIT, she was not feeling
afraid. She met the officers of the SIT in June 2011
after 13/03/2011. She did not inform the SIT that the
concerned investigating officer had recorded portion
marked B of Ex.312 on his own. She had met the
officers of the SIT on 13/03/2011 and also telephoned
them. She had telephoned them prior to lodging of FIR.
She did not remember if she met them before or after
lodging of FIR. She had called from her mobile number
9320466422 to police officer Ghorpade of the SIT. She
did not remember his number. She did not complain to
Ghorpade that portion marked B of Ex.312 had been
incorrectly recorded. She had knowledge that
investigation of this case had been handed over to DCP
Prasanna by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. She did
not know if Ghorpade, Chalke and Gaonkar were not
appointed as investigating officers in this case. She
...362/-
Exh.1124 362 (J-SC 317/10)
did not have contact number of DCP Mr. Prasanna. She
had not personally spoken with DCP Mr. Prasanna with
regard to Ex.312. She knew that office of the SIT was
at Powai. She had not informed the SIT or senior
officers or Mr.Patil or the Commissioner of Navi Mumbai
that portion B of Ex.312 was wrongly recorded. She
had annexed copy of Ex.312 to the Writ Petition No.
754/2011 filed by her before the Hon'ble High Court.
The Writ Petition was prepared as per her instructions.
No one advised her to file the Writ Petition. The
contents of the Writ Petition were read over to her and
she understood the same and then she signed it and it
was filed in the Hon'ble High Court. She did not
instruct her advocate to write in the Writ Petition
that portion marked B of Ex.312 was incorrect. She
could recollect the contents of the Writ Petition. She
had stated in the Writ Petition that her husband had
left house in his Alto car stating that he was going to
collect payment from one Khan for readymade garments.
She had not disclosed the same at the time of recording
of Ex.312. At that time, she did not know said Khan.
The witness on her own deposed that, she got to know
him subsequently. After she came to know Khan, she did
not go to Vashi police station and tell them that this
was the said Khan to whom Anil Bheda had gone for
payment on 13/03/2011. She did not instruct her
advocate to pray for investigation against said Khan.
...363/-
Exh.1124 363 (J-SC 317/10)
She did not instruct her advocate to pray for
investigation against Khan even when it was reported
that her husband was no more. She did not know where
Khan stayed but she had his mobile number. She had not
lodged any complaint against garment dealer Khan. She
stated that her husband had supplied shirts to said
Khan and her husband had gone to collect consideration
of said shirts but Mr. Khan was not a garment dealer.
Anil had informed her that he had supplied shirts to
Khan. The witness was shown and read over portion
marked C in Ex.312. On reading it, the witness denied
that, it would mean that her husband was at their
residence on 11/11/2006 at 11.00 a.m. On reading it,
the witness denied that, her husband had gone to meet
Pandeyji outside. It would mean that Pandeyji was not
present in her house on 11/11/2006 at 11.00 a.m. On
reading it, it would mean that on 11/11/2006 at 12.15
p.m., Anil and Pandeyji did not go together from
Sector-29. The witness denied that, on reading it, it
would mean that on 11/11/2006 at 10.45 a.m., she did
not meet Anil and Pandeyji at the gate of the building.
The witness denied on reading it that, it would mean
that on 11/11/2006, Anil, Parth and Pandeyji did not
visit Maruti temple and also that on 11/11/2006, Anil,
Parth and Pandeyji did not have breakfast in her house.
She did not remember if she had stated to any of the
officers while recording her statement that Anil had
...364/-
Exh.1124 364 (J-SC 317/10)
left the house at 10.30 a.m. on 11/11/2006. The
witness denied that, Anil used to go daily to refill
his mobile. She had informed the police officers while
recording Ex.306 that Anil left the house at 10.30 a.m.
on 11/11/2006. She had informed the police officers
while recording Exh.306 that when Anil left the house
he informed her that he was going to meet Ramnarayan.
Her statement was recorded on 12/11/2006 at Vashi
police station of withdrawal of missing complaint. She
had given this statement voluntarily. The officer was
taking down the same as per her say. She was read over
the said statement, she understood the contents of the
same and then she signed the said statement. The
contents of the said statement were true and correct.
She had stated that Anil had left the house at 10.30
a.m. The said statement is at Exh.322. the witness was
shown Exh.322. It bore her signature. It was the same
statement which was recorded on 12/11/2006. It was
stated therein that her husband returned home safe on
12/11/2006 at 5.00 p.m. It was also stated therein
that Anil informed her that he had been to Shirdi on
11/11/2006. It was also stated therein that he had
returned safely from Shirdi and that she had no
grievance against anybody and hence she was withdrawing
the missing complaint.
389. The witness further deposed that, on
...365/-
Exh.1124 365 (J-SC 317/10)
12/11/2006, when she went to Vashi police station at
11.30 a.m., she was there for about 15 minutes. Then
she went back home. She reached home at about 12 noon.
She did not contact Dhiraj Mehta and tell him that she
had been to police station. She contacted Dhiraj Bheda,
her brother in law, at about 2.30 p.m. From 12 noon to
2.30 p.m., she did not contact anyone to know about
whereabouts of Anil. She was not expecting any special
help except support from Dhiraj Bheda. She had
requested Dhiraj Bheda to accompany her to police
station as she was going there all alone. She was
afraid because of the newspaper article. After reading
the newspaper article and before speaking to Dhiraj
Bheda, she had been to the police station alone.
Dhiraj Bheda informed her that they would come directly
to Vashi police station and would not come home. She
had called him at about 5.00 p.m. Dhiraj Bheda resided
at Borivali. She discussed the newspaper article with
Dhiraj Bheda. She did not discuss anything else on
phone with Dhiraj Bheda. She did not inform Dhiraj
Bheda about the incident as told by Dhiraj Mehta dated
11/11/2006 although she felt it necessary. She did not
discuss with Dhiraj Bheda about relationship of Anil
Bheda and Pandeyji in the light of the article in the
newspaper. She did not feel it necessary and did not
ask Dhiraj Bheda to make inquiries at Versova police
station and then come to Vashi police station. She
...366/-
Exh.1124 366 (J-SC 317/10)
remembered the topography of Vashi police station.
There was 6 feet compound wall to Vashi police station.
The compound had two entrances, same in size. The
police station was situated at the corner of two roads.
One gate was available on each of the roads. Dhiraj
Bheda and his wife were waiting outside the gate of the
police station. She could not say if the police
station building was situated at a distance of about 20
feet from the gate. She did not remember if police
vehicles were parked inside the compound. When they
entered the police station building, on the right hand
side, there were two tables and then another table with
computer on it and wireless unit. There were also three
chairs. There was one cabin immediately on the left
side and also one another cabin on the extreme right
side. There were three more rooms on the ground floor
of said building. She did not know if there were any
other rooms in the building. She did not know how many
storeyed the building was. She did not see the first
floor. She sat on the chair on the right hand side when
she went to police station on 12/11/2006. Mr. Patil,
Senior officer, came within five minutes. She did not
take Dhiraj Bheda and his family inside the police
station. It did not occur to her that she should call
Dhiraj Bheda and his wife inside the police station.
She had called Dhiraj Bheda because she was alone and
inspite of him coming to police station, she went
...367/-
Exh.1124 367 (J-SC 317/10)
inside the police station alone. Dhiraj Bheda and his
wife came inside the compound of police station and sat
on the bench. They did not enter the police station
building. She could not see the road outside the police
station from inside the police station building. She
saw Anil for the first time on 12/11/2006 when he came
inside the police station building. She saw Anil Bheda
when he came inside the room where she was sitting.
She did not see him entering from the compound gate
till the building. She did not see how Anil came to the
police station compound, whether by walking or any
other meant of transport. She did not see whether Anil
came alone or was accompanied by any other person. She
was happy and satisfied on seeing Anil in the police
station. The fear in her mind left after seeing her
husband. Thereafter, she and Anil met D.B. Patil in his
cabin. They were there for about 15-20 minutes. Dhiraj
Bheda and his wife also saw Anil coming inside the
building. Anil did not speak with them when he entered.
Anil was elder to Dhiraj Bheda. She did not feel it
that they should take Dhiraj Bheda inside the cabin of
D.B. Patil. There was no need of Dhiraj Bheda in police
station after Anil arrived. Before going into the cabin
of D. B. Patil, she did not ask Dhiraj Bheda and his
wife to leave. Her statement and that of Anil Bheda
was recorded by other officer than D.B. Patil. First
her statement was recorded. Anil was with her at that
...368/-
Exh.1124 368 (J-SC 317/10)
time. She did not remember if Anil heard what
statement she gave. She did not remember for how much
time her statement was recorded. Throughout recording
of the statement, Anil Bheda was with her. He was
present when she signed the statement. He was also
present when the statement was read over to her. Anil
did not stop her from signing the statement stating
that it was an incorrect statement. Anil also did not
inform the officer that the contents of the statement
were incorrect and hence she would not sign the
statement. He did not tell her that he would meet D.B.
Patil, state the correct facts, get the statement
changed and then she should sign it.
390. The witness further deposed that, Anil Bheda's
statement was recorded after her statement was
recorded. When his statement was recorded, she was
present there. She was present when the statement of
her husband was taken down, read over and when he
signed the same. Anil signed the statement after it was
read over and understood by him. Dhiraj Bheda was
present in the police station compound during recording
of their statements. While recording the statements,
Anil did not speak with Dhiraj Bheda. On seeing Anil,
the first question she asked him was where he had been.
Anil replied that he had been to Shirdi. She heard the
discussion Anil had with D.B. Patil. She did not
remember if Anil disclosed the same facts in his
...369/-
Exh.1124 369 (J-SC 317/10)
statement. D.B. Patil explained the contents of fax.
Anil was present with her at that time. She did not
remember if Anil said anything to D.B. Patil regarding
the fax. She understood the contents of the fax as
explained to her. Anil did not know English. D.B. Patil
explained the fax in Hindi. Anil understood Hindi. She
did not remember if Anil gave any explanation of the
fax to D.B. Patil. She left police station on
12/11/2006 at about 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. During this 1 to
1 hours, the entire process of her conversation with
D.B. Patil, recording of her statement and that of Anil
was recorded. While Anil's statement was being
recorded, she did not suggest any corrections in the
same. She did not tell him to incorporate in his
statement the information of the incident as stated by
Dhiraj Mehta to her. She did not ask Anil to
incorporate in the statement, the incident which she
read in the newspaper article on that day. She did not
ask Anil to incorporate in the statement as to how he
arrived at the police station i.e. in which mode of
conveyance and if accompanied, by whom. She did not
make any complaint to Patil that her statement was not
recorded correctly. The witness was shown Ex.307. The
witness read over portion marked B of Ex.307. The
same was recorded after her statement was recorded.
She signed after reading portion marked-B. As it was
correct, she signed the same. She did not remember if
...370/-
Exh.1124 370 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil was present when portion marked-B in Exh.307 was
written. After withdrawing the missing complaint, she
came outside the police station building and was within
the police station compound and she met Dhiraj Bheda
and his wife there and informed them that they were
fine and safe and hence they could leave. She did not
feel it necessary to invite Dhiraj Bheda and his wife
to her residence. She could not state within how much
time Anil told her about the incident of 11/11/2006.
She and her husband Anil stopped Dhiraj Bheda and his
wife after Anil told her about the incident of
11/11/2006. Dhiraj Bheda and his wife stopped. At that
time, herself, Anil, Dhiraj Bheda and his wife were
waiting at the compound gate of police station.
Thereafter, she took wife of Dhiraj Bheda aside. Anil
disclosed to Dhiraj the incident of 11/11/2006. She
could not tell for how much time they were having the
said conversation. She did not inform anything to wife
of Dhiraj Bheda. At the police station, wife of Dhiraj
Bheda had no knowledge about the incident. She did not
ask Anil to go back to the police station and complain
about the incident dated 11/11/2006 as he had disclosed
to her. The witness on her own deposed that, life of
Anil Bheda was in danger. In the police station, Anil
Bheda did not disclose or state that his life was in
danger. He did not disclose or state to her or D.B.
Patil or the concerned constable who recorded the
...371/-
Exh.1124 371 (J-SC 317/10)
statement. The witness on her own deposed that, Anil
Bheda whispered to her while fax was shown by D.B.
Patil that his life was saved because of the fax. She
did not inform D.B. Patil that her husband had stated
that his life was saved because of fax. She did not
ask Anil to inform the officer about his life being
saved because of said fax. Neither herself or Anil
disclosed during recording of statements that Anil
Bheda's life was saved because of the said fax. Dhiraj
Bheda also did not ask Anil to complain about the
incident dated 11/11/2006 to the police. The witness on
her own deposed that, because of danger to his life, he
did not disclose. She did not ask Anil as to why he
did not disclose this fact in the statement. There was
no restrain on her to go back to the police station and
state the incident of 11/11/2006 as disclosed to her by
her husband to Shri D.B. Patil. She did not go back to
police station and disclose to D.B. Patil that her
husband informed her that Pradeep Sharma's men had
taken him and his friend Pandeyji in a Qualis Vehicle
from Vashi Sector 9 and then they were taken to Andheri
D.N. Nagar police station and produced before Mr.Sharma
and that on that night Pandeji was killed in an
encounter and that police officer by name A.T. Patil
mediated on his behalf and hence he was released. Anil
informed her about the Qualis vehicle standing at a
distance. Anil did not disclose the distance at which
...372/-
Exh.1124 372 (J-SC 317/10)
the said vehicle was standing. The witness on her own
deposed that, he pointed out the vehicle. The vehicle
was standing across the road. She was standing at the
side gate of the police station. The vehicle was
standing diagonally opposite. She could not see the
vehicle when she came out of the police station
building. She could see the vehicle only when she came
at the compound gate of the police station. Anil did
not disclose to her in the police station premises that
there was a vehicle standing outside and his life was
in danger and hence they should leave the police
station by another gate. After seeing the vehicle, she
did not ask Anil to go back to the police station and
lodge a complaint and ask for inquiry against the said
two persons. She also did not complain about the same.
When the vehicle was shown, Dhiraj Bheda had already
left. Anil Bheda did not disclose to Dhiraj Bheda about
the vehicle and about presence of two people in the
vehicle and also the fact that Anil had to go in the
said vehicle and that Anil's life was in danger and
that Dhiraj Bheda should accompany Anil in the vehicle.
Even after knowing that the two persons were policemen,
she did not complain to Mr. Patil about the same and
danger to life of her husband. No physical force was
used to board the vehicle. She and Anil were not
threatened before they sat in the said vehicle and also
when they were in the vehicle. She and Anil did not
...373/-
Exh.1124 373 (J-SC 317/10)
decline to board the said vehicle. The vehicle was
parked on public road. There was a rationing office
where the vehicle was parked. There was a primary
school near the gate of police station where they were
standing. She did not create any commotion so that she
would not have to go in the said vehicle. They took
about 15 minutes to reach home. They reached home at
about 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. They left the police station
at about 6.45 to 7.00 p.m. She along with Anil and
Dhiraj were at the gate of police station for about 15
to 30 minutes. During that 15 to 30 minutes, the two
persons in the vehicle, did not approach them and
forcefully take them to the vehicle, nor did they
approach them and make inquiries as to what they were
discussing for 15 to 30 minutes. It took about 23
minutes to reach police station building. They had 15
to 30 minutes time to go back to the police station and
lodge complaint after Anil disclosed the incident of
11/11/2006.
391. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if she or Anil gave the directions to reach
their residence. She did not complain to any neighbour
or any occupant of the building that she had been
brought in the vehicle against their desire. The
witness on her own deposed that, the said two persons
were with them and hence she could not complain. When
...374/-
Exh.1124 374 (J-SC 317/10)
she left the house, she had locked the house and Parth
was in the house. She opened the house by opening the
lock. She did not feel it necessary to take Parth to
the police station even though Dhiraj Bheda was going
to come to the police station. She was not forced to
go into the vehicle with her son and husband to go to
Bhattwadi. She did not complain to her parents that
she was brought to the house against her wish. Her
parents' house was on the ground floor. The main door
was facing the road. There was a door on the rear side.
It had two rooms, kitchen and passage. Every room had a
window. The night shift constables were sitting in the
first front room. The rear door was not visible from
the main door because the door between the first room
and second room was closed at night time on that day.
She could not go out and lodge the complaint as the
rear door was locked by the earlier two police. She
knew the neighbours on either side of the house at
Bhattwadi. She did not inform the said neighbours that
they were locked inside their house. The quarrel took
place next day morning. Her husband had disclosed all
the details to her parents. The neighbours argued with
her parents. She was present in the house at that time.
She knew that argument was going on. It did not occur
to her that it was an opportunity for her to disclose
to the neighbours that they were locked in the house
and to ask the neighbours to call the police so that
...375/-
Exh.1124 375 (J-SC 317/10)
the presence of police could be secured to convey that
they were detained in the house. She did not insist on
accompanying Anil when he was being taken to D.N. Nagar
police station. She did not ask her father to accompany
Anil. She did not ask her husband Anil when he
returned at 6.30 p.m. as to what had happened at D.N.
Nagar police station and why he was taken away. She
did not ask her parents to complain to the police after
their departure about the Qualis vehicle and their
detention. The witness denied that, Anil on his own
stated that he had to leave Bombay. Anil stated that
the persons with him had stated that there was danger
to his life and hence he should go out of station for
8-10 days on evening of 13/11/2006. She discussed this
fact with her parents. She did not ask her parents to
complain to the police that life of her husband was in
danger and the said two persons had detained them and
brought them in Qualis vehicle. She did not tell the
said two persons to take the vehicle to the nearest
police station so that she could lodge a complaint that
her husband's life was in danger. She did not ask the
said two persons their identity cards on 12/11/2006
and 13/11/2006. She did not ask Anil or the two persons
from whom there was danger to life of her husband,
Anil.
392. The witness further deposed that she did not
remember how much time it took from Bhattwadi to
...376/-
Exh.1124 376 (J-SC 317/10)
between Santacruz and Vakola. When one person got down
to get the clothes, there was only one other person in
the vehicle besides herself, Parth and Anil. At that
time, it did not occur to her that they should get down
from the vehicle and go to the nearest police station
and complain about danger to life of her husband and
that they were detained. She knew that they were going
to Kolhapur prior to they taking bus of Konduskar. They
were also given an option to visit their native place.
Anil was asked about the same. She did not ask Anil
that they should go to the native village. There were
some other passengers also in the bus of Konduskar.
She did not inform any of the passengers that their
life was in danger and that they should inform the
police or give the mobile for contacting the police. It
took 9 hours to reach Kolhapur. The bus stopped en-
route to Kolhapur. She did not contact the police
during the stop over and complain. She or Anil did not
make entry in the hotel register in Kolhapur during
their stay there. They could have reached the hotel at
Kolhapur at about 6.15 a.m. The witness denied that,
there was telephone facility in their hotel room at
Kolhapur. She used to call her parents from the STD PCO
near the hotel. She did not call her parents
immediately on reaching Kolhapur on 14/11/2006. It did
not occur to her that she should inform her parents
immediately that they had reached safely. She along
...377/-
Exh.1124 377 (J-SC 317/10)
with her husband, son and Daboo went to the temple. She
did not inform the constable she met at the temple
that there was danger to their lives and to lodge a
complaint and to inform other police officers of Navi
Mumbai. She did not inform him that she and Anil were
taken forcefully in Qualis vehicle from Vashi police
station. She did not ask him to contact D.B. Patil and
inform him that they were brought to Kolhapur and that
they be granted police protection in Kolhapur.
393. The witness further deposed that, her husband
had gone to attend date in court at Battis Shirala. She
did not ask her husband to inform the court about the
detention, about the fact that they were brought to
Kolhpaur and that their lives were in danger and that
action should be taken against the persons who had
accompanied them to Kolhapur. When Anil had been to
Battis Shirala, she was alone in her room in Kolhapur.
She did not remember the date and time when they went
to court. He returned back in the afternoon. It did not
occur to her that she should accompany her husband as
his life was in danger. It did not occur to her that
she should call some persons from the STD PCO booth
and inform them what had happened to them and what was
happening. It did not occur to her that she should call
Dhiraj Mehta, Vashi Police station, PW-1 and Dhiraj
Bheda and inform them that they were taken forcefully
to Kolhapur. It did not occur to her that she should
...378/-
Exh.1124 378 (J-SC 317/10)
complain with the nearest police station at Kolhapur.
They reached Bombay on 18th or 19/11/2006. They were
not in Kolhapur for 8-10 days. She did not ask the
person accompanying them that they were leaving within
4-5 days and if the danger to the life of her husband
had ceased. She did not tell Anil when he informed her
that he was staying at Andheri that she would also stay
with him. She returned to Vashi in December 2006 after
returning from Kolhapur. Till that time, she was
staying with her parents. There was no restraint on her
movements during that period. She had gone to D.N Nagar
police station once during that time. She had decided
what to ask in D.N.Nagar police station before going
there. It did not occur to her that she should take
Pravinbhai or advocate along with her to D.N.Nagar
police station. She did not consider it necessary to
do so. She did not feel it necessary to give it in
writing. She did not feel it necessary to call PW 1 or
Dhiraj Mehta and along with them she should go to D.N.
Nagar police station. She did not contact Ramprasad or
Dhiraj Mehta after returning from Kolhapur. She did
not contact Ramprasad or Dhiraj Mehta from the evening
of 12/11/2006 till December 2006 when she returned to
Vashi. It did not occur to her that she should complain
to the Commissioner of Police when her husband was
staying in the hotel. She did not feel it necessary to
lodge a complaint in the court with the help of an
...379/-
Exh.1124 379 (J-SC 317/10)
advocate. She did not feel it necessary to lodge
complaint about the incident dated 11/11/2006.
394. The witness further deposed that, Anil stayed
at the hotel till 12th or 13/12/2006. Even after
returning of Anil, herself or Anil did not lodge
complaint with the police or in the court about his
detention and danger to his life and so also that he
was detained in Andheri on the pretext that his life
was in danger. Even after Gupta informed about filing
of the Writ Petition, they did not lodge complaint
about the entire incident before the Hon'ble High
Court. From 12/11/2006 till visit of Gupta, they did
not request for any police protection stating that
there was danger to their life. The witness denied
that, she was deposing false that Anil came to Vashi
police station on 12/11/2006 when she was present there
and that, Anil did not disclose anything to her about
any incident of 11/11/2006 after coming out of police
station on 12/11/2006 and that, on 12/11/2006, Anil did
not show her any Qualis vehicle with two police
persons. The witness also denied that, she was
deposing false that she did not see accused no. 2 and
accused no. 3 in the said Qualis vehicle on 12/11/2006.
395. The witness further denied that, she was
deposing falsely that she was waiting in Vashi police
station on 12/11/2006 and that at that time, Anil came
...380/-
Exh.1124 380 (J-SC 317/10)
there. She did not state while recording Ex.322 that
Anil came while she was waiting in the police station
on that day. She did not disclose on 12/11/2006 while
recording her statement and its extract at Ex.307 that
Anil Bheda came when she was waiting at the police
station. She read contents of Ex.307 before she put her
endorsement of withdrawal. The contents as stated in
Ex.307 were true and correct. She had stated that her
husband had returned home safely from Shirdi while
withdrawing the missing complaint. She had given
statement before the police officer on 12/11/2006 that
her husband had returned home safely on 12/11/2006 at
5.00 p.m. and that from him it was revealed that he had
gone to Shirdi for religious purpose on 11/11/2006. She
had stated to the police while recording her statement
dated 12/11/2006 that her husband had returned safely
and hence she did not want to prosecute the missing
complaint. She did not remember if she had stated in
the Writ Petition bearing no.754/2011 dated 17/03/2011
that her husband called her on 12/11/2006. She was
represented by adv. Mr. Khayyam. She first asked
Mr.Gupta (PW-1) to be the advocate in the matter but he
refused. He then appointed other advocate Mr.Khayyam.
She had informed adv. Khayyam about the facts that had
occurred and also gave him the copy of FIR. He prepared
the Writ Petition. He did not charge any fees. She did
not state to her advocate about corrections to be made
...381/-
Exh.1124 381 (J-SC 317/10)
in the Writ Petition. Advocate Mr.Khayyam appeared in
the Hon'ble High Court when the matter was heard. She
was present when the matter was heard. She went to the
court 23 times and adv. Khayyam was present at that
time. She was represented by advocate Pradhan. She did
not remember if Adv.Mr.Gupta was present. Adv.
Mr.Khayyam engaged adv. Pradhan. Khayyam introduced her
to Shri Pradhan. She had met Mr.Pradhan twice. She
discussed about the case with Mr.Pradhan. Mr.Pradhan
did not discuss the Writ with her. Some discussion took
place. She did not state to the Hon'ble High Court
during arguments that some of the contents of the Writ
Petition were incorrect and that she wanted to correct
the same. She did not state so to Mr.Pradhan also as
she did not feel it necessary. She did not remember if
during the course of arguments, the complaint of
13/03/2011 was discussed in the Hon'ble High Court.
She had discussed with Mr.Pradhan about FIR dated
13/3/2011. She did not inform Mr.Pradhan that Portion
marked-B in Exh.312 was written by the officer on his
own and she wanted to complain about it to the Hon'ble
High Court. The Petition was pending in the Hon'ble
High Court. Her advocates were attending the matter in
the Hon'ble High Court. She was informed about the
dates by her advocates. She was in contact with her
advocates. She could produce a true copy of the Writ
Petition. She could produce a true copy.
...382/-
Exh.1124 382 (J-SC 317/10)
396. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if Mr.Patil on 12/11/2006 recorded in the
statement, the contents of the fax in English. She had
not disclosed while recording her statement that she
had studied SSC in Gujrati medium and that she could
read English. She had not disclosed to the police at
that time that Anil Bheda had returned from Shirdi and
that she had along with him come to the police station
to withdraw the missing complaint. She first met PI,
Mr.D.B.Patil before giving her statement to ASI Patil.
She did not remember if PI, D.B. Patil recorded her
statement after reading over the fax to her. She did
not remember if PI, D.B. Patil took her signature on
such statement. She did not remember if her two
statements were recorded on 12/11/2006 and that, if any
statement was recorded by PI Patil but her statement
was recorded by ASI Patil. She would like to see such
statement recorded by PI Patil dated 12/11/2006. Her
statement was recorded by the SLAO-IV. She did not
remember the date. Her address at that time was J.N.
2/21, A3, Sector 10, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. She was
questioned by the SLAO-IV. She had answered to the
questions put by the SLAO-IV. She had disclosed that
her husband had left the house at 10.30 a.m. for
recharging the mobile. She had stated that after
returning home, she could not contact Anil Bheda on his
...383/-
Exh.1124 383 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile and hence she was afraid and she lodged missing
complaint at Vashi police station on 11/11/2006. She
had stated that at that time police officers asked her
if she had sent fax to police control room and she
replied in negative. She had stated at that time that
her husband returned home the next day at about 5.00
p.m. and she made inquiries with him and he stated that
he had been to Shirdi and that as his mobile battery
was discharged, hence he could not contact home. She
had stated at that time that after her husband returned
home, she along with her husband went to Vashi police
station to withdraw the missing complaint dated
11/11/2006. She had disclosed that at that time the
police officers showed her one fax and asked if she
had sent the said fax and she replied in negative. She
did not remember if she had stated that she had not
sent the fax. She did not remember if the said
Magistrate asked that Ramprasad had stated that she had
informed PW-1 on his mobile that Anil and Ramnarayan
were taken away by plainclothes policemen in a Qualis
vehicle by force and taken away at unknown place and if
it was true. She was not called directly by PW-1 on
mobile or land-line. The witness on her own deposed
that, she did not have any mobile. She also directly
did not call PW-1. She had stated to the said officer
that she had not called PW-1. She had stated that she
did not call PW-1 on mobile or phone, neither did she
...384/-
Exh.1124 384 (J-SC 317/10)
meet him personally on 11/11/2006. She had read her
statement. She had signed the said statement. The
witness denied that, the contents of the same were
correct and hence she signed the statement and that,
adv. Gupta was present when her statement was recorded.
She did not remember if copy of the statement was given
to her. She did not remember if she had signed
acknowledgment of receipt of statement. She did not
know if adv. Gupta also signed below the said
acknowledgment. She had taken oath before her statement
was recorded. She had not lodged any complaint with
anyone that she had given false statement. She did not
disclose to the SIT on 03/09/2009 that at 10.30 a.m.,
her husband had gone to refill his mobile (pertained to
time 10.30 a.m. only). She had not disclosed to the SIT
on 03/09/2009 that her husband did not return soon and
during that time, she went out for her work. She did
not disclose to the SIT on 03/09/2009 that when she
returned she tried to call Anil Bheda on his mobile and
his mobile was shown as switched off and hence she
became afraid and hence she lodged missing complaint on
11/11/2006. She did not remember if she had disclosed
to the SIT on 03/09/2009 that at that time, police
officers told her if she had sent a fax to the police
control room and she replied in negative. She did not
disclose to the SIT on 03/09/2009 that if she had sent
a fax to the police control room and she replied in
...385/-
Exh.1124 385 (J-SC 317/10)
negative. She did not disclose to the SIT on 03/09/2009
that her husband returned at 5.00 p.m. next day and he
informed that he had been to Shirdi and could not call
home as his mobile battery was discharged. She did not
disclose to the SIT on 03/09/2009 that after her
husband returned, they went to Vashi police station to
withdraw the missing complaint and accordingly
statements were recorded (pertained to after return of
her husband). She did not disclose to the SIT on
03/09/2009 that she did not call PW-1 on mobile or
phone, neither did she meet him personally on
11/11/2006.
397. The witness tendered true copy of the Writ
Petition Exh.334. After going through Exh.334, entry
number 5 of the synopsis containing list of dates and
events the witness deposed that, the said entry was not
written as per her instructions by her advocate. She
had authorized her advocate to sign the petition. The
witness was shown pages marked as A to D of Ex.334.
It was prepared by her advocate and signed by him. She
had instructed her advocate to write details of the
incident which had occurred on 11/11/2006 in the Writ
Petition. She did not verify before signing the
petition if the said details were mentioned in the Writ
Petition. She did not remember if she had instructed
her advocate to write details of the incidents which
had occurred on 12/11/2006 and 03/09/2009. She had
...386/-
Exh.1124 386 (J-SC 317/10)
instructed her advocate to write details about the
incidents which had occurred on 30/12/2009 and
05/01/2010 in the Petition. On being asked, what
details did she ask her advocate to incorporate in her
Petition about 05/01/2010, the witness answered that,
she had stated that her statement u/s 164 of Cr. P.C.
was recorded. She did not remember if she had
instructed her advocate to write details of the
incidents which had occurred on 07/01/2010 and
03/04/2010. She had instructed her advocate to write
details of the incident which had occurred on
20/01/2010. She did not remember about 08/03/2011 but
she had instructed her advocate to write in the
Petition about incidents dated 10/03/2011, 12/03/2011
and 13/03/2011. She was taken to the Hon'ble High Court
for signing the Petition. She was shown only the
second portion that appeared from page which was marked
as number 3 till page which was marked as number 7.
She had signed the Petition in presence of one of the
officers of the Hon'ble High Court. She had signed on
page number 8 near deponent. She did not remember if
her advocate had signed the Petition before she signed
and that, if her advocate signed after she signed the
Petition. She did not remember if the officer of the
Hon'ble High court signed after she and her advocate
signed and that, which pages were present when it was
taken before the officer of the Hon'ble High Court and
...387/-
Exh.1124 387 (J-SC 317/10)
that, if the said officer asked if the contents of the
Petition were true and if they were as per her
instructions. She did not remember if the said officer
initialed on each page and on page number 8, put the
rubber stamp and her signature and that, if any other
pages were annexed to the Petition at the time of
affirmation. The witness denied that, she was deposing
falsely regarding the Petition and that, she was
deposing falsely to evade the fact that Anil Bheda had
contacted her and called her to Vashi police station,
as stated in item number 5 of the synopsis to the
Petition. She did not remember if the half page and
subsequent five pages, between pages 7 to 8, added by
way of amendment were present when she signed the
Petition. She was not called by her advocate to sign on
these pages. The witness denied that, she had stated
falsely in the Writ Petition. She did not know when
these pages were added by her advocate. She did not
remember if she was read over the contents of these
pages by her advocate.
398. The witness further deposed that, on
25/03/2008, she had been to the Court of the Ld. MM,
Railway Mobile court. She had filed an Affidavit before
the Ld. MM. She did not remember if oath was
administered to her by the Magistrate. She had signed
the affidavit before the Magistrate. She did not
remember if Magistrate signed the affidavit. The
...388/-
Exh.1124 388 (J-SC 317/10)
witness was shown affidavit dated 25/03/2008 which was
recorded during the inquiry proceedings in Cri. Writ
Petition 2473/2006 (The same was taken from the Inquiry
proceedings as directed in Cri. Writ Petition
2473/2006). It was the same affidavit Exh.335. She did
not disclose anything to the Magistrate except
submitting of the affidavit Ex.335. She did not
disclose anything to the Magistrate after submitting
Ex.335. She never disclosed about affidavit Ex.335 to
the SIT. She did not disclose about Ex.335 to the Ld.
Magistrate 05/01/2010. Affidavit of Anil Bheda was also
submitted to the Ld. Magistrate on 25/03/2008. She did
not remember if notice dated 19/03/2008 was issued by
the Ld. Magistrate to attend the court. The witness was
shown notice Exh.336. It bore her signature. She did
not remember if after receiving Ex.336 she attended the
court of the Ld. Magistrate. The witness was read over
contents of Ex.336. After receipt of this notice Ex.336
she went to the court. The witness was shown notice
dated 09/04/2008. It bore her signature. It was marked
Exh.337. She did not remember if Anil Bheda went to the
Magistrate after receipt of Ex.337. Anil Bheda had gone
to the court of Ld. Magistrate. She did not remember
the date on which he had been there. The witness was
shown statement dated 17/04/2008. It bore signature of
Anil Bheda which she identified. It was marked as A
for identification. She was not informed by Anil Bheda
...389/-
Exh.1124 389 (J-SC 317/10)
that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate. She
did not know about recording of such statement. She had
given copy of Ex.337 to Anil Bheda. After receipt of
Ex.337, she knew that Anil Bheda had to appear before
the Magistrate. She did not remember if Anil Bheda went
to the Magistrate. He had stated that he would have to
go the Magistrate for recording his statement.
399. The witness further deposed that, she was told
by Anil Bheda that she had to go to the office of the
SIT on 03/09/2009. She did not remember what time she
had gone to the SIT with Anil Bheda and that, if she
had been there in the morning, afternoon or evening.
She returned home from the SIT in the evening. She did
not remember the time. She could not say if it was
before 5.00 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. or later and
that, by which route she went to the SIT on that day.
She had travelled by train and then by auto the office
of the SIT. She took train from Vashi to Wadala and
from Wadala to Andheri and from Andheri she went by
rickshaw. She did not remember at what time she reached
the office of the SIT and that, if any festival or
function or celebration was done on that day during her
journey and that, if there was huge traffic because of
festival/ celebration. She did not remember if while
travelling in auto from Andheri to Powai, there were a
number of persons walking on the road, celebrating
festival and that, if on that day, number of roads from
...390/-
Exh.1124 390 (J-SC 317/10)
Andheri to Powai were closed and there were diversions
and that, if Powai police station was in a lane
opposite Powai lake. She had gone from under the
bridge. When they went from under the bridge, the road
was parallel to the Pawai lake. She did not remember if
a number of persons had gathered at Pawai lake to
celebrate a festival and that, how they returned back
to Vashi from Pawai police station and that, how much
time it took to reach Pawai from her house and vice
versa. She did not remember if the road leading to
Powai police station was closed from Larsen & Tuebro
from noon till midnight and that, if both the roads
under the bridge were closed because of the festival
and that, if it was last day of immersion of idols of
Lord Ganesh(Anant Chaturdashi). She did not remember if
she saw any Ganpati processions while going from her
house to Pawai and return. The witness denied that, she
did not go to Pawai police station on 03/09/2009 and
that, the SIT prepared false statement on say of PW-1.
400. The witness further deposed that, she did not
know any lady by name Subhalaxmi. She had not met any
lady or spoken to her either in person or on phone by
name Subhalaxmi. It did not happen that Anil or
Pandeyji asked her to speak with Subhalaxmi on
telephone. It did not happen that PW-1 asked her to
speak with Subhalaxmi after 11/11/2006. The SIT
informed her that she had to go the Ld. Magistrate to
...391/-
Exh.1124 391 (J-SC 317/10)
record her statement u/s.164 on 05/01/2010. She did not
know what Section 164 implied. She did not make
inquiries as to what Section 164 implied. When she
appeared before the Magistrate, she did not know the
meaning of Section 164 of Cr.P.C., nor it was explained
to her. She did not request the Magistrate to explain
the provision of Section 164. The SIT did not disclose
if any permission was taken from the Magistrate. She
had appeared before the Magistrate in the Court Hall.
General public was not present in the Court Hall.
Herself, typist and Ld. Magistrate were only present in
the Court Hall. Door was closed. She was not afraid
when she was before the Magistrate. There was no
hindrance for her to speak. She on her own did not
inform the SIT that her statement be recorded by the
Magistrate. She did not inform the Magistrate that her
statement be recorded in Gujarati as she knew Gujarati
language very well. She had asked the SIT about what
she had to state before the Magistrate. The SIT had
informed that she had to state what was stated in her
statement dated 03/09/2009. On 05/01/2010, she deposed
as per say of the SIT. She did not make any complaint
to the court or police about the threats received on
phone by her husband so that he should not support the
prosecution and should not attend the court to give
evidence. The witness on her own deposed that, she had
informed the SIT. She knew that the court case was
...392/-
Exh.1124 392 (J-SC 317/10)
pending regarding the incident. The witness on her own
deposed that, it was to start on 16
th
March. Anil had
informed Mr. Ghorpade of the SIT about the threats. She
did not go personally to lodge complaint to the SIT.
The SIT did not call her regarding the complaint of
threats. She or Anil did not lodge any complaint in
writing with the SIT. She did not inform the SIT to
take her to the court where the evidence was to be
given so that complaint could be lodged regarding the
threats. She or Anil did not apply for police
protection. She did not take any assistance of any
advocate to lodge a complaint or file a Petition in the
Hon'ble High Court asking for investigation about the
threats. The witness denied that, she heard the
conversation for the first time when Mr. Chalke played
the CD on the laptop. She did not remember the make of
the handset of Anil Bheda. When the threats were
received, he was using only one phone having number
9833676351. Anil played her 9-10 conversations of such
threats. She did not hear live conversation of such
threats. The said conversations were received on 11th
and 12th and about 34 conversations were received at
her house. The last two calls were received in the
office of the SIT on 12/03/2011. At that time, she was
not present with him at the office of the SIT. The
witness denied that, she did not know to which officer
the said conversation was played by Anil. She or Anil
...393/-
Exh.1124 393 (J-SC 317/10)
did not ask for police protection with the SIT on 11th
and 12
th
March. She or Anil did not lodge any complaint
and pray for investigation from the Courts on the basis
of recorded conversation. No complaint was lodged at
Vashi police station by her or Anil regarding the
recorded conversation. The fact of receiving such calls
in office of the SIT was informed to her by Anil. She
did not lodge any complaint with the SIT regarding the
telephone numbers from where the said calls were
received. She did not know if Anil lodged such
complaint or not.
401. The witness further deposed that, she could
identify her statement dated 12/11/2006 recorded by PI
Patil of Vashi police station. The witness was shown
statement dated 12/11/2006 filed along with list Ex.
340. It bore her signature which she identified. She
had not stated to Mr. Patil as was written in the
statement. At 8.50 p.m., she had been in the cabin of
Shri D.B. Patil. Her statement was recorded by PI D.B.
Patil. She did not remember on how many occasions she
visited Vashi police station relating to complaint
dated 13/03/2011. She met police officer Mr. Sanjay
Surve at Vashi police station with respect to the
complaint dated 13/03/2011. She had been to Vashi
police station on 21/04/2011 to give an application
pertaining to a forged letter sent on behalf of Anil.
She did not remember if she had handed over the letter
...394/-
Exh.1124 394 (J-SC 317/10)
to Mr.Sanjay Surve along with the application. She did
not remember if she had taken acknowledgment regarding
the said letter. She would have to verify and see if
such acknowledgment was available with her. She did not
give any such acknowledgment to the SIT. It did not
happen that Mr.Chalke visited her house on 21/04/2011.
She had furnished copy of the said letter to the SIT.
She had not taken any acknowledgment of giving of such
letter to the SIT. She had handed over the letter to
Mr. Chalke of the SIT on 21
st
April or 22
nd
April. Some
talk took place about the letter between herself and
Mr.Chalke. She had gone to the SIT in the afternoon at
about 2.30 3.30 p.m. She was present at the SIT office
for about 10 15 minutes. Her statement was not
recorded by Mr.Chalke of the SIT. On that day, at that
time, she did not give any application for police
protection to the SIT. Mr.Chalke did not show her the
CD at that time. She had met Mr. Ghorpade when she had
been at the SIT office. Mr.Ghorpade did not play any
conversation on his mobile. Mr.Chalke or Mr.Ghorpade
did not play any conversation from the CD on the
laptop. She was not informed by Mr.Ghorpade or
Mr.Chalke that on 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th March, Anil
Bheda was in contact with Ghorpade and Chalke. She was
informed by Mr.Ghorpade and Mr.Chalke that Anil had
visited office of the SIT on 10th, 11th, 12th March.
She did not remember if Ghorpade and Chalke informed
...395/-
Exh.1124 395 (J-SC 317/10)
her that they had recorded statement of Anil on 10th,
11th and 12th March. She was not informed by
Mr.Ghorpade and Mr.Chalke that they heard the
conversation received by Anil on 12th March. The
witness on her own deposed that, Ghorpade and Chalke
informed that the telephone call came in their presence
and they heard the recording subsequently. She did not
ask Mr.Ghorpade and Mr.Chalke to play her the
conversation. The witness on her own deposed that she
had heard the conversation from Anil. She heard the
conversations of the telephone call received on 11th
and 12th March. She did not remember if she informed
the SIT about her hearing the conversation stated on
11
th
and 12
th
March. She did not inform Mr.Chalke and
Mr. Ghorpade of the SIT that she could identify voice
of Anil Bheda. She had felt it important that the calls
of 10th, 11th and 12th March would be important in
investigation relating to the complaint dated 13
th
March of kidnapping of Anil. She did not inform the SIT
to investigate relating to the conversation. She or
Anil did not lodge any complaint regarding to
conversations dated 10th, 11
th
and 12th March. She or
Anil did not submit the conversations to any police
station for investigation. She did not visit DCP
Mr.Prasanna and give him information or play the
conversation. She did not know if Anil Bheda did the
same. Anil had taken a house on rent at Koparkhairane
...396/-
Exh.1124 396 (J-SC 317/10)
about one year before. She did not remember the exact
date, month and year. She resided there for about one
year. She did not know any person by name Savita
Sisodia. She did not remember if Anil had mobile
connection with no.7498368684. Anil was not residing at
Koparkhairane between 10th, 11th and 12th March 2011.
The reference of house of Anil Bheda at Koparkhairane
in conversation appearing in transcript number 3
(60500) was incorrect. Anil did not have any business
in Koparkhairane. She did not know any person whom Anil
used to meet in Koparkhairane. The witness denied that,
Anil did not inform her that he used to visit
Koparkhairane. She did not know any details where he
used to go in Koparkhairane. She did not inform PW-1
that Anil had received such calls. She did not ask Anil
to approach the Hon'ble High Court regarding the said
conversation. She did not remember if she went alone to
the SIT on 21
st
and 22
nd
. No relative accompanied her to
the SIT on 21
st
and 22/04/2011. She did not remember if
she had taken Parth with her.
402. The witness further deposed that, she did not
know that Anil was going towards the SIT office when he
left the house on 12/03/2011. Anil told her on
telephone subsequently that he was going to office of
the SIT. On 10th and 11th, Anil had gone out with
relation to his business. She did not remember when
...397/-
Exh.1124 397 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil returned home on 10/03/2011. He had returned home
for lunch on 11/03/2011 and that, if he left the house
again after his lunch. On 12/03/2011, she called Anil
on his mobile from her mobile. Same mobile was
available with her on 10th and 11th. It did not occur
to her that Anil should not go out of the house alone
on 10th and 11th. It did not occur to her that she
should accompany Anil wherever he went on 10th and
11th. It did not occur to her that Anil should be
accompanied by his relations or her relatives when he
left the house on 10th and 11th. Anil left the house
alone and also came back alone on 10th and 11th. On
12th, he left alone and Mr.Ghorpade of the SIT left him
on the main road when he returned. She was repeatedly
calling Anil on his Vodafone mobile number 9833676351
from her mobile bearing number 9320466422 on 10th, 11th
and 12th. On 13/03/2011, Anil left the house alone. It
did not occur to her after hearing the conversation of
12/03/2011 that Anil should not go out alone on
13/03/2011. It did not occur to her that she should
accompany Anil wherever he went on 13/03/2011 and that,
Anil should be accompanied by his relations or her
relatives on 13/03/2011. Anil reached home on
12/03/2011 at about 10.45 p.m 11.00 p.m. She did not
remember when she lastly spoke with Anil Bheda on
12/03/2011 when he was in the office of the SIT. When
Anil told her that he was in office of the SIT, it was
...398/-
Exh.1124 398 (J-SC 317/10)
about 5.00 p.m. on 12/03/2011. Thereafter she spoke to
Anil after he returned home. She did not ask Anil as to
what he was doing in the office of the SIT for about 5
hours.
403. The witness further deposed that, on
13/03/2011, Anil left the house at about 11.00 to 11.15
a.m. She called Anil on his mobile at 11.45 a.m. but
his mobile was switched off. She was trying repeatedly
thereafter. She was continuously calling on his mobile
till 12.30 p.m. Thereafter she was calling him
intermittently. She called the SIT at 12.30 p.m. she
called Mr. Ghorpade. She did not remember the number on
which she called him. Vashi police station was nearer
to her house than the SIT. She did not call Vashi
police station immediately. She did not lodge complaint
with Vashi police station till 12.30 p.m. The witness
denied that, she went to Vashi police station at about
05.15 p.m for the first time on 13/03/2011. She reached
Vashi police station at about 02.30 to 03.00 p.m. She
met the constable who was sitting outside. When she
went to Vashi police station, she did not know why the
mobile of Anil was showing switched off. The witness
denied that, she was not knowing where Anil was going
at 11.15 a.m. on 13/03/2011. Anil did not disclose when
he was going to return. At 12.30 p.m., she informed
Mr.Ghorpade of the SIT that the mobile of Anil was
...399/-
Exh.1124 399 (J-SC 317/10)
switched off. She did not know where Anil was between
11.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 13/03/2011 and that, where
Anil was between 12.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. on 13/03/2011.
The witness denied that, she only disclosed to the
constable at 3.15 p.m. that her husband had left the
house and his mobile was switched off and she did not
know his whereabouts. She left her house at about 1.00
1.30 p.m. to search for Anil. First, she went to sector
9 and recharged her mobile and came back home. She left
the house for recharge before she went to search for
Anil. On 13/03/2011, she first left the house at about
12.45 to 1.00 p.m. for recharging her mobile and
returned back within about 15 minutes. At that time,
she was residing in sector 10. There was a shop where
she could recharge her mobile in sector 10. Inspite of
that she went to sector number 9. The witness on her
own deposed that, there was no recharge balance with
sector number 10 vendor. There was no important work
for which she returned back home after recharge. She
found the vehicle near the bus stop of sector number
15. Sector number 15 was at 5 to 7 minutes walk from
sector number 10. She went walking to sector number 9.
She did not see the vehicle when she went to sector
number 9. When she called Ghorpade after she saw the
vehicle, he asked her to close the glass window and
also lock the car and then lodge a complaint with Vashi
police station. She did not know with whom the keys of
...400/-
Exh.1124 400 (J-SC 317/10)
the car were, when she saw the car. She did not know
who had left the window half open. She did not inquire
with anyone regarding who had left the car. The witness
on her own deposed that, there was only a bus stop near
the car and no one was present there. She had seen Anil
leaving the society in his car. Anil left alone in the
car. After seeing the car, it occurred to her as to
where Anil could have gone. She was waiting near the
car for about half an hour. She was there till about
2.00 to 2.15 p.m., waiting for Anil. Then she went to
Vashi police station. Vashi police station was at 10
minutes travelling distance by auto. No one informed
her during the said half an hour, while she was waiting
near the car, that someone had forcefully taken away
the occupant of the car. She did not receive any phone
call informing her that Anil has been kidnapped. She
did not receive any phone call from Mr.Ghorpade between
12.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m., stating that his inquiries
revealed that Anil had been kidnapped from the car.
404. The witness further deposed that, when she was
in Vashi police station at about 3.15 p.m., she did not
know where Anil was and with whom. She did not remember
if she informed the said constable at Vashi police
station at 3.15 p.m. that Anil had left the house and
his mobile was reported to be switched off and his
whereabouts were not known and that she had gone out
...401/-
Exh.1124 401 (J-SC 317/10)
for recharging her mobile and again she went to search
him and found the car and she was waiting there for
about half an hour and thereafter she called Mr.
Ghorpade of the SIT and as per his advice she had come
to Vashi police station. She did not remember if she
informed that her husband's vehicle was found and his
whereabouts were not known and that she was worried and
police should trace him out. Constable asked her why
she had come to the police station. She informed why
she had come to the police station. She did not
remember the exact information she gave to the
constable and that, for how much time she was with the
said constable and that, what the constable informed
her. He wrote down after she gave the information. She
did not remember if he wrote it in the Register or
paper. He took it down in his own handwriting. She
signed the same. She did not remember if he read over
the contents of the same. It occurred to her that she
should verify the contents of the same, but she did not
do it. Then, she went home. She did not remember the
time and that, if she reached before 5.30 p.m. She met
Mr. Sanjay Surve after meeting the constable in Vashi
police station. She did not remember if she informed
Sanjay Surve the same facts that she disclosed to the
constable and that, if Mr.Ghorpade asked her to meet
Sanjay Surve and that, who asked her to meet Sanjay
Surve. She was with Sanjay Surve for about half an
...402/-
Exh.1124 402 (J-SC 317/10)
hour. She did not remember if she informed Sanjay Surve
at Vashi police station that Anil had left the house
and his mobile was reported to be switched off and his
whereabouts were not known and that she had gone out
for recharging her mobile and again she went to search
him and found the car and she was waiting there for
about half an hour and thereafter she called
Mr.Ghorpade of the SIT and as per his advice she had
come to Vashi police station. She did not remember if
Sanjay Surve wrote down the information and took her
signature. Thereafter, she went home. She did not
remember for how much time she was in the police
station. She could no say if she left the police
station before 5.30 p.m. The witness denied that,
Sanjay Surve informed her that Ghorpade had informed
him that she was going to visit the police station.
405. The witness further denied that, she was
deposing falsely that Anil was kidnapped on 13/03/2011
and that, Anil Bheda had taken on rent one room in
Koparkhairane for about 12 years prior to 13/03/2011.
The witness denied that, Anil Bheda was residing with
Savita Sisodia as husband and wife at Koparkhairane for
last 12 years. She did not know if Anil had given
mobile number 7498368684 to Savita and that, if said
number was in the name of Anil. She did not make
inquiries if Anil was residing else where from 13
th
...403/-
Exh.1124 403 (J-SC 317/10)
March to 17th March. The witness denied that, she was
deposing falsely relating to incidents dated 11/11/2006
and 12/11/2006 and that, on 12/11/2006, Anil did not
show her Qualis vehicle with two policemen inside it
outside Vashi police station and that, she was deposing
false that thereafter she went home, took her clothes
and went to Bhattwadi in said Qualis. The witness
further denied that, she went to Kolhapur in a vehicle
thereafter and that, she was deposing falsely about her
trip to Kolhapur and back to Bombay. The witness
further denied that, she was deposing falsely that
there was threat to her life and her family and that,
her statement was not recorded on 03/09/2009. The
witness further denied that, she was deposing falsely
that Anil received threatening calls on his mobile and
that, she was deposing falsely about alleged incident
of 13/03/2011. The witness denied that, she was
deposing falsely that Anil informed her on 12/11/2006
about the incident of 11/11/2006 and that, she was
deposing falsely that her husband informed her that
Pradeep Sharma's men had taken him and his friend,
Pandeyji, in Qualis vehicle from Vashi, Sector 9. The
witness denied that, she was deposing falsely that her
husband informed her that he was produced before
accused no.1, Sharma and that, she was deposing falsely
that her husband informed her that on that night,
Pandeyji was killed in encounter and that, she was
...404/-
Exh.1124 404 (J-SC 317/10)
deposing falsely that Anil informed her that A.T. Patil
mediated on his behalf and hence he was released. The
witness further denied that, she was deposing falsely
that Anil told her that one Qualis vehicle was standing
and they had to go in the said vehicle and that, she
was deposing falsely on the say of the SIT and PW-1.
The witness further denied that, on 11/11/2006 her
husband and Ramnarayan Gupta were not together and
that, she was deposing falsely that on 11/11/2006
Dhiraj Mehta informed her that her husband and Pandeyji
were taken away in Qualis vehicle from Sector 9. The
witness denied that she was deposing falsely that on
11/11/2006 Anil and Pandeyji left together.
406. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Anil had mobile number 9323053863 in
2006. It was a prepaid mobile. He was recharging the
said mobile regularly. Anil had gone to recharge his
mobile on 11/11/2006. She was having knowledge that
Anil had gone to recharge the mobile. She knew the area
Sector 9 and 9A, Vashi. She did not visit sector 9 or
sector 9A of Vashi after Dhiraj gave her information on
11/11/2006. She was knowing Pandeyji for about 78
months. The witness denied that, on number of
occasions, she spoke with Pandeyji in that period. Anil
did not inform her about the background of Pandeyji or
his family members. The witness denied that, on
...405/-
Exh.1124 405 (J-SC 317/10)
11/11/2006, the schools were closed on account of
Diwali vacation and that, hence there was no question
of going to Parth's school. She did not feel it
necessary that she should inform her brother-in-law
about the incident informed by Dhiraj Mehta till 2.30
p.m. of 12/11/2006. She did not inform officers of
Vashi police station on 11/11/2006, any of the
information given by Dhiraj Mehta. She knew on
12/11/2006, when she went to police station that Anil
had gone for recharging his talk time on 11/11/2006.
She had informed the police officers at Vashi police
station on 12/11/2006 that Anil had gone at 10.30 a.m.
on 11/11/2006 for recharging his talk time. She did not
inform D.B. Patil that Anil did not return from
recharging his talk time and hence she lodged the
complaint. The witness was shown Portion marked A in
statement dated 12/11/2006, recorded by D.B. Patil. She
did not remember if she stated Portion marked 'A' to
Mr.D.B.Patil. She had knowledge on 12/11/2006 that Anil
had gone to Shirdi on 11/11/2006. The witness on her
own deposed that, it was after Anil informed her about
it. She did not remember if she informed D.B. Patil
that Anil had gone to Shirdi on 11/11/2006. The witness
was shown Portion marked 'B' in statement dated
12/11/2006, recorded by D.B. Patil. She had not stated
Portion marked 'B' to Shri D.B.Patil. Anil had informed
D.B. Patil that he had gone to Shirdi.
...406/-
Exh.1124 406 (J-SC 317/10)

407. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, she and Anil were both called in the
cabin of D.B. Patil. The witness was read over portion
marked 'C' in statement dated 12/11/2006. She did not
state the same to Shri D.B.Patil. She had stated to
D.B. Patil that she did not send the fax. She could not
assign any reason why portion marked 'A', 'B' and 'C'
were stated in her statement. The witness denied that,
the contents of the statement were read over and
explained to her in Hindi. She could read Marathi. The
witness denied that, on 12/11/2006 Anil did not
introduce her to any persons as policemen. She did not
verify if the said persons were policemen or not. The
witness denied that, on 12/11/2006 she did not see
accused no.3 and that, she did not know that the said
person was Ratnakar Kamble and that, she had no means
to know that the said person was Ratnakar Kamble. The
witness further denied that, accused no. 3 did not come
with her to Bhattwadi on 12/11/2006 and that, accused
no.3 did not enter in her house at Bhattwadi and did
not lock the rear door. She did not remember if she had
not disclosed the fact of Rattu Kamble entering her
house at Bhattwadi and locking the rear door prior to
recording of her evidence. She had been to Thane jail.
She did not remember if she made entry when she entered
Thane jail. They reached jail at 3.00 p.m. She entered
...407/-
Exh.1124 407 (J-SC 317/10)
Thane jail between 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. She did not
remember if she made entry while coming out of the
jail. She came out of jail at about 5.30 6.00 p.m. She
went to one room on the left side after entering the
jail. She went to another room for identification. She
did not see any photographs of accused no.3 in the
newspaper prior to visiting Thane jail. She did not go
to the office of the SIT prior to visiting Thane jail.
The witness denied that, persons of different age
groups were standing in the room where Identification
Parade of accused no. 3 was carried and that, accused
no.3 was identified to her prior to Identification
Parade by the SIT. The witness denied that, as she took
time to identify accused no.3 in the court, she could
not have recognized accused no.3 immediately in the
jail and that, she changed her stand after meeting Adv.
Mr.Gupta for the first time. The witness denied that,
She gave different statements to the police before and
after meeting Gupta. Adv. Gupta met her and told that
his brother had been killed and he had filed Writ
Petition and she should help him. The witness denied
that, after meeting Gupta she changed her stand
regarding the case. She did not remember if Gupta gave
instructions of what she had to do in the year 2006.
The witness denied that, Gupta told her what to state
to the SIT and that, from 2006 till that day, she was
stating as per say of Adv. Gupta. She met Mr.Gupta from
...408/-
Exh.1124 408 (J-SC 317/10)
2006 till 13/03/2011 only once. She met Mr.Gupta from
13/03/2011 till date about 34 times. The witness
denied that, she had memorized the statement given by
the SIT and she was not deposing what had actually
happened. The witness denied that, she was deposing
falsely.
408. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, she had stated to the SIT while
recording her statement on 03/09/2009 that person
sitting next to the driver got down from the vehicle
and went running to his house and brought his clothes.
It was not so stated in her statement. She could not
assign any reason why it was not so stated in the
statement. She had not stated to the SIT while
recording her statement on 03/09/2009 that earlier,
they stayed in room number 116 and that as there was no
T.V. in the said room, two other rooms were taken and
that herself, her husband and her son stayed in room
number 102 and that the person who had come with them
stayed in room number 103. She had not stated to the
SIT that the person who accompanied them was Nitin
Solanki @ Dabbu. She had not stated that his name was
Hitesh Solanki and that she could identify him. She had
stated to the SIT that she met the same constable who
had come to her house to take the photograph (pertains
to take the photograph). She could not assign any
...409/-
Exh.1124 409 (J-SC 317/10)
reason why the same was not mentioned in her statement.
She did not remember if she had stated to the SIT that
case was pending against her husband (at Battis
Shirala). She could not assign any reason why it was
not stated in her statement. She had not stated to the
SIT that her husband and accused no.5 went to D.N Nagar
police station (pertains to only 'accused no.5'). She
had stated to the SIT that she received phone call from
accused no.5. It was not so stated in her statement
dated 03/09/2009. She could not assign any reason why
the same was not stated in her statement.
409. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if she had stated to the Ld. Magistrate while
recording Ex.310 that she had come with her husband and
two advocates and that accused no.5 had engaged the
said advocates to be with them. She had given the
statement hurriedly and hence it remained to be stated.
She was in the Court of the Ld. Magistrate for about 2
2 hours. There was no restriction of time put by the
Magistrate on 05/01/2010. There was no restraint by the
Magistrate regarding the contents of her statement. She
never complained to anybody that the two advocates with
her on 05/01/2010 were engaged by accused number 5. She
did not lodge any complaint with Mr. Chalke that the
advocates were not engaged by her. She and Anil had
gone together to the Court and also Mr.Chalke. She and
...410/-
Exh.1124 410 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil had gone to the SIT office prior to going to the
Court. The two advocates had also accompanied them to
the SIT office. She did not remember if other officers
were present in the office of the SIT. To reach the SIT
office, one has to go Powai police station and the SIT
office was situated at first floor of Pawai police
station. She or Anil did not complain at Pawai police
station that herself or Anil had not engaged those two
advocates. She did not complain to Mr. Chalke in the
office of the SIT that the two advocates were not
engaged by them but by accused number 5. They left the
office of the SIT at 4.00 4.30 p.m. It took about 25
minutes to reach Andheri court. They went in the
vehicle of the SIT. In the said vehicle, herself, Anil,
two advocates and Mr.Chalke went to the court. She did
not inform Mr. Chalke in the vehicle also that the two
advocates were not engaged by her. It did not occur to
her that she should have few minutes alone with Chalke
to complain about the advocates. She never met the said
advocates before 05/01/2010. She did not remember if
Mr.Chalke inquired with the two advocates as to who had
engaged their services and why were they accompanying
them. She did not remember if Mr.Chalke inquired with
the two advocates as to on whose say the said advocates
were accompanying them. Mr.Chalke did not ask her as to
why the two advocates were accompanying them. She did
not know if Mr.Chalke inquired with Anil. She did not
...411/-
Exh.1124 411 (J-SC 317/10)
remember if there was any conversation between Chalke
and the advocates. She or Anil did not sign any
vakalatnama in favour of the two advocates. She did not
know if Mr.Chalke had called them to the SIT office and
not to the court. She did not remember if Anil informed
her that Chalke had called them on that day to the
office of the SIT and that, if Anil informed her that
they had to go the office of the SIT on 05/01/2010. The
witness denied that, she was deposing falsely that she
along with two advocates went to the office of the SIT
and Andheri Court and that, she was deposing false that
accused number 5 had engaged the two advocates and
that, she was deposing falsely that Mr.Chalke was not
present in the court premises throughout the recording
of her statement. When her statement was being
recorded, Anil was sitting outside the court. The
witness denied that, after her statement was recorded,
she along with Chalke returned in the said vehicle to
the SIT. She did not remember if Mr. Chalke had
preferred an application before the Ld. Magistrate to
record her statement. When she went inside the Court
Hall, Mr.Chalke was present outside the Court Hall. The
witness denied that when she came out of the Court Hall
after recording her statement, Chalke was present.
410. The witness further deposed that, on
19/01/2010, she was contacted by Mr.Ghorpade of the
...412/-
Exh.1124 412 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT. She was not personally contacted by the officers
of the SIT but they spoke with Anil. She got to know
from Anil what Ghorpade told Anil. The witness denied
that, thereafter she went to the office of the SIT and
then to Thane jail. She did not remember if Anil had
gone to the office of the SIT on 19/01/2010 and that,
after coming home, Anil informed her that he had spoken
with Ghorpade in the office of the SIT. Anil informed
her that they had to go for Identification Parade. She
inquired with Anil as to who was to be identified in
the said Identification Parade and he informed her as
to who was to be identified. The witness denied that,
Anil informed her that Ghorpade had informed them as to
who was to be identified by them. Anil did not disclose
to her as to who had informed him as to who was to be
identified. Anil informed her that accused have to be
identified. She was informed that she was to identify
three persons. Anil disclosed her names of Hitesh,
Rattu and Desai. He also disclosed that she had to
identify Rattu and Desai who had accompanied in the
year 2006 and Hitesh who had accompanied them to
Kolhapur. Mr.Ghorpade on 20/01/2010, informed her that
she had to identify the accused whose names were
disclosed by Anil. The witness denied that, Mr.Ghorpade
also stated the names of the said accused and that,
this conversation took place in the presence of the
Magistrate. She did not know if Satish Rane made entry
...413/-
Exh.1124 413 (J-SC 317/10)
in the Register in the jail and that, only herself,
Anil and Magistrate entered the jail. Panchas also
accompanied them in the jail. Satish Rane introduced
the panchas but after they went inside the jail. While
entering Satish Rane informed her that the said two
persons were panchas. The witness denied that, when she
and Anil reached Thane jail, the panchas were present
with Mr.Ghorpade. She did not remember if Ghorpade
called the panchas and that, if the panchas came after
she arrived at Thane jail. She did not know how the
panchas came to Thane jail and who called the panchas.
She never met Riyaz Razak Memon, Imran Shamim Ahmed
Umar, Sanju Motiram Rathod, Prakash Jivadhan Mukta,
Raju Puma Pawar and Salim Khan @ Sikander. She never
saw these persons. She never met or saw Rajendra Ramraj
Mishra, Afroz Shamim Siauddin Shaikh, Johar Suvroti
Khan, Moin Momin Saeed and Govind Kishan Pawar. She had
never met or seen Azhar R. Ansari, Sayeed Zuber Barkat,
Manoj Mahadeo Patil, Jayesh Ashok Sonawane, Mahesh S.
Shetty, Pratesh Mahadeo Khandagali, Somnath Sridhar
Mhatre, Murat Shaukat Ali Goani, Ravi Rajeshwari
Pujari, Hari Sitaram Yadav, Sukhdeo Rajaram Hamre,
Dinesh Kashinath Deshmukh, Rajesh Tiwari and Saheed
Abbas Sadikali Mosin. She had never met or seen Devraj
Mansingh Thakur, Aslam Khan, Pankaj Jitendra Mishra,
Adesh Kurson Gadia, Salim Sharif Khan and Anant Bapurao
Kothimbe. She did not know all these persons. She was
...414/-
Exh.1124 414 (J-SC 317/10)
never introduced to any persons by these names.
Mr.Ghorpade or Rane did not introduce these persons to
her on 20/01/2010.
411. The witness further deposed that, after
entering the jail, there were rooms on either side. No
search was taken when she entered jail. When they left
from Vashi, Anil took his mobile. She did not take her
mobile. She did not remember if search of Anil, Satish
Rane or panchas was taken while entering jail. She did
not remember if search of Anil, Satish and panchas was
taken and all their belongings were kept aside. After
entering, she was taken to the room on the left hand
side. She was made to sit in the first room. She did
not remember if after entering there was a passage on
left hand side and there were three rooms on either
side of the passage and that, if in the said rooms,
there were three windows from which one could see
inside the jail premises. Satish Rane asked her and
Anil whether accused were shown to them by the police.
She did not inform Satish Rane that Anil had informed
her that she had to identify three persons, Hitesh,
Rattu and Desai. She did not know names of the said
two panchas and name of the panch who called her. When
she went with the pancha, Anil was sitting in the said
room. When Anil was taken by the pancha, she was alone
present in the said room. Anil came back to the same
...415/-
Exh.1124 415 (J-SC 317/10)
room where she was sitting. She saw Anil in the same
room before she went with the panch. The room where
Test Identification Parade was held was on the left
side of the gate from where they entered the jail. She
did not observe if the doors had door panels on it. She
did not observe if the said room had four walls and
windows. It was enclosed premises and not open. She did
not remember the size of the said room. Satish Rane did
not ask her if she had seen the accused after the
incident and after their arrest. She did not remember
if Rane asked the pancha to take her to a separate
room. She went to the room where Identification Parade
was held, twice. After her first identification was
completed, she went to the same room where Anil was
sitting. Thereafter, Anil went for the second time.
Then Anil came back to the same room where she was
sitting. After Anil returned to the said room, she went
for the second Identification Parade. After she
completed her identification, she returned to the same
room where Anil was sitting. People were moving around
outside the room where she was sitting. She could not
see the entire passage from where she was sitting. She
could see only a small part of it. She was not taken to
the barracks where the prisoners were present. She did
not remember if during the Identification Parade any
officer of the jail was present. There was one person
present in uniform. She did not know who he was.
...416/-
Exh.1124 416 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Rane did not introduce him to her. She had been to
the Identification Parade room after crossing another
gate. She did not remember if the said room where
Identification parade was held had a wall partly built
and the rest of the wall had wire mesh and that if the
room where she was taken for identification was
enclosed by complete wire mesh from flooring to roof.
The witness denied that, after entering the
identification room, Satish Rane did not make any
inquiries. He asked if the SIT had shown any
photographs of the persons she had come to identify.
The said inquiry was made in the first room. In the
said Identification room, Mr. Rane only asked her to
identify the accused. She did not remember if he made
any other inquiries. Mr.Rane inquired with her as to
why she had come to Thane jail. She did not inform him
that she had come to identify Hitesh, Rattu and Desai.
She did not remember if Mr.Rane wrote down what
conversation took place between them in the
Identification Parade room. There were in all 12 to 15
persons when she went to the Identification Parade room
for the first time. The witness denied that, the
persons whom she saw at the time of first parade were
also present during the second parade. There were in
all 20 to 22 persons when she went to the
Identification Parade room for the second time. On
seeing the 2022 persons, it did not occur to her that
...417/-
Exh.1124 417 (J-SC 317/10)
she had seen some of them before. She had seen the said
2022 persons for the first time during her second
Identification parade. There was little difference
between the height, face and structure of the 12-15
persons during first parade and between 2022 persons
of the second parade.
412. The witness further deposed that, she had
informed the Magistrate when she identified the first
person by touching him that he was the person who had
taken them to Kolhapur and stayed with them for four
days. She had informed the Magistrate while identifying
the second time that the said two persons had taken
them from Vashi police station in Qualis vehicle on
12/11/2006. She could not assign any reason why the
fact that accused no.5 took them to Kolhapur and stayed
with them for four days was not mentioned in the
Identification Parade panchanama. She could not assign
any reason why the fact that accused nos.2 and 3 took
them in Qualis vehicle from Vashi police station to his
house and from there to Bhattwadi, Ghatkopar, was not
mentioned in the Identification Parade panchanama (Ex.
346). She came out of the jail along with Anil and
Satish Rane. The Ld. SMM did not read over the contents
of Exh.346 to her. She did not ask the Ld. Magistrate
to read over the contents of Exh.346 to her. She did
not know if Anil asked the Ld. Magistrate to read the
...418/-
Exh.1124 418 (J-SC 317/10)
contents of Exh.346. She had not read till date Exh.
346. She did not know whether the Ld. SMM had correctly
or wrongly stated the details in Exh.346. DCP Mr.
Prasanna was not present when she came out of the jail.
The witness denied that, after coming out of the jail,
Mr.Ghorpade recorded her statement on say of DCP Mr.
Prasanna. It did not happen that Mr.Ghorpade spoke with
DCP Mr.Prasanna on phone and thereafter recorded her
statement. Mr.Ghorpade did not inform her that he was
recording her statement on say of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The
vehicle of Mr.Ghorpade was standing outside the jail.
Her statement was recorded by Mr.Ghorpade in said
vehicle. Her statement was recorded on laptop. He read
over the contents to her and then signed the said
statement in her presence. Similarly, statement of Anil
was recorded by Mr.Ghorpade on laptop and it was signed
by him in her presence. He put his signatures on paper.
Mr.Ghorpade did not have printer with him.
413. The witness denied that, she was deposing
falsely that Ghorpade recorded her statement and that
of Anil outside the jail and that, she did not make any
statement to Ghorpade on 20/01/2010 outside jail and
that, she and Anil did not participate in any Test
Identification Parade on 20/01/2010. The witness
further denied that, she and Anil did not go to Thane
jail on 20/01/2010 and that, she was deposing falsely
...419/-
Exh.1124 419 (J-SC 317/10)
that she identified accused nos.2,3 and 5 in the
Identification Parade on 20/01/2010. The witness
further denied that, that she was falsely implicating
accused nos.2,3 and 5 and was deposing falsely. The
witness further denied that, she never accompanied
accused no.5 to Kolhapur and that, accused no.5 was
never staying with her at Kolhapur.
414. The witness further deposed that, she was
contacted by Mr.Ghorpade of the SIT on 25/03/2010 and
that they had to reach Kolhapur on 27/03/2010. Mr.
Ghorpade spoke with Anil. He did not speak with her.
Only herself and Anil went to Kolhapur. Parth was not
with her. He was staying in hostel at that time. They
went to Kolhapur in bus. Mr.Ghorpade and panchas were
present in Majestic Hotel when they reached Majestic
Hotel. Mr.Ghorpade did not inform her what inquiries he
made with panchas before they reached Majestic Hotel.
She did not remember from where Mr.Ghorpade took out
the passenger diary and that, if the Manager took out
the passenger diary and gave it to Ghorpade and that,
if Ghorpade took out the diary from his possession and
showed it to her. Mr.Ghorpade did not disclose to them
from where he had got the diary. She did not remember
the contents of the said diary. Against said entry of
room no.116, her name or that of Anil and Parth did not
appear. Their signatures were also not present in the
...420/-
Exh.1124 420 (J-SC 317/10)
diary. She did not remember if the number of occupants
were stated in the said entry and that, if the period
of occupation was not mentioned in entry of room no.
116. Name of accused was also not present against the
entry of room no.116. She was shown entries of room
nos.102 and 103 in the Register. Her name and that of
Anil, Parth and accused no.5 did not appear against the
entry of room nos.102 and 103. Their signatures also
did not appear. She did not remember if number of
occupants was mentioned in the said room and that, the
period of occupancy of said rooms. She was present with
Mr. Ghorpade in the said hotel for about 30 minutes to
one hour. She did not remember if Mr. Ghorpade wrote
down anything at that time. Her signature and that of
Anil was not taken. She did not know if signatures of
panchas was taken or not. She did not remember if Mr.
Ghorpade read over anything to her after writing it in
the Hotel. The witness denied that, Ghorpade did not
carry out any proceedings in her presence on 27/03/2010
and that, she never went to Kolhapur on 27/03/2010 and
that, she was deposing falsely relating to her second
visit to Kolhapur. The witness further denied that,
she was falsely implicating accused no.5 on say of the
SIT and complainant and that, she was deposing falsely.
415. The witness further deposed that, Exh.306 was
her first statement on 11/11/2006. The witness denied
...421/-
Exh.1124 421 (J-SC 317/10)
that, her two statements were recorded at Vashi police
station on 12/11/2006. Exh.322 was the said statement
which was recorded on 12/11/2006. The witness was shown
statement along with list Exh.340. It bore her
signature. She did not remember if she had put the said
signature on 12/11/2006 in the evening. She did not put
the signature in the morning of 12/11/2006. Exhs.306
and 322 were written by different police officers. Exh.
306 was not taken and written down by D.B.Patil. Exh.
306 was taken by police constable. She did not know his
name. She did not know the rank of D.B.Patil. Her
statement was not written down by D.B. Patil on 11th
and 12/11/2006. She was not at Vashi police station at
8.50 p.m. on 12/11/2006. The witness denied that, from
5.00 p.m. onwards till 9.00 p.m. on 12/11/2006, she was
at Vashi police station. Statement of Anil was recorded
on 12/11/2006 after 5.00 p.m. and before they left
police station. She did not remember if D.B. Patil
recorded statement of Anil. Her statement was not
recorded by D.B. Patil. The witness was read over and
explained Portions marked 'A' and 'B' in her evidence.
Witness was read over portion marked 'A' appeared from
at that time..... (appearing on page 40/5) till
statements {appearing on page 40/6} and also portion
marked 'B' on page 40/70). Her evidence that D.B. Patil
recorded their statements as at portions marked 'A' and
'B' was incorrect.
...422/-
Exh.1124 422 (J-SC 317/10)
416. The witness denied that she was willfully
deposing falsely that D.B. Patil did not record their
statements. Portion marked 'B' in Exh.307 was taken on
12/11/2006. She could not state if her statement was
recorded after 12/11/2006 till her statement was
recorded by the SLAO-IV on 11/10/2007. She did not give
information regarding the incident to any officer or
any court during the said period. She did not give
information regarding the incident from the period her
statement was recorded at Bandra till affidavit, Exh.
335 was tendered at Andheri on 25/03/2008. She did not
give information regarding the incident from the period
affidavit, Exh.335 was tendered at Andheri till the SIT
made inquiries with her. About 45 statements were
recorded by the SIT and the first was on 03/09/2009 and
the other statements pertained to other incidents on
investigation at that place.
417. The witness further deposed that, when lodging
complaint about a missing person, one has to give
information as asked by the police officers. Before
11/11/2006, she was not aware that Anil would go
missing or any incident will happen with respect to
Pandeyji and Anil. It was important fact that Anil left
along with Pandeyji on 11/11/2006 when she lodged
missing complaint. So also it was important that at
...423/-
Exh.1124 423 (J-SC 317/10)
what time he left lastly. The information received
after the missing person was last seen till lodging of
complaint, was important. The witness denied that, her
statement was recorded by D.B. Patil at Vashi police
station at 8.50 p.m. on 12/11/2006. The witness was
shown statement dated 12/11/2006 filed along with Exh.
340. She had signed on paper on which matter was
written. It did not occur to her that she should read
the document on which she was putting her signature.
She did not remember who told her to sign and that,
whether he was police person or not. She did not
remember why she put her signature on the said
statement. The date 12/11/2006 and wording r ' =r = ' =
were present. She realised that she was giving in
writing. She would have taken objection if her
signature was taken on other date than 12/11/2006. She
did not go anywhere except police station and her
residence on 12/11/2006. She did not sign the said
statement at her residence. The witness denied that,
she had signed the said statement on 12/11/2006 in the
Vashi police station and she and her husband had given
statements accordingly and that she was purposely
deposing falsely. The witness was shown statement dated
12/11/2006 of Anil Bheda. It bore signature of her
husband which she identified. It was marked 'A'.
Statement of her husband was written down in her
presence at Vashi police station on 12/11/2006. She did
...424/-
Exh.1124 424 (J-SC 317/10)
not know what was written in the said statement. His
signature was taken in her presence on said statement.
418. The witness further deposed that, she was in
good mental health on 03/09/2009 when her statement was
recorded by the SIT. The typed statement was prepared
in the office of DCP Mr. Prasanna. She did not remember
how much time it took to record her statement. Her
statement was recorded in Marathi. She was not given
the said statement to read. As the statement was not
given to her for reading, she did not state that the
contents of the same were true and correct and as per
her say. She did not remember if the statement dated
03/09/2009 was read by her and it was true and correct
and as per her say. She did not remember if she had
stated that statement was read over by her and it was
true and correct and as per her say. The witness was
read over portion marked 'A' in the said statement. She
could not assign any reason why portion marked 'A' was
appearing in the said statement. On 12/11/2006
Mr.D.B.Patil had called her and her husband in his
chamber. Mr.D.B. Patil made inquiries about the missing
complaint and inquired with her husband about his
whereabouts. The witness denied that, her husband
informed D.B. Patil that he left Ramnarayan at Sanpada
railway station and he went to Thane relating to
property work. The witness was read over portion marked
...425/-
Exh.1124 425 (J-SC 317/10)
'B' in the statement dated 03/09/2009. She did not
state so to the police. She could not assign any reason
why portion marked 'B' was appearing in the said
statement. She did not disclose to the SIT that her
husband told D.B. Patil that his friend Ramnarayan left
Sanpada stating that he was going to Sion. The witness
read over portion marked 'C'. She did not state so to
the SIT. She could not assign any reason why portion
marked 'C' was appearing in the said statement. Her
husband did not disclose that thereafter he met one
Jayesh Karia at Thane and he did work relating to real
estate. The witness was read over portion marked 'D'.
She did not state so to the SIT. She could not assign
any reason why portion marked 'D' was appearing in the
said statement. Her husband did not disclose that
thereafter at 9.00 p.m. he by a private bus went to
Shirdi. She was read over portion marked 'E'. She did
not state so to the SIT. She could not assign any
reason why portion marked 'E' was appearing in the said
statement. Her husband did not disclose that on the
next day after taking darshan, he got 9.30 a.m. bus
from Shirdi and reached home at about 5.00 p.m. She was
read over portion marked 'F'. She did not state so to
the SIT. She could not assign any reason why portion
marked 'F' was appearing in the said statement. She did
not know what Anil told to D.B. Patil or as stated in
portions marked 'A' to 'F' about. The witness was read
...426/-
Exh.1124 426 (J-SC 317/10)
over portion marked 'G'. She did not state so to the
SIT. She could not assign any reason why portion marked
'G' was appearing in the said statement. She did not
hear her husband stating portions marked 'A' to 'F'.
The witness denied that, she heard her husband stating
so to D.B. Patil and that, she had heard the same facts
even prior to entering the chamber of Mr.Patil and
that, her husband stated the said facts in her
presence. The witness further denied that, hence
Mr.D.B. Patil recorded her statement and that of Anil
on that day. It did not happen that Mr. Patil recorded
her statement and that of Anil. The witness was read
over portion marked 'H'. She did not state so to the
SIT. She could not assign any reason why portion marked
'H' was appearing in the said statement. The witness
denied that, the statements dated 12/11/2006 recorded
by D.B. Patil were the same statements shown to her,
filed with list Exh.340 that day.
419. The witness further deposed that, for the
first time on 11/11/2006, she saw Pandeyji at the gate
of the society. They were present there for about 23
minutes. It was about 10.45 a.m. at that time. They
returned back at about 11.30 a.m. He was present till
about 12.15 p.m. in her house. Thereafter, her husband
and Pandeyji left together. The important fact of her
husband and Pandeyji leaving together and at 12.15
...427/-
Exh.1124 427 (J-SC 317/10)
p.m., was known to her and remembering the same when
she lodged the missing complaint. The witness denied
that, Pandeyji did not visit her house on that day and
her husband left the house alone at 10.30 a.m. The
witness was read over portion marked 'A' in Exh.306.
The witness denied that, she stated so to the police as
her husband had left alone at 10.30 a.m and that, as
Pandeyji did not come to her house on 11/11/2006 and
did not leave with her husband, hence she had not
mentioned Pandeyji while recording Exh.306. The witness
was read over portion marked 'A' in Exh.322. The
witness denied that, she stated so to the police as her
husband had left alone at 10.30 a.m. The witness denied
that, as Pandeyji did not come to her house on
11/11/2006 and did not leave with her husband, hence
she had not mentioned Pandeyji while recording Exh.322.
The witness was read over portion marked 'D' {being
part of portion marked 'A'} in statement dated
12/11/2006 filed with Exh.340). The witness denied
that, she stated so to the police as her husband had
left alone at 10.30 a.m and that, as Pandeyji did not
come to her house on 11/11/2006 and did not leave with
her husband, hence she had not mentioned Pandeyji while
recording statement dated 12/11/2006 filed with Exh.
340. The witness was read over portion marked 'A' in
statement annexed to list Exh.344. The witness denied
that, she stated so to the police as her husband had
...428/-
Exh.1124 428 (J-SC 317/10)
left alone at 10.30 a.m and that, as Pandeyji did not
come to her house on 11/11/2006 and did not leave with
her husband, hence she had not mentioned Pandeyji while
recording statement annexed to list Exh.344.
420. The witness further read over portion marked
'A' in Exh.335. The witness denied that, she stated so
to the police as her husband had left alone at 10.30
a.m. It did not happen that on 11/11/2006, her husband
stated that he was going to meet Pandeyji and left the
house. She could not assign any reason why the same was
mentioned in Exh.335. The prepared affidavit was given
to her. She did not prepare or give instructions for
preparing the affidavit. She did not know that Exh.335
was an affidavit when she signed it. She had never read
Exh.335 before tendering it. After signing she had
tendered Exh.335 to the court. On being asked, before
signing and presenting Exh.335, did she not feel it
that she should first read it before doing so, the
witness answered that, it was told to sign and tender
the same. The witness denied that, she read and
understood Exh.335 and also had knowledge that she was
stating the contents in Exh.335 on oath. Prior to
03/09/2009, she did not disclose to anyone that
Pandeyji had come to her house on 11/11/2006 and that
her husband had gone along with Pandeyji. She did not
leave her house from the time her husband left the
...429/-
Exh.1124 429 (J-SC 317/10)
house till she went to lodge the missing complaint on
11/11/2006. Till Dhiraj Mehta came on 11/11/2006, no
one had given any details about her husband to her.
From the time Dhiraj left till she went to police
station, she did not speak about the incident with
anyone. When she went to lodge the missing complaint
she was remembering the fact that she was trying to
call her husband on his mobile but he could not be
contacted and the information given by PW-1, Iyer and
Dhiraj Mehta. She had not disclosed the fact while
lodging missing complaint about the information given
by Dhiraj Mehta, PW-1 and Iyer. The witness denied
that, she did not disclose this fact while lodging
missing complaint as such information was not given.
421. On being asked, did it happen that her husband
had gone for refilling but he did not return soon and
there was no reply to her phone inspite of repeated
attempts and therefore she got frightened and went to
lodge missing complaint, the witness answered that,
Dhiraj had also given her information and hence
thereafter she went to lodge missing complaint. She was
afraid and hence she did not disclose the information
given by Dhiraj to the police while lodging missing
complaint. She was afraid because of information given
by Dhiraj. She did not disclose that she was afraid
because of information given by Dhiraj. She did not
...430/-
Exh.1124 430 (J-SC 317/10)
disclose that because her husband's mobile was coming
switched off she was afraid and hence she came to lodge
missing complaint. The witness was read over Portion
marked 'B' in Exh.322. The contents of the same were
correct. It was not stated that being afraid of
information given by Dhiraj, she lodged the missing
complaint. The witness was read over portion marked 'B'
in Exh.306. The only reason assigned for lodging
missing complaint was in portion marked 'B' of Exh.306
and portion marked 'B' of Exh.322. The witness was now
read over portion marked 'E' (part of portion marked
'A') in statement dated 12/11/2006 with list Exh.340).
The only reason assigned for lodging missing complaint
was in portion marked 'E'. The witness was read over
portion marked 'B' in statement before the SLAO-IV. The
only reason assigned for lodging missing complaint was
in portion marked 'B' of statement before the SLAO-IV.
She had stated to the SLAO-IV that her husband Anil
Bheda could not be contacted and his mobile was showing
switched off. Hence, she was afraid and she lodged
missing complaint on 11/11/2006 at Vashi police
station.
422. The witness was read over portion marked 'B'
in statement before the SLAO-IV. She did not state so
to the SLAO-IV. She could not assign any reason why the
same was mentioned in the statement before the SLAO-IV.
...431/-
Exh.1124 431 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness was now read over portion marked 'B' in
Exh.335. She did not state so in the affidavit. The
witness denied that, she tried to contact her husband
on his mobile phone and as his mobile was switched off
and he did not return home, she was afraid and she
lodged missing complaint. She could not assign any
reason as to why the same was written in the said
affidavit. The witness on her own deposed that, she did
not prepare Exh.335. In the above statements it was not
stated that Dhiraj had come to her house and had
conversation with PW-1 and PW-2.
423. The witness further deposed that, she was
shown fax in Vashi police station. She was remembering
the fact that PW-1 had asked her to send fax. She did
not inform the said officer that PW-1 was stating about
the fax and he might have sent the fax. She did not
remember if police had inquired about the fax when she
lodged missing complaint on 11/11/2006. The witness was
shown portion marked 'C' in Exh.306. At that time it
did not occur to her that said fax was related to her
conversation with PW-1. The witness was read over
portion marked 'F' in statement dated 12/11/2006 with
list Exh.340. She did not disclose to Mr.D.B. Patil
portion marked 'F' in statement dated 12/11/2006 with
list Exh.340. The fax was read over to her by D.B.
Patil. She did not read the fax. Mr.D.B. Patil read
...432/-
Exh.1124 432 (J-SC 317/10)
over the said fax and the contents of the fax as stated
in portion marked 'F'. She had studied till S.S.C. in
Gujarati medium. The witness denied that, she could
read English. She had not given this statement. Hence,
she could not assign any reason why it was so stated
that she had read the fax and she could read English.
She was remembering the fact that PW-1 had asked her to
send the fax when fax was read over to her by D.B.
Patil. It did not occur to her that she should inform
Shri D.B Patil that PW- 1 had asked her to send fax and
he might have sent the fax.
424. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if she had disclosed before the SLAO-IV that
one fax was shown by D.B. Patil and she told him that
she had not sent the fax. The witness was shown portion
marked C in statement before the SLAO-IV, which she
stated before the SLAO-IV. She was remembering the fact
of PW-1 asking her to send the fact when her statement
was recorded by the SLAO-IV. She did not disclose the
said fact to the SLAO-IV. The witness denied that, she
did not receive any phone call from PW-1 about the fax
and hence she did not state so to the SLAO-IV. The
witness denied that,the SLAO-IV asked her that if it
is true to say as stated by PW-1 that she informed PW-1
on mobile that Ramnarayan and Anil Bheda were taken by
plainclothes policemen in Qualis vehicle to unknown
...433/-
Exh.1124 433 (J-SC 317/10)
place and she replied that she had not stated so. She
did not state to the SLAO-IV portion marked D in
statement. She could not assign any reason why it was
so stated by the SLAO-IV. On 11.11.2006, she had not
contacted PW-1 on phone/ mobile. She had signed her
statement before the SLAO-IV. She did not read her
statement before the SLAO-IV. She did not remember if
it was written as per her say. She had not read the
same and hence she could not say if the contents of the
statement was true and correct. The witness was shown
portion marked E in statement before the SLAO-IV.
She did not state so to the SLAO-IV. She could not
assign any reason why the same was mentioned in her
statement before the SLAO-IV. She read the documents on
which she put her signature and then only she signed.
She had signed documents without reading the same. She
did not remember how many documents she signed without
reading the contents. The witness denied that, she had
read the statement before the SLAO-IV and after
verifying the correctness of the said statement, she
signed the same.
425. The witness further deposed that, she did not
disclose that her husband returned home on 12.11.2006
at 5 pm in Exh.335. The witness was shown portion
marked C in Exh.335. She did not state so. She had
not prepared the affidavit. Hence, she could not assign
...434/-
Exh.1124 434 (J-SC 317/10)
any reason why it was stated so in Exh.335. She did not
disclose in Exh.335 that she along with her husband
went to Vashi police station to withdraw the missing
complaint. She did not state portion marked D in Exh.
335. The witness denied that, she knew that the
affidavit Exh.335 was to be filed in Judicial Enquiry
and that the contents of Exh.335 were true and correct
to her personal knowledge. She did not state portion
marked E in Exh.335. She had not prepared affidavit.
Hence could not assign any reason as to why it was
stated so in Exh.335. She had not stated contents of
Exh.335 on solemn oath. She did not state portion
marked F in Exh.335. She had not prepared affidavit.
Hence could not assign any reason as to why it was
stated so in Exh.335. The witness denied that, she and
Anil Bheda got prepared the said affidavit Exh.335 from
her advocate and the contents of Exh.335 were as per
her say and of Anil Bheda. The witness denied that, she
was deposing false that she had not prepared Exh.335 on
say of PW-1 and the SIT.
426. The witness further deposed that, she was
informed by the police on 11.11.2006 when she lodged
missing compliant that if her husband was traced out
she should bring him to the police station. The witness
denied that, hence she took her husband to Vashi police
station on 12.11.2006. She had not stated in Exh.306
...435/-
Exh.1124 435 (J-SC 317/10)
statements with list Exh.340 and Exh.344 and Exh.335
that her husband and Pandeyji were taken away from
sector 9 and that she received phone call from PW-1.
She did not disclose before the SLAO-IV or the Ld. MM
that she and her husband were taken by Qualis to her
house at Vashi from Vashi police station, then to
Bhatwadi to her mother's house and then on the next day
her husband was taken to DN Nagar police station and
then they were taken to Kolhapur and then after return
from Kolhapur her husband was kept in Hotel at Andheri
East. She was remembering these facts when she went
before the SLAO-IV and Ld. MM. She did not disclose the
above mentioned facts to anybody prior to recording her
statement on 3.9.2009 by the SIT. She had not disclosed
prior to 3.9.2009 to anybody that PW-1 had come to her
house and made inquiries about clothes and money of
Gupta. From 11.11.2006 till that day she did not make
inquiries about the information given by Dhiraj Mehta
with the occupants of cosmetic shop and other shops in
the vicinity. She had not taken the officers of the SIT
to the said place where alleged incident of 11.11.2006
occurred. She did not ask Dhiraj Mehta or Dhiraj Bheda
to go to the said area and make inquiries regarding the
incident dated 11.11.2006. If one had to reach in the
morning to Kolhapur, one had to travel and start from
Mumbai to preceding night. She stayed in only one hotel
in Kolhapur. The witness denied that, she reached
...436/-
Exh.1124 436 (J-SC 317/10)
Kolhapur in the morning of 13.11.2006. She had not
stated to the SIT that she reached Kolhapur on
13.11.2006 in the morning. The witness was shown
portion marked I in statement dated 3.9.2009 before
the SIT. She could not assign any reason as to why the
same was written in her statement.
427. The witness further deposed that, it did not
occur that on 11.11.2006 when she returned at about
10.45 am, Pandeyji and her husband were sitting inside
the house. She did not state portion marked A in Exh.
310 before the Ld. M.M. She could not assign any reason
as to why the same was written in her statement. She
had stated while recording Exh.310 that at that time
her husband informed her that Pradeep Sharma's men had
taken Anil and his friend Pandeyji in a Qualis vehicle
from Vashi sector 9 and that he stated that they were
taken to Andheri DN Nagar police station and that he
stated that he was produced before Mr. Sharma and that
he further stated that police officer by name A.T.
Patil mediated on his behalf and hence he was released.
She could not assign any reason why the same was not
stated in Exh.310. She did not remember if she had
informed that Desai and Ratnakar Kamble gave their
telephone numbers. She could not assign any reason why
the same was not stated in Exh.310. She did not
remember if she had informed that Rattu and Desai had
...437/-
Exh.1124 437 (J-SC 317/10)
taken her husband to D.N. Nagar police station, the
next day morning. She could not assign any reason why
the same was not stated in Exh.310. She did not
remember if she had stated while recording Exh.310 that
accused no.2 and accused no.3 were the two police in
plainclothes in the Qualis vehicle. The witness denied
that, the two policemen of night shift took her husband
to DN Nagar police station. she did not state portion
marked B in Exh.310 before Ld. MM, while recording
Exh.310. She could not assign any reason why same was
written in Exh.310. She did not remember if she had
disclosed that the two persons who left her at her
mother's place returned back at 9.30 to 10 am and took
her husband to D.N. Nagar police station. she could not
assign any reason as to why same was not written in
Exh.310. When Anil was being taken to D.N. Nagar police
station next day morning, she was given the two mobile
numbers of accused nos.2 and 3. by them. The witness
denied that, the mobile numbers of accused nos. 2 and 3
were given when her husband was taken to hotel at
Andheri. She did not remember if she had stated portion
marked C in Exh.310 to the Ld. MM. She could not
assign any reason as to why the same was written in
Exh.310. The mobile numbers of accused nos. 2 and 3
were given only once when her husband was taken to DN
Nagar police station the next day morning. Mobile nos.
of accused nos.2 and 3 were not given when her husband
...438/-
Exh.1124 438 (J-SC 317/10)
was taken to hotel at Andheri. Anil had given her
mobile no. of accused no.5. She did not remember when
she was given the mobile no. of accused no.5 and that,
if it was given prior to going to Kolhapur or
thereafter. Only Anil and no one else had given mobile
no. of accused no.5. Rattu and Desai were two different
persons. She had stated that to meet her husband mobile
nos. of Daabbu and Rattu Desai were given. She did not
state that after calling these two persons her husband
would speak on the same mobile number (pertained to
these two persons}. The witness on her own deposed
that, Dabbu, Rattu and Desai were three different
persons. The witness denied that, she got the mobile
nos. of Dabbu and Rattu Desai for the first time when
her husband was kept in hotel at Andheri. She could not
assign any reason as to why it was stated as two
persons in her statement Exh.310. The witness denied
that, she did not see accused nos. 2 and 3 after
13.11.2006. She had seen them at DN Nagar police
station. She did not remember date. She had seen them
on 2-3 occasions at DN Nagar police station. she had
also seen them thereafter at the SIT when she was
returning after giving statement. She saw accused nos.
3 and 5. she did not go back and inform the SIT that
she had seen accused nos. 3 and 5. Then she saw the
accused in the identification parade. The witness
denied that, she had never seen accused nos.2,3 and 5
...439/-
Exh.1124 439 (J-SC 317/10)
from 12.11.2006 or thereafter or in the identification
parade.
428. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if she had stated while recording Exh.310 that
accused nos.2 and 3 were the two police in plainclothes
in the Qualis vehicle. She could not assign any reason
as to why the same was not stated in Exh.310. Her
husband proposed to go to Kolhapur as there was a court
date at Shirala. The witness denied that, she proceeded
to Kolhapur in a Qualis vehicle on say of her mother.
She did not state portion marked D in Exh.310 before
the Magistrate. She could not assign any reason as to
why the same was mentioned in Exh.310. The witness
denied that, from Shirala Court after 2-3 days they
came back to Bombay in Konduskar Bus. She did not
remember if she had stated so while recording Exh.310.
She did not state portion marked E in Exh.310 to the
Magistrate. She could not assign any reason as to why
the same appeared in Exh.310. She did not remember if
she had stated while recording Exh.310 as to Dhiraj
Mehta being friend of Anil. She could not assign any
reason as to why it was so stated in Exh.310. She did
not remember if she had stated while recording Exh.310
that Dhiraj informed her that they were taken from
outside the shop and it was so told to him by the shop
owner adjacent to the road and shop. She could not
...440/-
Exh.1124 440 (J-SC 317/10)
assign any reason as to why it was so stated in Exh.
310. She did not remember if she had stated while
recording Exh.310 that Dhiraj told that he received
phone call of Girish Nepali and PW-1 and he informed
the incident to them and PW-1 told him to lodge a
police complaint and that Dhiraj told PW-1 that after
contacting her he would decide further course of
action. She could not assign any reason as to why it
was so stated in Exh.310. She had informed while
recording Exh.310 that PW-1 informed that he was
apprehending that they would be killed in false
encounter. She did not remember if she had stated while
recording Exh.310 that, she did not know how to send a
fax and hence she refused. She could not assign any
reason as to why it was not stated in Exh.310. She did
not remember if she had stated while recording Exh.310
that she could identify the two persons who had taken
her to Bhatwadi and came the next day morning. She
could not assign any reason why it was not so stated in
Exh.310. She had stated while recording Exh.310 that
she reached Kolhapur on 14.11.2006 at 6 am. She could
not assign any reason why it was not so stated in Exh.
310. She was remembering the room numbers where she
stayed in Kolhapur. She had stated while recording Exh.
310 that, she was staying in room no.116 in Kolhapur
and as there was no T.V., two rooms were taken and she
with her family was residing in room no.102 and accused
...441/-
Exh.1124 441 (J-SC 317/10)
no.5 was residing in room no.103. She could not assign
any reason why it was so stated in Exh.310. She did not
remember if she had stated while recording Exh.310 that
she received phone call from accused no.5 (relating to
shifting of residence). She could not assign any reason
as to why it was so stated in Exh.310.
429. The witness further deposed that, she had
stated while recording statement dated 3.9.2009 by the
SIT that Dhiraj was friend of Anil. She could not
assign any reason why it was not so stated in statement
dated 3.9.2009. She was not asked description of the
persons who had accompanied them in the Qualis vehicle
by the SIT. She also did not disclose the description
of said persons. She did not state while recording
statement dated 3.9.2009 by the SIT that she could
identify the said two persons. She did not know of
which police station the night shift policemen were,
who were also in plainclothes. The police of night
shift were present when the fight with the neighbours
took place because of parking of the Qualis vehicle.
She had stated while recording statement dated 3.9.2009
by the SIT that the earlier two policemen returned the
next day morning. She could not assign any reason why
it was not so stated in statement dated 3.9.2009. She
had stated while recording statement dated 3.9.2009 by
the SIT that, the said two policemen had given their
...442/-
Exh.1124 442 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile nos. for contact. She could not assign any
reason why the name of persons who gave her mobile nos.
was not stated in statement dated 3.9.2009. She did not
hand over the diary in which she had written down two
numbers to the SIT, who did not ask her for it. She had
stated while recording statement dated 3.9.2009 by the
SIT that, she reached Kolhapur on 14.11.2006. she could
not assign any reason why it was not so stated in
statement dated 3.9.2009. The witness denied that, she
stayed in Kolhapur for 8-9 days, which she had not
stated in statement dated 3.9.2009. The witness was
read over portion marked J in statement dated
3.9.2009 (pertained to 8-9 days only). She could not
assign any reason why it was so stated in statement
dated 3.9.2009.
430. The witness further deposed that, she could
not state size of the room where the identification
parade was held even approximately and that if it was
10 by 10 or 50 by 50. In both the identification
parades held some persons were fair, some were dark and
some were sallow, so also some were fat, some were thin
and some were of medium built. She could not say if in
both the identification parades held some persons were
wearing slippers, some were wearing shoes, some were
barefooted, etc. She could not remember if in both
identification parades held some persons were wearing
...443/-
Exh.1124 443 (J-SC 317/10)
T-shirts, some were wearing shirts etc. She could not
state what clothes the persons whom she identified were
wearing. The Ld. Magistrate Mr.Satish Rane placed the
arrested accused along with dummy accused in presence
of two panchas and asked her to identify. She was
knowing who were the arrested accused. She identified
in one or two minutes in the first identification
parade and in two to three minutes in second
identification parade. She identified the person
standing in Sr.no.2 i.e. standing between dummy persons
1 and 2 in first identification parade. The witness
denied that, she identified the person who was standing
in the third position in first identification parade.
The witness denied that, she came to know name of Dabbu
as Hitesh Solanki on 20.1.2010. She did not remember if
she had stated in her statement dated 20.1.2010 that
she came to know name of Dabbu as Hitesh Solanki on
that day. She did not state portion marked A in
statement dated 20.1.2010 to the SIT. She could not
assign any reason as to why it was so mentioned in
statement dated 20.1.2010. She disclosed all the facts
to Mr.Ghorpade of the SIT on 20.1.2010.
431. The witness further deposed that, she did not
remember if she had stated that she and Anil reached
Thane Jail at 3 pm and met the officer of the SIT, Mr.
Ghorpade, outside Thane Jail and that he introduced
...444/-
Exh.1124 444 (J-SC 317/10)
them to Magistrate, Satish Rane, who took them inside
the jail. She could not assign any reason as to why the
same was not stated in her statement dated 20.1.2010.
She had stated that Ghorpade was waiting outside and
that the Magistrate made them to sit in a room and
introduced two panchas and that she was asked if police
had shown them the accused and she answered in negative
and that her husband was also asked the same and he
also denied. She could not assign any reason as to why
the same was not mentioned in statement dated
20.1.2010. She had stated that, they stated that one of
the panchas would come and call them and they left and
after sometime, one of the panchas returned to call her
husband Anil Bheda and the said pancha, after sometime,
came back with her husband and then he took her along
with him to another room. She could not assign any
reason as to why the same was not mentioned in
statement dated 20.1.2010. She had stated that in the
said room, herself, Magistrate and two panchas were
present along with them there were 12-15 persons
standing in a line. She could not assign any reason as
to why the same was not mentioned in statement dated
20.1.2010. She had stated that, panch took her outside
the room and took her to the place where they were
earlier sitting and thereafter, again the same panch
came and her husband accompanied him and after
sometime, he left her husband back to the said room and
...445/-
Exh.1124 445 (J-SC 317/10)
thereafter took her along with him and she was taken in
the said other room and in the said room, herself,
Magistrate Rane, two panchas and 22-23 other persons
were present. She could not assign any reason as to why
the same was not mentioned in statement dated
20.1.2010.
432. The witness further deposed that, the
Magistrate asked her whether she was shown the accused
in the first room initially itself. At the time of
parade, she was asked if she had seen the person in the
parade after the incident till the identification
parade. She had stated that she had seen the accused
after the incident and before the parade. The
magistrate asked her when she had seen the accused
after the incident and before the parade. She did not
disclose to the Magistrate if she had seen the said
accused after her husband returned from hotel at
Andheri till identification parade. It was not so
stated in Exh.310 that PW-1 informed that they would be
killed in false encounter. She could not assign any
reason as to why it was not so stated in Exh.310. It
did not happen that Mr. DB Patil read over the
statement dated 12.11.2006 in Marathi and so also she
understood the contents of the same, and it was
correctly recorded and true. She did not state so to
Mr. DB Patil. She could not assign any reason as to why
...446/-
Exh.1124 446 (J-SC 317/10)
the same was mentioned in her statement with list Exh.
340 (the portion was marked G). After the parade, she
came to know two names of persons identified as
Ratnakar Kamble @ Rattu and Tanaji Desai. Her statement
dated 20.1.2010 was recorded as per directions given by
DCP Mr. Prasanna. At the time of parade, Magistrate Mr.
Rane was standing. She did not remember if there was a
chair and table available at the time of identification
parade. She did not remember if she saw the said Ld.
Magistrate sitting on a chair and using the table.
Before the identification parade in the identification
parade room, the Magistrate did not ask her any
questions. The witness denied that, the entire
identification parade of her husband took place earlier
and then her two identification parades were held,
which she had stated to Mr. Ghorpade of the SIT. The
witness on her own deposed that, it pertained to single
identification parade. The witness denied that, she was
deposing false against accused nos. 2 and 3 on the say
of the SIT and PW-1.
433. The witness further deposed that, she did not
inform the Magistrate that Exh.335 was prepared by
accused no.5. She did not inform the Magistrate
through her husband that Exh.335 was given by accused
no.5 and not prepared by her. She did not inform PW-1
about it. She did not inform when her statements were
...447/-
Exh.1124 447 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded on 03/09/2009, on 05/01/2010 while recording
Exh.310, 20/01/2010, 27/03/2010 or in Writ Petition
filed by her. She had stated the fact that accused no.5
gave her affidavit for the first time that day in the
Court. She did not inform that Magistrate during
identification parade that this was the same accused
no.5 who gave her Exh.335. She did not inform DCP Mr.
Prasanna by writing a letter that, accused no.5 gave
her Exh.335.
434. The witness further deposed that, she knew
Sharda@ Yashoda Divakar Shetty of 45/1, Diamond
Society, 1
st
Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, just as the
witness. She did not remember if her land line no. was
27659313. The witness denied that, on 12.11.2006 she
met her and informed her that, she had received
telephone call on her land line from Anil on 11/11/2006
and that he had gone to Shirdi and that, she had met
Sharda on 12.11.2006 and she had met the witness to
give above message of Anil. She did not give number of
Sharda as her contact no. in Vashi police station on
12/11/2006. She did not know if Anil gave such number.
She was not on any enemical terms with Sharda. They had
no apprehension that Sharda would cause any loss to
herself or Anil. They were on visiting terms on each
other's residence. The witness denied that, she was
deposing false that she had no land line number and
...448/-
Exh.1124 448 (J-SC 317/10)
that, they were using land line number of Sharda as
care of number.
435. The witness further deposed that, she did not
see the Judgment of Battis Shirala Court. She did not
remember if she had stated while recording exh.312 that
she had gone to the sector 9 and sector 15 by different
routes. The witness was shown Exh.312. She had not
disclosed that she went by different routes while
recording Exh.312 or in the Writ Petition. The witness
denied that, she was tutored and told by the SIT and
PW-1 regarding her evidence relating to Mr. Chalke in
her examination in chief. She had not disclosed the
mobile number of accused no.5 to the SIT, the Ld.
Magistrate and/or any other authority. The witness
denied that, she was tutored by the SIT and PW-1 about
her re-examination and accordingly, she had deposed
that day and that, she was deposing false that accused
no.5 prepared and gave her affidavit Exh.335.
436. It has come in evidence of Mr.Wasudeo
Chindhuji Channe (PW-41), Exh.323 that, in August,
2011, he was working in Customer Service Center, BSNL,
Prabhadevi Exchange, Mumbai. His office was situated in
Barrack No.2 of said Exchange. He was working as In-
charge, Chief Telegraph Master. His head office was at
Central Telegraph Office at Fort, Mumbai. On 26.8.2011,
...449/-
Exh.1124 449 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr. Ghorpade from SIT visited his office and issued a
letter requesting for information about telegrams sent
from Matunga and Dadar offices namely by which officer
the telegrams were booked and so also their duties,
names and addresses. Letter dated 26.8.2011 is at Exh.
324. Inward No.is 74 of his office. He made endorsement
in red ink on the said letter about receipt. Along with
the said letter, photocopies of the telegraph receipts
were also forwarded. Every office maintains a register
known as Telegraph Master Diary. In that diary, the
details of the persons who are working on a particular
day and duties assigned to them are mentioned. He took
out the concerned Telegraph Master Diary of Dadar and
Matunga Telegraph Office. From the receipts, he found
out the name of the staff working in the said telegraph
office at the relevant time with respect to the
telegraph receipts dated 11.11.2006. As per photocopies
of receipts given to him, the telegrams were sent from
Dadar Telegraph Office on 11.11.2006 at about 18.28
hours. Mr.A.G. Satam was working at Dadar Telegraph
Office from 17.30 hours to 24.00 hours. The said two
telegrams of Dadar Telegraph Office were booked during
the working hours of said A.G. Satam. Entries in the
register were in the handwriting of V.S.Gupta.
Presently, V.S. Gupta was working in his office. Hence,
he was acquainted with his handwriting. Entry is at
Exh.325 and its copy is at Exh.325A.
...450/-
Exh.1124 450 (J-SC 317/10)
437. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, as per the photocopies of the receipts given to
him, three telegrams were sent from Matunga Telegraph
Office on 11.11.2006 at about 16.08 hours. On that day,
Mr. Bhangare was working at Matunga Telegraph Office
from 11 hours to 19 hours. The said three telegrams of
Matunga were booked during the working hours of said
Mr. Bhangare. The entries in the register were in the
handwriting of Mr. P.L. Meshram. Presently, Mr. Meshram
was working in his office and hence, he was acquainted
with his handwriting. The entry was marked as Exh.326
and its copy was at Exh.326A. The register was
maintained in regular course of business. Accordingly,
after perusal of the diaries, he gave written reply to
the SIT vide Exh.327 colly. He made a note in his
handwriting in the said letter about the enclosures to
the said letter. The enclosures were in his
handwriting. He made noting of it being xerox copy of
TM diary, TO Dadar. It had his signature and he also
certified it to be a true copy. Similarly he made
notings being xerox copy of T.M. Diary, T.O. Matunga.
He also certified it to be a true copy. He gave
original copy of Exh.327 to Mr.Ghorpade and obtained
his acknowledgment on his office copy. Mr.Ghorpade
recorded his statement.
...451/-
Exh.1124 451 (J-SC 317/10)
438. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, on 26.8.2011, Mr.S.K.Wankhede, Sub-Divisional
Engineer, Group-2, was his immediate superior who was
sitting at CTO, Fort, Mumbai. At Prabhadevi he was the
only Chief Telegraph Master. He verified the
correctness and authenticity of the photocopy of the
receipts given with Exh.324. The counterfoil of receipt
of payment of telegraph charges sent by any Telegraph
Office, is not forwarded to his office. These are
electronically prepared receipts. The electronic record
is maintained by the concerned telegraph office and not
linked with any Central office. There was no parallel
record available regarding the receipts at his office
at Prabhadevi. He did not state to Mr. Ghorpade that he
verified the receipts. I/C I/R means In-charge,
Instrument room. SRL means serial number. The staff
deployed in Instrument Room does work of booking of
telegrams, transmission of telegrams, attendance of
staff on duty. Delivery of telegrams, is supervised by
this staff. TL means Telegraphist. The said staff
transmits and receives telegrams. TA means Telegraph
Assistant. On 11.11.2006, there were three telegraph
assistants and Mr. A.G. Satam was the third TA. TA
number 2 was Smt. J.J.Manjrekar. Serial number as
stated in receipts does not tally with serial number in
...452/-
Exh.1124 452 (J-SC 317/10)
TM diary. The witness could not state as to what for
does clerk number stand.
439. It has further come in his evidence that, Mr.
B.M. Bhangare is at Serial number 2 of TA at Exh.326.
On 11.11.2006, there were only two TA at Matunga TO. He
had prepared Exh.327 as per record available in Exh.325
and Exh.326. At 16.08 hours on 11.11.2006, both
Bhangare and Chavan were TA at Matunga T.O. Before
issuing letter Exh.327, he did not speak with
Mr.Bhangare or Chavan. He did not verify from Chavan
or Bhangare before issuing letter Exh.327. He did not
verify with Mr.A.G.Satam before issuing letter Exh.327.
At 18.28 hours on 11.11.2006, both Smt. Manjrekar and
A.G. Satam were TA at Dadar TO. Before issuing letter
Exh.327, he did not verify with Smt. Manjrekar and Mr.
A.G. Satam. He was not present at Dadar TO or Matunga
TO on 11.11.2006 when the telegrams were allegedly
booked. Telegram Master Diary of Dadar TO is maintained
at Dadar and that of Matunga TO at Matunga. At the
beginning of the register, the period for which the
register is maintained is stated. After register is
closed, it is maintained at the same TO. There is no
officer who is In-charge of record in a particular TO.
The office of Dadar TO is at Prabhadevi. Similarly
Matunga TO is merged with Dadar TO since February 2009.
...453/-
Exh.1124 453 (J-SC 317/10)
440. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, he can produce such order of merger of Matunga
TO with Dadar TO, if called for. The witness denied
that, there was no merger and that Prabhadevi TO is
separate from Dadar TO. The witness further deposed
that, Dadar TO office was shifted to Prabhadevi, about
two years before. There was an order passed prior to
shifting of office. It could be available with the
Head Office. The witness has denied that, Dadar office
is not shifted to Prabhadevi. The witness further
deposed that, he did not inform the SIT when his
statement was recorded that entry was in the
handwriting of V.S. Gupta and Meshram of Dadar and
Matunga TO and that he was acquainted with their
handwriting as they were working at his office. The
witness denied that, contents in documents Exh.325 and
Exh.327 were false and incorrect and that he was
deposing false.
441. It has come in evidence of Mr. Bhavka Maruti
Bhangare (PW-42), Exh.328 that, in the year 2006, he
was working at Matunga Telegraph Office as Telegraph
Assistant, B.S.N.L. Office at Santacruz. On 11.11.2006,
he recorded telegrams at Matunga Office at 16.08 hours
vide Exh.114. Exh.119 collectively are the receipts
for the said telegrams. Exh.115 is the endorsement of
the issuance of certified copy made on the telegraph
...454/-
Exh.1124 454 (J-SC 317/10)
form. He had booked another telegram vide Exh.116.
442. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he did no bring MR-2 Register before the Court,
which would have been relevant for this case, as the
register was not available in Santacruz BSNL Office,
but was available at Dadar Office. He collected the
register from Dadar office that day. He did not ask
Channe or Gaonkar to bring the said register from Dadar
Office. Prior to the dates before the Court, he did not
bring the said register before the Court. He did not
pass any receipt about the register stating that he was
taking the register before the Court. He did not make
an application in the Court prior to deposing stating
that he wanted to produce MR-2 Register. He took six
photocopies of the said entry at the say of Gaonkar on
29.08.2011. He did not inform Gaonkar that, the said
register was necessary and his another statement should
be recorded. The witness denied that, at the say of the
SIT, he brought the register before the Court and
produced it and that he was deposing false at the say
of the SIT.
443. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11.11.2006, he and Mr.Chavan were
only two Telegraph Assistants. Clerk-1 was Mr.Chavan
and he was Clerk-2. There was no Clerk-4 on 11.11.2006.
...455/-
Exh.1124 455 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Chavan handed over Rs.157/- to him at 02.30 pm on
11.11.2006. He deposited the cash of Rs.235/- at 6.30
pm. This was inclusive of Rs.157/- made over to him by
Mr. Chavan. Mr. Chavan sent last telegram bearing no.
21. The witness sent telegram from nos. 23 to 28 and he
collected Rs.78/-. He collected Rs.21/- for the other
three telegrams. In the said other three telegrams,
there would be endorsement of Clerk-2. The
Telegraphist Shri Dalvi A.V fixed duty of telegraph
assistant Shri Chavan and Shri Meshram fixed duty of
the witness on 11.11.2006. The telegraph counter was
not open for 24 hours. Timing of keeping the counter
open was fixed as per telegraph master diary. It was
opened from 9 am to 5 pm and then from 11 am to 7 pm.
After 7 pm, the counter was not open. It was necessary
that a person should remain present at the counter
between 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. The witness denied that,
the telegraphist can increase the number of telegraph
assistant if required. There was only one counter. When
he reached the counter at 11.00 am on 11.11.2006,
Mr.Chavan was present in the said counter. As per the
diary, the witness and Mr. Chavan were present at the
counter at 11 am on 11.11.2006. The entry of handing
over charge at 2.30 pm by Mr. Chavan to him was not
stated in the diary. The duty of the telegraph
assistant was to accept telegraph forms, book it and
issue receipt after receipt of charges.
...456/-
Exh.1124 456 (J-SC 317/10)
444. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, express telegrams are delivered about
1-1 and 1/2 hours faster than ordinary one. The number
4 appearing in the electronic endorsement on Exhs.
114, 115 and 116 relates to the clerk number. After
making inquiry with the customer, he put the class as
ordinary in Exhs.114, 115 and 116. He charged for the
words in the message and name of sender. In the
address, first six words are chargeable, next four are
free and thereafter again chargeable. The number is
also charged if it appears in the message. Even the
punctuation marks are charged. In the column SL no.
in the form, the telegraph number should appear. The
column initial, should bear the initial of booking
clerk. His initial did not appear in the said column
in Exhs.114, 115 and 116. Columns initial,time and
sr.no. are blank in Exhs.114, 115 and 116. He does not
know what X MIN particulars stands for and he did
not find out what it stands for in his 30 years of
service. In the columns CCT of Exh.114 A should be
mentioned. The columns time and initial after CCI
stands for booking time and initials. The columns
CCT, time and initials are blank in Exhs.114, 115 and
116. The columns : MSD number, PTY class, destination
code, DSI, are blank in Exhs.114, 115 and 116. There is
no seal with date on Exhs.114, 115 and 116 though it
...457/-
Exh.1124 457 (J-SC 317/10)
was available in the telegraph office with date.
445. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not sign on the photocopies
shown to him in token of having seen the same on the
date when his statement was recorded. Mr.Gaonkar also
did not sign in token of having shown the said
photocopies. He had informed while recording his
statement that he identified his handwriting on the
photocopies and hence he had booked the said telegrams.
He did not state this fact before the SIT. He also did
not state that he had informed Mr.Gaonkar that he had
not written the time in the form in his handwriting as
the electronic endorsement mentioned the time and other
details. He had informed Mr.Gaonkar the interpretation
of the electronic endorsement on telegram forms, but it
did not appear in his statement before the SIT. He did
not state about the chargeable and countable words
appearing in the forms. He had stated that Mumbai T
means Mumbai Matunga, but it did not appear in his
statement. Omission as regards to, endorsement of
issuance of certified copy was made on telegraph forms
and on Exhs.114, 115 and 116 and such endorsement was
made by Farooq Mujawar whose signature and handwriting
he could identify, has been brought on record through
cross examination.
...458/-
Exh.1124 458 (J-SC 317/10)
446. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not state before the SIT that,
'working hours of the office were 10 am to 6 pm' and
that, 'they were working in two shifts namely from 9 am
to 5 pm and 11 am to 7 pm' and also that, 'the staff
coming at 9 am used to do other administrative work
till 10 am'. He also did not state in his statement
that, 'the person who came to work at 9 am was relieved
at about 14.30 hours by person who came on duty at 11
am'. He also did not state that, 'morning staff
handling the counter used to make over the cash to the
staff of the second shift handling the counter' and
that, 'after the counter was closed at 5 pm, the staff
handling the counter used to follow procedure and then
hand over the cash to the supervisor'. He also did not
state that, 'the entry regarding handing over of cash
was made in MR 2 register' and that, 'the staff who
handed over the the cash made entry in the said
register and the staff who accepted the cash, signed in
acknowledgment against the entry'. He did not state in
his statement that, 'on 11.11.2006 he made entry in the
said register' and ' in the MR 2 register, first column
pertained to date, second column pertained to name of
booking clerk, third column pertained to time of make
over of cash, fifth column pertained to last telegram
number, five A(5a) pertained to amount, next was amount
in Till, next was amount removed from Till, balance in
...459/-
Exh.1124 459 (J-SC 317/10)
Till, signature of telegraph assistant, lastly
signature of the supervisor'. He also did not state
that, 'the entry was in his handwriting' and that, 'the
earlier writing was in the handwriting of D.L. Chavan
and he identified his handwriting'. He did not state in
his statement that, 'he took charge from him' and that
'in the earlier entry, he had signed for taking over
cash' and also that, 'the in-charge of the telegraph
office examined and signed in the last column, every
morning and it was signed by V.B. Kalsekar, whose
signature he identified'. He also did not state that,
'he handed over cash at 18.30 hours and the last
telegram was number 28' and also that, 'he handed over
cash to Shri Meshram and he identified his signature'
and that, 'the entry bore his signature of taking over
of the cash'.
447. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, if there was no signature of sender on
the telegraph form, they did not accept the form. Exh.
115 did not bear any signature of sender. He made a
mistake by accepting said telegram. The witness denied
that, Exhs.114, 115 and 116 were bogus documents. The
writing Anil on Exh.115 was in his handwriting (portion
marked G). The witness denied that, in collusion with
the complainant, he had prepared bogus documents Exhs.
114, 115, 116 and 119 colly. The telegram numbers 26,
...460/-
Exh.1124 460 (J-SC 317/10)
27 and 28 were not mentioned in Exh.119/4. The third
receipt was of telegram number 28. The telegram number
was given serially. The receipt 119/4 was not of
telegram number 28. The words cash did not appear in
Exh.119/1,2 and 3. The number 28 in Exh.119/4 pertained
to telegram number 28 as it appeared in Exh.119/3. The
witness denied that, entries in M.R.2 register
including Exh.329 and 330 were fraudulent entries and
that, he had fabricated the same at the behest of the
SIT. The witness denied that, he was deposing false due
to pressure of the SIT. On 29.08.20111, he met only Mr.
Gaonkar of the SIT and no other officer. In the year
2006, he was in Mumbai. From the year 2007 to 2011, he
was in Mumbai. No one had applied to him for issuance
of certified copy. He did not know personally if such
certified copy was issued or not.
448. It has come in evidence of Mr.Madan Tanaji
More (PW-43) PN, Exh.331, that on 11.11.2006 when he
was attached to DN Nagar police station as Police Naik,
accused no.9 Pradeep Suryawanshi was attached to the
said police station as PI (Crime) and accused no.1
Pradeep Sharma was police inspector. Accused no.9
Pradeep Suryawanshi called him in his cabin and asked
him to go to Mid-town Hotel near Andheri Railway
Station, as one person looking like Gujrati- Marwadi,
aged about 45-50 years was staying there. The said
...461/-
Exh.1124 461 (J-SC 317/10)
marwadi person was known to him. He asked the witness
to look after the said Marwadi person. When he went to
the said hotel, accused no.5 Dabbu was present there.
Accused no.5 used to sit outside the office of Accused
no.1. When he was going to the said hotel, Accused no.
3 Ratu Kamble, the then Police Hawaldar, working on
deputation in the squad of Accused no.1, was coming to
the hotel. After some days, again accused no.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi called him in his cabin and asked him to go
to same Hotel Midtown and to remain with the said
Marwadi. When he reached at the hotel, accused no.5
left the hotel. The witness remained there for entire
night and next day morning the accused again came to
the hotel. On 04.02.2010, the SIT recorded his
statement in the SIT office, where he identified the
said person who stayed in the said hotel. There he came
to know name of the said person as Anil Jethalal Bheda.
Again on 19.03.2010, his statement was recorded in Mid-
town Hotel. Said Anil Bheda was present there.
449. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, Prior to his weekly off of 11.11.2006, he was on
duty till morning of 11.11.2006. After 12.11.2006, he
was called by accused no.9 after about 15 to 20 days.
He was on day shift on that day. He did not make any
station diary entry. The duty in-charge of the police
station assigns duties of the constables. Every
...462/-
Exh.1124 462 (J-SC 317/10)
constable is given independent duty. There was no
staff deputed under him. He was not given name of the
person by accused no.9. He also did not disclose as to
where he had to go in the hotel. Accused no.9 also did
not disclose that he would meet some person in the
hotel. Accused no.9 also did not disclose that person
present with the Gujarati person would leave on his
arrival and he should wait there till he returned.
Accused no.9 did not inform him as to who would take
him to the said person. He never complained to any of
his senior officers about accused no.5 sitting outside
the room of accused no.1 and making inquiries of the
persons.
450. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not inquire with the Gujarati-
Marwadi looking person his name, neither did he inform
his name to the said person. During his stay for 30-45
minutes, he did not speak with the said person. The
said person did not disclose as to why he was in the
said room. The witness did not inquire as to what
relations he had with accused no.5. He also did not
disclose his relationship with accused no.5. The
witness was there on the ground floor of the hotel for
about 5-10 minutes. He had gone outside the hotel. For
those 5-10 minutes, the said person was alone in the
room in the hotel. It takes less than 5 minutes to
...463/-
Exh.1124 463 (J-SC 317/10)
leave the room and go out of the hotel. He returned
back to the police station after about one and half
hours and he did not make station diary entry after
returning to the police station. He did not give any
written report to accused no.9. He did not inform his
Sr. PI that he had been on duty to room no.204 and
that, he saw accused no.5 present there. He did not
make inquiry at the reception counter of the hotel
before coming back to the police station as to who was
occupying room no.204.
451. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not make inquiry at the
reception counter of the hotel that, as to since when
the said person was residing in said room and why
accused no.5 was coming to meet him. He knew accused
no.3 since 2006. When he went to the hotel he was
knowing accused no.3 by face and name, but he had not
spoken with him. He did not inquire with accused no.3
as to what was the purpose of the visit to the hotel
and who he was going to meet in the hotel. After
returning to the police station, he did not inform any
of the superiors that he saw accused no.3 in the hotel.
If he had to lodge a complaint against any police
person or in connection with any case, he had to lodge
the complaint with the Sr. PI of police station. He
did not inform Sr. PI that, he saw accused no.3 coming
...464/-
Exh.1124 464 (J-SC 317/10)
to the hotel.
452. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, with the permission of ACP and DCP
only, Sr.PI is entitled to form a team for
investigation. PSI, API or PI cannot form any team or
squad on their own. By 15-20 days he meant it was
between 27.11.2006 to 03.12.2006. It was immediately in
the next week, after 2 to 4 days that accused no.9
called him again. At that time also, he did not make
station diary entry while leaving the police station.
The witness denied that, at that time he was not
informed the name of the person to whom he was to meet.
After returning the next day, he did not make any
station diary entry. Every constable has to maintain a
pocket diary. In the said pocket diary, the date, time
and place of visit is mentioned. He did not remember
if he made entry of both the visits in his pocket
diary. He did not remember if he made entry in the
pocket diary about whom he met and about meeting of
accused nos. 3 and 5. He was maintaining pocket diary
in 2006. He had done 16 years of service in police
force. During those 16 years, he had regularly made
entries in the pocket diary about the investigation
carried out by him disclosing the date, time, purpose,
place, person sending him, date and time of return and
whom and what he did during the visit. He had not
...465/-
Exh.1124 465 (J-SC 317/10)
brought the pocket diary before the Court. The pocket
diary is maintained monthly. The witness denied that,
signature of the officer sending is taken in the pocket
diary after return. The diary was not deposited after
completion. It was retained by by him. On the days
when he went to the hotel, the pocket diary was with
him. It did not occur to him that, as he was sent for
important job, he should make entry in the pocket
diary. The witness denied that, this was not the first
occasion when it did not occur to him to make entry in
the pocket diary. He was asked to produce his pocket
diary by Mr.Gaonkar of the SIT. He did not produce the
diary.
453. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 01.02.2010, 04.02.2010 and
19.03.2010, he was posted at D.N. Nagar police station.
He did not make station diary entry on all the three
occasions when he left to record the statement. He did
not remember if he made station diary entry about going
to the Magistrate with the SIT on 05.02.2010. Any such
entry if made would be available in the police station.
He did not remember if on 01.02.2010, 04.02.2010 and
19.03.2010, he made station diary entry after returning
to the police station. Any such entry if made would be
available in the police station and if those were
available he would produce the same. He was only asked
...466/-
Exh.1124 466 (J-SC 317/10)
to be with that person. No other instructions were
given to him. He had not made complaint to any superior
officer that he was sent to the hotel by accused no.9
and he met accused no.5 at the said hotel. He did not
report to the reception that he was going to stay the
entire night. He did not make entry in the hotel
register that he was going to stay in room no.204 the
entire night. He had reached the room at about 11.45
pm that night. There was staff deputed by the hotel.
There was one person at the reception. There was no
hotel staff deputed on the second floor where room no.
204 was situated. The witness denied that, he did not
speak with the person who was staying in the room
during his second visit and that, he was stating for
the first time before the court that the said person
spoke with him during his second visit. He had informed
the SIT office about it on 01.02.2010. He informed
Mr.Gaonkar about pocket diary on 01.02.2010. He did not
know if Mr. Gaonkar noted it. His statement was
recorded on 01.02.2010. It was read over to him and
also he read the said statement and its contents were
correct. The fact about the pocket diary and the person
speaking with him on second visit was not stated in his
statement. The witness denied that, he was deposing
false at the say of the SIT. Omission as regards to
'Midland' has been brought on record. He had been to
Midtown Hotel on both his visits. He did not state in
...467/-
Exh.1124 467 (J-SC 317/10)
his statement dated 01.02.2010 about Midtown Hotel and
also did not tell Mr.Gaonkar that Midland was wrongly
written. ('Midland' is marked as portion mark A
collectively).
454. Further cross examination discloses that, on
19.03.2010, he had been to the hotel at about 6.15 to
6.30 pm and he was there for about 30 to 45 minutes.
He did not sign panchanama prepared on 19.03.2010.
They left the hotel at about 7.15 to 7.30 pm. The SIT
did not seize anything at the time of recording the
panchanama in his presence. During panchanama, he did
not identify any hotel staff present during his two
visits to the hotel. He did not remember if any
register or copy of register of the hotel was seized at
the time of panchanama. He was not present during the
entire panchanama. He did not ask the SIT to seize the
register so that entry about room no.204 would be
found. He did not know if the said Gujarati asked the
SIT to collect the bills and other document to show the
presence in the hotel. The witness denied that, during
his two visits to the hotel, he did not meet accused
no.5 and that he deposed false that accused no.5 used
to sit outside the room of accused no.1 and also that,
accused no.5 had no relations with accused no.1. The
witness further denied that, he did not see accused no.
3 during his first visit to the hotel and that he was
...468/-
Exh.1124 468 (J-SC 317/10)
deposing false that he went to the hotel twice and
during that time he stayed with said person in room no.
204. He also denied that, the officer did not disclose
name of said person as Anil Bheda. The witness denied
that, he was not present during the panchanama at the
hotel on 19.03.2010.
455. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in the year 2006, Shri Vishwasrao and
Shri Yadav were superior officers of Detection Branch.
In the year 2006, cabin of the accused no.9 was on the
first floor. On 12.10.2006, he was on day shift. The
witness again could not state the shift and what
investigation he carried out on 12.10.2006. the witness
denied that, accused no.9 did not call him on both the
occasions and did not direct him to go to the hotel as
stated in his examination in chief. He had informed
the police while recording his statement that accused
no.9 asked him as to where his staff was and he
informed that his staff had gone for patrolling. This
fact was not mentioned in his statement. He did not
remember if he had stated that accused no.9 asked him
what he was doing and he stated that he was filling up
details of accused. The witness could not explain as
to why this fact was not mentioned in his statement
dated 01.02.2010. He did not remember if he stated that
after completion of work, he should go to Midtown
...469/-
Exh.1124 469 (J-SC 317/10)
Hotel. The witness also could not explain as to why
this fact was not mentioned in his statement dated
01.02.2010.
456. It has come in evidence of Mr.Arjun Gangaram
Satam (PW-44), Exh.349, that, since May 2006 to April
2011 he worked as a Telegraph Assistant at Dadar
Telegraph Office. His duties included booking of
telegrams, attending booking counter, receiving
telegrams from the customers, counting the number of
words and as per rules calculating the amount payable,
making entries in the machine, writing the serial
number of the telegram and also giving the receipt
issued by the machine to the customers. His main office
namely Central Telegraph Office was situated at
Churchgate. On 27.08.2011, officer from the SIT Mr.
Ghorpade called him at his residence and showed him
photocopies of two telegrams dated 11.11.2006. Those
were in his handwriting (Exh.117). He received the said
telegram forms. Portion marked F collectively was in
his handwriting. Words 51 in portion marked F
indicated charges of Rs.51. The total words were 54 and
chargeable words were 49 and charges were 51. The mark
X in column no.1 of portion marked F of Exh.117
indicated that the telegraph was Express telegram. The
booking time was 18.28 as stated in column in portion
marked F. The words AF 132 indicate serial number.
...470/-
Exh.1124 470 (J-SC 317/10)
In the office of origin column, he had stated BOMB
indicating Bombay-Dadar. The date indicated 11/11.
There was an endorsement printed on the top of the
form. It was printed by the machine. The printed
endorsement had date, serial number, timing, class and
amount. The serial number was auto-generated. The time
was also printed automatically. The timing number and
serial number in the form were written after the
printing took place. In Exh.117, timing of 18.28,
serial number 132, X for Express and Rs.51 as charges
were same in both written as well as printed portion.
MBYGIA was the destination code which he had written in
the margin, marked as portion F on Exh.117. M
stands for Maharashtra, BY is Bombay, GI is Girgaon
and A is port of machine. The said telegram was sent
to Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, Chief Minister to Cumbala
Hill, Mumbai. Cumballa Hill falls under the Girgaon
Telegraph Office. Hence, it was forwarded to Girgaon
Telegraph Office.
457. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, receipt is marked as Exh.119/5, dated 11.11.2006
and timing was 18.28 hours. It showed X indicating
Express Telegram and Rs.51 was the amount. After the
telegram was booked, it was sent to the sender. The
said sender wrote his serial number and put his
signature on the form. Serial number 77 and signature
...471/-
Exh.1124 471 (J-SC 317/10)
on Exh.117 is the same. Thereafter, the timing 18.34
was mentioned and then the initials of the sender
appeared. The timing 18.34 indicated the timing on
which the telegram was sent. The said writing and
initials were of telegraph sender, Mr.Kori. The witness
was working with Mr. Kori and hence he knew his
handwriting portion marked G. Portion marked B in
Exh.118 was in his handwriting. 53 indicated telegram
charges, X was Express, 18:28 was time, AF 133 was
serial number, BYD was office of origin, 11/11 was
date. The total chargeable words were 57 and 51 words
were countable. The words MBYGIA stood as in Exh.117.
The machin endorsement showed date 11.11.2006, timing
as 18:28, serial number 133, X for Express and Rs.53 as
charges. The said telegram was sent to Shri R.R. Patil,
Dy. C.M. at Malbar Hill, Mumbai. The telegram was
forwarded to Girgaon Telegraph Office. The endorsement
in the column, date-stamp, was serial number 78 of
sender, 18:35 as time when telegram was sent and
initials of sender. Mr. Kori was the sender (Portion
marked-C). Receipt is marked as Exh.119/6 date
11.11.2006. Time is 18:28 hours. It showed X
indicating Express telegram and Rs.53 was the amount.
The receipt tallied with the details in Exh.118. On
11.11.2006, his duty hours were since 17.30 to 00
hours (midnight). The duty incharge maintained a
register known as Incharge Register in which the duties
...472/-
Exh.1124 472 (J-SC 317/10)
were mentioned. The SIT recorded his statement on
27.8.2011.
458. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he worked in the department for 40 years. He did
not know what X-min particulars in the telegraph form
stand for. The column LN stands for Local Number,
CCT stands for circuit on which the telegram was
sent, time indicated sending time, initials column
contained initials of sender. The bigger initials
column is for initials of booking clerk. Printed form
was given so that details were filled in relevant
boxes. The witness admitted that, the right column
date-stamp should contain the stamp of the telegraph
office. He did not know what SOM, ZCZC and
TMNLMSGE number stand for. PTY stands for priority
class. It is either Ordinary Express or Double express.
The class in which he had marked X was different from
priority class. The witness denied that, Express falls
in Priority Class. Destination code was the place
where the telegram was to be sent i.e. to the post
office which effects delivery. SI stands for Service
Instructions. It states reasons if the telegram is not
sent. His initials did not appear in the first row of
Exh.117 and Exh.118. In the column TMNLMSGE number, he
had made two corrections. He had not initialed the
corrections. In column words also there was
...473/-
Exh.1124 473 (J-SC 317/10)
overwriting. He had not initialed the same, so also in
the margin, portion marked F.
459. It has further come during cross examination
that, he saw the original telegrams on that day only
before the court. Mr.Ghorpade did not show him the
original telegrams. He had seen Exh.119/4 and Exh.119/5
on that day before the court. He had not shown
originals of Exh.17,118, Exh.119/4 and Exh.119/5. He
was informed by Mr. Ghorpade that photocopies had been
brought from Dadar Telegraph Office. He did not verify
with the Dadar Telegraph Office if Mr. Ghorpade was
given the photocopies of the telegrams and documents.
Mr.Ghorpade showed him the photocopies and believing in
his, the witness gave his statement. He did not verify
if the photocopies were issued by the Dadar Telegraph
Office. He had received telephone call from the office.
Mr.Gupta of Dadar office informed him. He had received
telephone two days prior to Ghorpade visiting him. He
received the call on his mobile. He called from the
office phone number. He did not remember the phone
number. He did not ask Mr. Gupta to ask Mr. Ghorpade to
wait and he would come to the office. He did not sign
the photocopies showed by Mr. Ghorpade. He was knowing
the full forms of the abbreviations used in Exh.117 and
Exh.118 on 27.8.2011 when his statement was recorded.
The entry clerk 2 and clerk 4as seen in Exh.119
...474/-
Exh.1124 474 (J-SC 317/10)
were not shown in the Incharge register accordingly. No
clerk numbers were given in the register.
460. The witness further deposed that, he informed
Mr. Ghorpade that X in Exh.117 and Exh.118 indicates
Express telegram. The witness could not assign any
reason as to why this did not appear in his statement
before the SIT. He did not inform Mr. Ghorpade as to
what abbreviation MBYGIA stands for, namely 'M'
stands for Maharashtra, 'BY' is Bombay, 'GI' is Girgaon
and 'A' is port of machine. He did not inform that,
Cumbala Hill falls within Girgaon telegraph office and
hence, telegram was forwarded to Girgaon telegram
office. The witness could not assign any reason as to
why receipt was dated 11.11.2006 and time was 18:28
hours and that it showed X indicating Express
telegram and Rs.53 was the amount. He could not assign
any reason as to why the same was not mentioned in his
statement. He did not inform Mr. Ghorpade that
telegraph sender put his serial number, time and
initials on the form and initials on Exh.117 and Exh.
118 were of Mr. Kori and that the timings 18:34 and
18:35 appeared and thereafter initials of sender
appeared in Exh.117 and Exh.118 and that it indicated
the timing when the telegrams were sent, and that Mr.
Kori was working with him, he knew his handwriting and
that Exh.117 and Exh.118 had endorsement G and C
...475/-
Exh.1124 475 (J-SC 317/10)
respectively in his handwriting. He had informed
Mr.Ghorpade that duty incharge maintained register and
his duties were mentioned in it. His handwriting
samples and his initials were not taken by Mr. Ghorpade
on 27.8.2011 or till date. Exh.117, Exh.118 and Exh.119
did not bear his signature or initials. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of the
SIT and he was not the booking clerk, who booked Exh.
117 and Exh.118.
461. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know the incident relating
in which his statement was recorded by Mr. Ghorpade. He
was informed that there was a complaint. He did not
remember how many telegrams he booked on 12.11.2006. On
12.11.2006, he worked in second shift starting at 5.30
pm. He did not remember how many telegrams he booked
on 11.11.2006, November 2007, November 2008, November
2009 and November 2010. He did not remember his duty
hours in November 2007, November 2008, November 2009
and November 2010. The shift changed after every week
starting on every Monday. He was informed by Mr.
Ghorpade about his duty hours, date and time. On Sunday
also, duty was assigned alternatively.
462. It has come in evidence of Mr. Naresh Namdeo
Phalke (PW-45) Exh.350 that, he was attached to DN
...476/-
Exh.1124 476 (J-SC 317/10)
Nagar police station since 1.11.2005 till date as a
Police Constable. In November 2006, he was attached to
Detection Branch of the said police station till March,
2008. At that time in 2006, Mr.Thakur was Sr. PI. PI
Mr.Avdhut Chavan, PI Mr.Taware, PI Mr.Suryawanshi and
PI Mr.Pradeep Sharma were deputed in the police
station. PI Mr.Suryawanshi was in-charge of Crime
Branch of police station. PI Mr.Pradeep Sharma was in-
charge of a squad and he was not doing any work of the
police station. Constables of other police stations
were deputed in the squad. The persons who were deputed
in the squad were also not doing any official work in
the police station. On 11.11.2006, he was working in
day shift. After completing patrolling, he returned to
police station at about 9.30 pm. He went home after
completing his duty hours. After some days, he was
working in night shift. He and his partner, constable
Mr. Milind More were at the police station. He was
directed by accused no.9 to go to Mid-town Hotel near
Andheri Railway station (West). Accordingly, he went
to the said hotel. He met Devidas Sakpal outside the
hotel. He was working in DN Nagar police station.
Accused no.13 took him to one room at the second floor
of the said hotel. One Gujarati person was present in
the room. They were asked to stay with him. He and
Milind More stayed there for entire night. He talked
with the said person. It was disclosed during their
...477/-
Exh.1124 477 (J-SC 317/10)
talks that his name was Anil. At about 10- 10.30 am,
next day, accused no.13 came to the room. After
sometime, one Virendra also came to the room.
Thereafter, he and Milind More went to the police
station. Said Virendra was a driver and was with the
squad. He was not attached to DN Nagar police station.
On 06.03.2010, he was called by the SIT and an inquiry
was made by DCP Mr. Prasanna about the encounter at
Versova. He was shown one person. Said person was the
same Anil, who was in Mid-town Hotel. He was informed
by the SIT officers that, his full name was Anil
Jethalal Bheda. The witness identified photograph Exh.
308 of Anil Jethalal Bheda.
463. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he had undergone training and he knew about case
diary, station diary, power of Senior PI, ACP and DCP.
Station diary entry is to be made regarding the purpose
of leaving the police station, by whom such directions
were given and the case number. Record of the date on
which he visited Mid-town Hotel would be available only
in the station diary. The details like on whose
directions and with whom he went to and where he went
to would be available in the station diary. He did not
make any station diary entry while going to Mid-town
hotel. There was no record available with the police
station that he had been to Mid-town hotel with Milind
...478/-
Exh.1124 478 (J-SC 317/10)
More on that day at the behest of accused no.9.
464. It has further come in his evidence that, all
the investigation that was carried on outside has to be
stated in the station diary. Station diary entry has to
be maintained about which officer assigned duty on
going outside the police station for official work and
the purpose of such visit and after return to the
police station and the nature of work carried out. The
station diary is under the charge of the duty officer.
He did not remember as to who was the duty officer on
that day. He did not speak to the duty officer before
leaving the police station on that day. He did not
inform the duty officer that he was leaving with
Milind More as per directions given by accused no.9. He
did not inform Sr. PI Mr. Thakur also. On that day,
accused no.9 was the immediate senior officer. After
returning, he did not have any conversation with the
duty officer. He did not inform the duty officer that
he was sleeping in Mid-town hotel the entire night or
that he was sleeping in a particular room with Milind
More and one Anil in Mid-town hotel or that he met
accused no.13. There was no entry about leaving the
police station. Hence, no entry about return was made.
There was no record in the police station as to what he
did in Mid-town hotel. He did not report of his work
done at Mid-town hotel to the Sr. PI or officer of
...479/-
Exh.1124 479 (J-SC 317/10)
Detection Branch. He could not read, write or speak
Gujarati, but he could understand a little bit of
Gujarati. He did not make any inquiry as to why the
said person was kept in the said room in the hotel. He
did not verify if any entry was made in the hotel
register. The said Anil was not under any restraint in
the hotel. When he went in the room, he was alone. He
did not know for how much time he was alone. He did not
inform the duty officer on his return from the hotel
that at about 10-10.30 am, one person by name Virendra
came to the room and then the witness came back to the
police station.
465. The witness further deposed that, he did not
make any station diary entry about receipt of the
message to attend the SIT office. He did not know for
what purpose he was called in the office of the SIT. He
was meeting Milind More regularly before 06.03.2010. He
had informed that, on 02.02.2010, he had been called by
the SIT and that he had identified the person. He made
inquiries with him as to why he was called by the SIT
and he replied that he was called for inquiry
pertaining to encounter. He did not state to Milind
More that he had no any role to play in the encounter
and he was called. When he received the message on
05.03.2010, he was knowing the reason of inquiry with
him by the SIT. He did not state that, he could
...480/-
Exh.1124 480 (J-SC 317/10)
identify the said person with whom he was staying in
Mid-town hotel. After the said person was brought
before him on 06.03.2010, he was not introduced to him.
466. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, his duties in the police station were
assigned by the Sr.PI. No police officer can create his
own team or squad without permission of the Sr. PI, ACP
or DCP. The deputation of a constable to a particular
police station is done by C.P. Office. The posting of a
constable from one police station to another is done
only by the orders of the C.P. He did not know by whose
orders one constable from one police station can be
asked to go to another police station for a limited
purpose of inquiry or investigation. One police
constable cannot go to another police station on his
own. If any work is to be assigned of going to another
police station, it is directed by a Senior Officer.
Entry in the other police station for the purpose of
visit will be made. He has to report to the Sr. PI of
other police station of his visit. He did not know if
permission of the Sr. PI of the other police station is
required for him to continue the work in the other
police station. Hawaldar or ASI takes daily attendance
of police personnel. The attendance is reported to
Duty Officer. All the official work done in the police
station is to be reported to the Sr. PI. ACP and DCP
...481/-
Exh.1124 481 (J-SC 317/10)
visit the police station for supervising the official
work of the police station. He did not report to any
DCP or ACP that the squad of Pradeep Sharma did not do
any work of DN Nagar police station. He did not report
to any DCP or ACP that Pradeep Sharma had prepared a
squad of police personnel of other police stations. He
did not lodge any complaint or report about the squad
of Pradeep Sharma from 2006 to 2010.
467. The witness denied that, he deposed false that
as per directions of accused no.9, he went to Mid-town
hotel and stayed with Anil and Milind More and that he
went to second floor and during the talks with the
persons, he learnt the name of the person as Anil, and
that there was a squad of accused no.1 of constables of
other police stations who were not doing any work of DN
Nagar police station. The witness also denied that, he
identified the person on 06.03.2010 as Anil on the say
of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The witness denied that, he deposed
false that, Virendra came and then he went back to the
police station. The witness denied that, he was
deposing false as he was threatened by DCP Mr.Prasanna
that he would be made an accused. They maintain a
personal diary regarding their duties and it was
destroyed after one, one and half or two years. The
witness denied that, he did not know name of the said
person as Anil in discussion with the said person and
...482/-
Exh.1124 482 (J-SC 317/10)
that he did not have any conversation with Anil. Name
of Anil Jethalal Bheda was disclosed by DCP Mr.Prasanna
on 06.03.2010.
468. It has further come in his evidence that, the
message was forwarded to DN Nagar police station
calling him for said statement. He was informed one day
before recording his statement. He reached the SIT
office at 2 pm. On 06.03.2010, he was on day duty,
which started at 9 am. He did not make any station
diary entry about going to the office of the SIT on
06.03.2010. He did not verify if any such station diary
entry had been made. He did not know for sure if the
duty officer had made any such station diary entry. He
was relieved from the office of the SIT at about 6 pm
on 06.03.2010. He did not go back to the police station
thereafter. He did not know if duty officer had made
any entries in that regard. The witness denied that he
did not go to the office of the SIT on 06.03.2010 at 2
pm and his statement was not recorded accordingly. The
witness denied that, DCP Mr. Prasanna did not show him
Anil and did not disclose his name as Anil Jethalal
Bheda. The witness denied that, he had identified
photograph Exh.308 at the say of the SIT and that he
also deposed false at the say of the SIT and DCP Mr.
Prasanna.
...483/-
Exh.1124 483 (J-SC 317/10)
469. It has further come in his evidence that, he
did not inform his name and details to the Receptionist
of Mid-town hotel and also did not inform the
receptionist that, they were to stay in the room for
the entire night. He did not make any entry in the
hotel register about his stay in the hotel. Omission
as regards to his talks with Anil has been brought on
record. He did not state to the SIT that, Virendra was
the driver and he was with the squad and Virendra was
not attached to their police station. He did not
remember his duty on 25.11.2006 and work done in the
last week of November, 2006, October, 2006 and
November, 2008. In November, 2009 he was on combat
mobile duty. In the close vicinity of Mid-town hotel,
there was beat of DN Nagar police station. He did not
remember who was in-charge of the said beat in 2006.
He did not give report of his visit to Mid-town hotel
to his senior officers, including ACP, DCP. He did not
inform in writing to Sr. PI between November, 2006 to
March, 2010 about his visit to Mid-town hotel. The
witness denied that, he was deposing false at the say
of the SIT. He did not make any note in writing about
his visit and meeting of accused no.13 in the station
diary or did not inform to any police officer. The
witness denied that, he was deposing false as regards
to his visit to Hotel Mid-town and his meeting with
accused no.13.
...484/-
Exh.1124 484 (J-SC 317/10)
470. It has come in evidence of Mr.Lakkaraju
Narsimha Sai Rao (PW-46), Exh.351, that, contents in
affidavit Exh.352 were correct and it had his
signature. The station diary entry is at Exh.353 and
its copy is at Exh.353A.
471. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he took charge from ACP Mr. Hazare when he joined
the Control Room on 09.01.2012. In 2011, A.C.P Mr.
Hazare was working in Main Control Room. On or before
12.03.2010, Mr.Mahabole was Incharge of the Main
Control Room. Mr. Mahabole was in service at the
relevant date. He had seen the station diary Exh. 353
for the first time only after he received a notice by
S.P.P.
472. It has come in evidence of Mr.Santosh Khimji
Naik (PW-47) Exh.354 that, on 11.11.2006, in the
capacity of Writer in the Main Control Room, he
received telegram bearing No.11-127 dated 11.11.2006.
He made entry about receipt of the telegram in 'charge
book'. The telegram was addressed to Shri A.N. Roy,
then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The entry is on
page no.4 bearing number 509. It is a photocopy entry
of the charge book. It appears at serial number 3 dated
11.11.2006. The entry is in his handwriting. The
...485/-
Exh.1124 485 (J-SC 317/10)
contents are true and correct vide Exh.355. The said
telegram was handed over to the department concerned on
the next working day i.e. on 13.11.2006. The telegram
had come in a sealed envelop with an address window. It
is marked portion marked A.
473. During cross examination the witness has
disclosed that, the charge book is maintained in a
printed form and it is maintained as per the Bombay
Police Manual. Constable Sawant was with him. He could
not tell name of other constable working with him.
Whenever correspondence is received, Inward stamp is
marked on it and document bears the inward number
corresponding to the entry number in the Inwards
Register. Whenever document is forwarded to other
department, the inward stamp is put on the said
document by the said department and acknowledgment is
given on the register. Inward stamp also bears
signature of receiving clerk. Telegram Exh.356 does not
bear any seal, signature or rubber stamp of his
department. It was forwarded to the office of the C.P.
He personally did not carry the document as he was not
on duty on that day. He did not remember as to who had
taken the document and that, at what time it was
received by the C.P. Office. On 13.11.2006, he was not
working in day shift. On 11
th
he was working in day
shift. Then he worked in night shift and the next day
...486/-
Exh.1124 486 (J-SC 317/10)
was rest day. He did not handle the charge book on
13.11.2006. One Yemgekar, constable, received the
telegram in the C.P. Office. He did not know the number
of staff working in C.P. Office. He did not remember
the name of any other staff and his designation who
worked in C.P. Office on 13.11.2006. He did not have
any daily interaction with the staff of the C.P.
Office. He could go to the office of C.P when required
for official duties.
474. The witness denied that, one has to make entry
in the register in the office of C.P stating the
purpose of visit. No entry has to be made in the
control room department when one leaves the control
room for official work. He might have met the said
Yemgekar once or twice in November, 2006. He did not
receive any document while working in the control room
which was signed by Yemgekar. Signatures on Exh.355A
and Exh.355B do not bear name of the person who has
signed and rubber stamp of C.P. Office. Yemgekar was
deputed as a police constable. Generally, whenever a
police constable signs, he makes note of PC and his
buckle number. He does not remember buckle number of
Yemgekar. The underlined portion in Exh.355A is a
buckle number which starts with 98. The number is
98045. There is no buckle number below signature 355B.
He does not know PC bearing buckle number 98045.
...487/-
Exh.1124 487 (J-SC 317/10)
Whenever a document is sent from one department, it
bears outward stamp bearing date, time and signature.
There is no outward stamp, date and time on Exh.356.
The details of sender of telegram, subject of telegram,
etc. are not mentioned on Exh.355. So also, time when
it was received is not mentioned on it. He did not know
as to where the envelope containing the telegram was.
There is no entry in Exh.355 that telegram was in an
envelop and was forwarded as such with envelop to C.P.
Office. The witness denied that, he did not receive
telegram Exh.356 on 11.11.2006 and that, it was
forwarded to the C.P. Office on 13.11.2006 and also
that it was not received by C.P. Office. The witness
further denied that, a false entry at Exh.355 was made.
The witness denied that, Exh.355 was not in his
handwriting and that the photocopy was not part of the
original charge register. The witness also denied that
he was deposing false at the say of the SIT.
475. During further cross examination, omissions as
regards to, 'the offices of the police officers within
the CP compound close at 7.00 pm' and that, 'the writer
on duty of the Main Control Room also receives the
correspondence after the office hours on working days'
have been brought on record. The witness admitted
that, he did not state to the SIT that, two constables
used to assist him and that acknowledgment was taken in
...488/-
Exh.1124 488 (J-SC 317/10)
charge book when a letter was delivered to the office
concerned. He also did not state name of A.N. Roy to
the SIT and that the telegram was received in an
envelop and through the address window of the envelop.
The witness denied that he was deposing false.
476. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sandesh Mahadeo
Chavan (PW-48), Exh.357, that, since 02.06.2011, he was
working as the Assistant RTO at Vashi RTO Office. On
07.09.2011, he had received a requisition from the SIT
regarding details of Qualis vehicle. The requisition is
at Exh.358. It bears inward stamp of his office and
signature of Jr. Clerk Mr. Ghatal. The SIT called
details of vehicle MH-04-AW-8824. Accordingly, the
information was given by his office vide Exh.180. It
bears his signature and contents are true and correct.
Chasis number of the said vehicle is LF 501021974
01/01. '01/01' represents month and year of
manufacture. On the office copy of Exh.180, one of the
owners name was not mentioned because of carbon paper
was not placed properly. He again sent the complete
information by a letter dated 01.11.2011 Exh.359. On
06.06.2011, the said vehicle was transferred to RTO,
Andheri in the name of Hemant Bharat Mehta Exh.180.
The details of the vehicle as stated in Exh.180 were
taken down from the Motor vehicles register maintained
by his office. Half of the record has been maintained
...489/-
Exh.1124 489 (J-SC 317/10)
manually. Other half is computerized. The witness
brought the original register with him. Originally the
vehicle was registered at RTO, Thane. It was
transferred to RTO, Vashi on 24.01.2006. The record
available with his office is from 24.01.2006. Name of
the original owner was mentioned in the record of his
office.
477. It has further come in his evidence that,
since August'2007, his office started computerization
process of the record. He had brought the computerized
extract of the record maintained in their system. As
per their computerized record, chasis number is LF
50102197401. In the computerized record, instead of
01/01 only 01 is entered as some of the data entry
operators have not entered both month and year. The
engine number is 964669 as per Exh.180 and 966692 as
per computer record. The manual record as shown as per
Exh.180 is correct. The details of the vehicle in the
Manual register are made on the basis of NOC issued by
Thane RTO and the RC Book of the vehicle. The witness
had brought the original register maintained by the RTO
Office along with copies of the relevant entries. The
original entry is marked Exh.360 and its copy is at
Exh.360A. The computerized extract is correct as per
record maintained by his office on the computerized
system. The computerized copy is marked Exh.361. NOC is
...490/-
Exh.1124 490 (J-SC 317/10)
at Exh.363.
478. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, the senior clerk maintains the record of the
vehicles in the RTO Office. There are two senior
clerks, one for non transport vehicles and other for
transport vehicles. In the year 2006, except the manual
register, there was no other record maintained of the
said vehicle in his office. Initially, they started the
computerized system with registration of new vehicles
and thereafter they started maintaining details of the
already registered vehicles. All the data of old
vehicles is not fully computerized. The SIT issued only
one letter Exh.358 dated 07.09.2011. Before sending the
reply Exh.180, he verified both the manual as well as
computerized records. Exh.180 is in the handwriting of
senior clerk Mr.Kalamkar. He verified the details
contained in Exh.180 that, both manual as well as
computerized records. While issuing Exh.180, he did not
notice the discrepancy in the manual record and
computerized record.
479. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he might have given the extract of the
manual register, Exh.360 to the SIT when he came on the
last occasion. He had not taken any acknowledgment and
did not have any document of his record to show that he
...491/-
Exh.1124 491 (J-SC 317/10)
had given copy of Exh.360 to the SIT. There was no
internal correspondence between the two RTOs when the
vehicle was transferred from one RTO to another RTO,
except NOC and RC Book. As per record, on 11.11.2006
the owner of the vehicle MH-04-AW-8824 was Mr.Ashok J.
Shah. The address as shown in Exh.360 of Ashok Shah
was as given by Ashok Shah as the time of transfer.
They verified the address of the person from the
prescribed documents as per rules. They maintain record
pertaining to the documents given of address proof, but
the same is destroyed after a period of three years and
from the present record the witness could not state
what document was produced as address proof by Ashok J.
Shah. He sent Exh.359 on his own in continuation of
earlier letter dated 07.09.2011 issued by RTO, Vashi.
The address as stated in Exh.359 was taken as per
office record. He had personally verified the addresses
from the address proof on 01.11.2011. The witness
further deposed that, he did not verify the addresses
from the documents of address proof. The addresses
mentioned in Exh.359 are from Manual record and from
computerized record. In manual record Exh.360 there was
no mention of Sudhakar Sukha and Negandhi. Their names
and details were taken from computerized record. In
Exh.361, there is no mention of Sudhakar Sukha. In the
computerized system, there is a separate option of
knowing the history of the details of the owners. It
...492/-
Exh.1124 492 (J-SC 317/10)
was from such entries in the history, he got the
details of Sudhakar Sukha. Exh.361 was taken out on
22.2.2012. He had not given Exh.361 to the SIT earlier.
Its copy is marked as Exh.362, which is the same
information taken from the system as per Exh.361 and
contents were the same. The computerized entry of
transfer has been made by senior clerk Mr. Khade.
480. It has further come in his evidence that, the
entry of Negandhi was also made by Mr. Khade. The entry
of transfer to Andheri RTO was made by Kalamkar. The
engine number and chasis number was entered by two data
entry operators. He did not know their names. For
getting Exh.361 and Exh.362, sum of Rs.50/- was paid
for each. He had taken out the said information for
giving evidence in the court. He had paid the said
amount of Rs.50. Police did not ask for the said
record. Last time when he came to the court in
November, 2011, he noticed discrepancy in the engine
and chasis number. For correction of record, if the
vehicle is registered originally with them, they verify
the original records else they call for the vehicle
itself for verification. The entry has not been
corrected relating to this vehicle. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false at the say of the SIT and
had tendered the documents in the court at the say of
the SIT. At the time of first registration of the
...493/-
Exh.1124 493 (J-SC 317/10)
vehicle, the engine number and chasis number was
verified by the Inspector and print of chasis number
was taken. There is chasis number imprint available in
his record. He had not personally taken any imprint of
the chasis. He did not have the imprint of the chasis
number of the vehicle when it was transferred to Vashi
RTO. Whenever transfer of ownership is within the RTO,
no imprint is taken. Sr. Clerk maintains the document
like Exh.363. Exh.363 was submitted to his office on
03.06.2011 and NOC was issued on 06.06.2011. The engine
and chasis number stated on Exh.363 were taken from the
computerized record. As per said the said form, the
imprint number is LF 501021974*0 01. The engine number
and chasis number in column nos. 6 and 7 have been
corrected accordingly. Owner submits the imprint on the
form. There is no date of taking of imprint. They did
not physically verify the imprint and the chasis number
of the vehicle.
481. It has come in evidence of Mr.Ravindra Vasudeo
Kulkarni (PW-49) Exh.364 that, since August, 2004 to
December 2010 he was working as P.A. in the office of
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. At the time of
deposing, he was working as P.A to the Jt. Commissioner
of Police, Administration, Mumbai. The correspondence
address to the office of the Commissioner is received
by a clerk or a constable assisting the said clerk.
...494/-
Exh.1124 494 (J-SC 317/10)
Except confidential correspondence, all other
correspondence is opened and read by the clerk
concerned. He makes relevant entry in the Inward
register and puts inward number on the said
correspondence and forwards the same to him for further
action. Working hours of the office of the Commissioner
is 9.45 am to 5.30 pm. The office remains open
thereafter also if the Commissioner is present in the
office. The constable receives the correspondence at
that time. The correspondence which is received when
the office is closed, is received by the Control Room.
The correspondence is received by the office on the
next working day. There could have been some
correspondence with the SIT. Letter dated 26.3.2010 was
sent by him to the SIT. It bore his signature and its
contents were true and correct vide Exh.365. On
02.9.2011, API Ghorpade of the SIT had shown him one
telegram and asked him if his signature was on the
telegram, which was addressed to Mr. A.N. Roy, the
Commissioner of Police. His initials and date appears
on Exh.356 (portion marked B). He put initials as
soon as he received it on 13.11.2006. The said telegram
had stamp of inward of his office put by constable
Yemgekar, who was working with him for about 3 to 4
years i.e. since about 2005. The witness identified the
handwriting of Yemgekar.
...495/-
Exh.1124 495 (J-SC 317/10)
482. It has further come in his evidence that,
entry of the said telegram has been taken in the said
inward register. Entry no.32868 dated 13.11.2006
pertaining to the said telegram was in the handwriting
of Yemgekar. Next to his initials, words Addl. CP
Crime were written by Yemgekar (portion marked C).
The last column of the entry of the register indicated
to whom the correspondence was forwarded to. The entire
entry was in the handwriting of Yemgekar. As the
telegram indicated danger to life, it was immediately
forwarded to the Addl. CP. Relevant entry was marked
as Exh.366 and its copy was marked as Exh.366A. The
telegram was immediately sent to the Addl.
Commissioner, Crime. The original telegram was
forwarded to the Addl. CP, Crime. One photocopy of the
telegram was taken and placed before the Commissioner
of Police. As the letter was addressed to him, it was
necessary that he should know about the letter.
483. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he did not know how much staff and of what
designation was deputed in the control room. Whenever
any correspondence is received by the control room for
and on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, it
should bear outward number of the control room and
inward number of the Commissioner's office. If there
was any matter or correspondence of emergency nature,
...496/-
Exh.1124 496 (J-SC 317/10)
the officer in-charge of the control room could
directly contact the Commissioner of Police.
Correspondence addressed to the Commissioner of Police
is not opened. The in-charge would not be able to know
if it was a matter of urgency and emergency unless
correspondence is opened by him. They did not open all
correspondence.
484. The witness has denied that, some
correspondence is opened by the officer of the control
room. There is no noting in the register if the
telegram received is in open condition or closed
condition. There was no record to show that envelop
along with the telegram was received in the office of
Commissioner of Police. All the correspondence that is
received is informed to the Commissioner of Police on
day to day basis. To all correspondence received, the
Commissioner applies his mind and further action is
taken. In certain matters, the correspondence is sent
directly. He is not aware of any office order which
empowers the staff of the Commissioner of Police to
forward the correspondence to other department without
notice of the Commissioner. Whatever action is taken
without the notice of the Commissioner is to be
conveyed to the Commissioner subsequently. The action
which they have taken is not informed separately to the
Commissioner. The photocopy of the document also bears
...497/-
Exh.1124 497 (J-SC 317/10)
the noting of the action which they have taken. After
the remarks of the commissioner, the photocopy is again
forwarded to the department concerned accordingly.
There is a separate outward entry of forwarding the
photocopy. It can happen that the Commissioner does not
approve the action taken by the staff and suggest some
other action. The photocopy and the instructions are
not retained by the office of the Commissioner of
Police. Photocopy Exh.356 was shown to Commissioner of
Police, A.N. Roy. The photocopy had a note that he had
decided to forward the telegram to the Addl. CP.
Generally, the Commissioner of Police puts his initials
on the photocopy and below the marking of Addl. CP. He
did not remember if he had done it in the instant case.
If the photocopy is forwarded by the office of the CP,
the photocopy and noting will be available in the
office of the Addl. CP. If the photocopy had gone to
the office of the Addl. CP, there would be an outward
number on such photocopy. The register which he had
brought before the court was both inward and outward
register. There was no entry in the register regarding
forwarding of the photocopy of Exh.356 to the Addl.
Commissioner on 13.11.2006. There was no outward number
on Exh.356 of his office of sending it to the Addl. CP.
There was no separate entry of forwarding it to the
office of Addl. CP. The register does not bear the time
when Exh.356 was received and the time when it went to
...498/-
Exh.1124 498 (J-SC 317/10)
the office of Addl. CP. Whenever correspondence is sent
or forwarded from the office of the CP to any other
office, an acknowledgment is issued by the receiving
office.
485. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it did not occur to him that the
subject matter should be brought immediately to the
notice of the Commissioner of Police. After reading of
Anil Bheda picked by police from Vashi, Sector 9, he
did not feel it necessary to forward the same to Vashi
police station. The inward entry of the Addl.
Commissioner, Crime, is of 15.11.2006. Yemgekar was
then working in Traffic Department. He was relieved in
the year 2009/2010 before him. He was no in contact
with Yemgekar after he was relieved from his office. He
had not received any correspondence in the handwriting
of Yemgekar after he was relieved from the office of
the CP till date. He did not have any specimen
handwriting of Yemgekar in his possession. After
Yemgekar being relieved, he had seen the handwriting of
Yemgekar on that day for the first time, which he
claimed to be of Yemgekar.
486. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11.08.2009, he was working in the
office of Commissioner of Police. He was not expected
...499/-
Exh.1124 499 (J-SC 317/10)
to be aware of all the appointments of the Commissioner
of Police within and outside the office. He had access
to his appointments. He did not remember if
Commissioner of Police Mr.A.N.Roy had visited the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for swearing in affidavit
in Cri. W.P.No.2473/06. He was the Personal Assistant
of the Commissioner on 11.08.2009. He did not remember
if Commissioner of Police, Mr.A.N.Roy had discussion
with him about telegram Exh.356 on 11.08.2009 or
immediately before that. On 11.08.2009, Shri A.N. Roy
was deputed as DG of Police, however he was placed in
different office than that of the Commissioner of
Police.
487. Shri Shivanandan was the Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai in August 2009. Shri Shivanandan did not
have any discussion with him relating to Exh.356. He
did not remember if in August 2009, he received
requisition from the office of the DG, A.N. Roy and he
forwarded the copy of the telegram to him. After
August 2009, he was not called by PW-1 to file
affidavit regarding Exh.356 before the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay. He was not aware that Mr. A.N. Roy had
stated in the affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court
that he had personally no occasion to see the contents
of the telegram at the relevant time. After 13.08.2009,
he was not called by the SIT to verify if the telegram
...500/-
Exh.1124 500 (J-SC 317/10)
was shown to the CP Mr. A.N. Roy. After 13.08.2009,
the inward outward register was available in the office
of the CP. He was in the office of the CP, Mumbai in
August, 2009. On 02.09.2011, he was working in the
office of Jt. CP. He did not send any requisition from
the office of Jt. CP, Administration to the office of
CP calling for the register, as there was no record
available in the office of Jt. CP showing that he had
called for the register as he had not called for the
register. Mr. Ghorpade also did not bring the register
or copy thereof on that day. At the time of Exh.356, he
had the inward outward register in his office. There
was no hindrance in attaching the copy of the register
along with letter Exh.356.
488. Omissions as regards to, the correspondence
addressed to the office of Commissioner is received by
a clerk or constable assisting the said clerk and that
except confidential correspondence, all the other
correspondence is opened and read by the concerned
clerk and that he makes relevant entry in the inward
register and puts the inward number on the said
correspondence and forwards the same to him for further
action and that working hours of the office of the
Commissioner is 9.45 am to 5.30 pm and that the office
remains open thereafter also if the Commissioner if
present in the office and that constable receives the
...501/-
Exh.1124 501 (J-SC 317/10)
correspondence at that time and that the correspondence
which is received when the office is closes, is
received by the Control Room and that the
correspondence is received by the office on the next
working day, have been brought on record. Omissions as
regards to, the SIT sent a letter and he replied to it
as per Exh.365 and that, Yemgekar had put the inwards
stamp on the telegram and that he was working with him
since 2005 and that, he can identify handwriting of
Yemgekar, have been brought on record. Omissions as
regards to, entry Exh.366 was in the handwriting
Yemgekar and that portion C in Exh.356 was in the
handwriting of Yemgekar and that, last column in the
register pertained to the department where the
correspondence was forwarded and was in handwriting of
Yemgekar, have been brought on record. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false.
489. It has come in evidence of Mr.Jayesh Kanji
Kesaria (PW-50), Exh.369 that, he was doing business in
grains. He knew Anil Bheda. In the first week of
January, 2007, Anil Bheda had come to his house and
informed him that, there was a threat to his life and
that of his family. Anil Bheda further stated that, on
11.11.2006, he and Ramnarayan Gupta were lifted by a
police team. They were kept in different vehicles at
Bhandup Complex and that he was taken to D.N. Nagar
...502/-
Exh.1124 502 (J-SC 317/10)
police station. Anil Bheda further informed this
witness that, he was taken by a squad of Sharma
(Accused No.1) from Sector-9 at Vashi. Anil Bheda
further stated to him that, the police took him and his
family to Kolhapur for sometime and thereafter he was
kept in a hotel at Andheri. Anil Bheda further informed
him that, his wife Aruna had lodged a missing complaint
at Vashi police station. Accordingly, he and Anil Bheda
went to Vashi police station to give statement. On
21.10.2007, the witness along with Anil Bheda went to
the office of the Collector at Bandra. They were
accompanied by accused no.5 Hitesh. Officer Mr.Ghorpade
called him and asked him to come to Andheri Court.
Accordingly, his statement was recorded by a Judge vide
Exh.370. The witness identified photograph (Exh.308) as
of Anil Bheda.
490. It has come during cross examination of the
witness that, he started business as an Estate Agent in
the year 1992 at APMC Market, Vashi. It was his side
business. No record of the business was maintained by
him. Further cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he started business dealing in grains in 1985 and
his brother Atul joined the said business after the
year 2000. The firm Aalal Atun Jayesh was registered
with APMC Market Committee in 1999. In 1992, they
shifted the business from Masjid Bandar to APMC Market.
...503/-
Exh.1124 503 (J-SC 317/10)
491. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he knew Anil Bheda since 1985. he
served with broker Mahindrakumar Premchand for about
one year. At that time, Anil Bheda was serving in 1985.
After 1985 Anil Bheda was not purchasing grains from
him. He was not working as an Agent for Anil Bheda. He
had no any business relations with Anil Bheda. Anil
Bheda started his independent business in grains after
APMC Market was opened in 1992. He used to do the said
business under the name and style of Adeshwar
Traders. Office of the said 'Adeshwar Traders' was
situated at N. Lane, Gala No.14. Anil Bheda used to do
business with several commission agents, and brokers,
but he could not tell their names. Anil Bheda left the
above shop in the year 2003 as he closed his business.
The witness did not know under which name Anil Bheda
was doing the business as an estate agent. He did not
know from which place the said Anil Bheda was doing the
business as an estate agent. Anil Bheda used to come
to the market and used to have talks with him. The
witness used to meet Anil Bheda occasionally when he
used to come to the market. After 2003, their meeting
became fewer. After 2003, and prior to that, Anil Bheda
used to come to the house of the witness. He knew all
the family members of the witness. He had also gone to
the house of Anil Bheda 1-2 times. He had become his
...504/-
Exh.1124 504 (J-SC 317/10)
family friend. Except marriage of his brother, there
was no function in his house. At that time, they had
called Anil Bheda for the said marriage. However, he
had not attended any function in the house of Anil
Bheda. Whenever Anil Bheda had come to his shop or to
his house they had no business discussion.
492. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, prior to January, 2007, he had met Anil
Bheda before about 1 and 1 1/2 months. At that time,
they met in APMC Market. From 2003 to 2007, he might
have met Anil Bheda for 20 to 25 times. During the said
period, Anil Bheda had never come to his house. In
January 2007, Anil Bheda had come to his house after
several years. During 2003 to 2007, he had casual
meeting with Anil Bheda in the APMC Market regarding
exchange of pleasantries. He did not remember when he
had telephonic talk with Anil Bheda prior to January
2007. At the time of deposing, he did not use the
mobile phone which he used in January 2007 and he was
using mobile phone bearing No. 9820917558 for more than
last two years. In January 2007, Anil Bheda had come to
his house without giving him any phone call. The SIM
Card of the above mobile phone was in his name. In
January, 2007, he was not using the above numbered
mobile phone. The Sim Card of the other mobile phone
which he used earlier was also in his name.
...505/-
Exh.1124 505 (J-SC 317/10)
493. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he was not knowing that Anil Bheda
was having criminal record. He was not knowing whether
the said Anil Bheda was in jail in connection with
criminal cases. It did not happen that during 1985 to
2007 Anil Bheda was not seen for long periods
intermittently. He did not know till date whether
criminal cases were registered against Anil Bheda and
also the nature of the said cases. Anil Bheda never
asked any help from him about his criminal cases. He
never asked any help from the witness in getting surety
for him nor he asked for any money from him. He did
not have any financial transaction with Anil Bheda, but
Anil Bheda had helped him in his business. Prior to
January, 2007, Anil Bheda did not ask for any help from
him. Anil Bheda helped him in 1992 and 1997. At that
time, he helped him by giving money for paying the
bills of hospitals. He gave him Rs.25,000 to Rs.
30,000/-. He could not repay the said amount to Anil
Bheda. At the time of borrowing the money, he had not
given any promise to the said Bheda that he would repay
the amount within a specific time. Anil Bheda also did
not demand the said money from him. He did not remember
the month in which he took the amount from Anil Bheda
in 1992 and 1997. When he borrowed the above amount
from Anil Bheda, his father was ill and he was admitted
...506/-
Exh.1124 506 (J-SC 317/10)
in Shradha Hospital in 1997 and in Buch Hospital in
1992. He was hospitalized for 15 days on each occasion.
He did not remember the amount of hospital bills. He
did not have any record about the said hospital bills
and hospitalization of his father. He had not demanded
any loan from any other person.
494. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it did not happen that Anil Bheda
withdrew the amount from bank and gave it to him. He
knew that financial condition of Anil Bheda was not
good, his business was not in a good condition. He
demanded the above amount from Anil Bheda, however he
immediately brought the amount and gave it to him. He
did not ask Anil Bheda from where did he bring the said
amount. At that time Anil Bheda did not ask him to
return the said amount within a specific time. Except
demanding the above amount, he never asked any help
from Anil Bheda. Anil Bheda had never demanded any kind
of help from him at any time except in January 2007.
The number of his other mobile phone in 2007 was
9223279343. He stopped using the above mobile phone for
the last three years. He was not in contact with Anil
Bheda on phone when he was not meeting him. However, he
used to contact the witness on his new number
9820917558. Anil Bheda used to contact him on his other
mobile also. He was using his old number for one and
...507/-
Exh.1124 507 (J-SC 317/10)
half years after January 2007. He did not remember
whether Anlil Bheda had called him and even before
coming to meet him in January 2007.
495. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, prior to 08.01.2007, there was no any
police case against him. So also, he was not in contact
with police prior to 08.01.2007. He did not give his
police statement on the day when Anil Bheda had come to
meet him in January 2007. 4-5 days after Anil Bheda met
him he went to police station to give his statement.
During those 4-5 days, he did not tell anybody in
respect of which Anil Bheda told him. He did not
remember whether Anil Bheda had any telephonic talk or
any personal talk with him during those 4-5 days. Till
23.09.2009, he did not tell anybody that he had given
false statement before police at the instance of Anil
Bheda. Anil Bheda met him 7-8 days prior to 23.09.2009.
At that time, he told the witness to give true
statement. He had received summons from the SIT to
appear on 23.09.2009. Anil Bheda told him that he had
already given statement to the SIT prior to 7-8 days of
23.09.2009. At that time, he told the witness to tell
truth to the police. He told him that, he would do as
told by him.
...508/-
Exh.1124 508 (J-SC 317/10)
496. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 08.01.2007, in the afternoon, Anil
Bheda telephoned him and thereafter they both had gone
to Vashi police station. When he received the phone of
Anil Bheda he was in the market of Vashi. At that
time, he did not tell anybody that he, along with Anil
Bheda, was going to Vashi police station. They reached
Vashi police station in between 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm.
They were there for about 01.00 to 01.15 hours. During
that time, the police made inquiries with him in
isolation. At that time, he had given his mobile number
9223279343 to police. Between 08.01.2007 to 16.10.2007,
Anil Bheda met him on number of times. At that time, he
did not tell the witness that inquiry was going on in
this case and he would be required to attend the said
inquiry. He did not receive any summons of the said
inquiry. On the request of Anil Bheda, he had attended
the said inquiry before the SLAO-IV. On that day, Anil
Bheda told him what statement he should give before the
SLAO-IV. He had not stated so many things to Vashi
police station which he told before the SLAO-IV. He
told so many things before the SLAO-IV that, he was
neither knowing Ramnarayan Vishwanth Gupta, nor he had
ever met him, nor he was present with Anil Bheda on
11.11.2006. The witness denied that, he stated the
above facts to the SLAO-IV at the instance of Anil
Bheda. He would not mind if he told false facts for
...509/-
Exh.1124 509 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil Bheda. He told false facts to Vashi police station
at the instance of Anil Bheda. He was ready to do
anything for Anil Bheda as he was indebted to him.
Since 08.01.2007 to 16.10.2007, Anil Bheda did not take
him to any advocate or any political person. He had
taken false oath before the SLAO-IV. His statement was
recorded on oath by the SLAO-IV. He never felt that he
had given false statement to the SLAO-IV.
497. The witness further deposed that, he was in
regular contact with Anil Bheda since 16.10.2007 to
23.09.2009. So also, he was in regular contact with
Anil Bheda since 23.09.2009 till he went missing. He
was never called in the inquiry about missing of Anil
Bheda. His statement before the Magistrate was recorded
on 21.01.2010. He had received phone call from the SIT
one day before 21.01.2010. At that time, police told
him that, his statement would be recorded on the next
date before Magistrate. His statement was recorded on
23.01.2010. He had gone only for one day to the SIT for
giving statement and at that time, he was asked whether
he would be ready to give statement in future. He had
not contacted Anil Bheda before his giving statement on
23.01.2010 before the Magistrate. So also, Anil Bheda
did not tell him that his statement had been recorded
before the Magistrate. One Vinay Ghorpade had
telephoned him to come to the SIT. At that time, he met
...510/-
Exh.1124 510 (J-SC 317/10)
Vinay Ghorpade. Vinay Ghorpade took him to the room of
the Magistrate. At the time of recording his statement,
only he himself, the Magistrate and his typist were
present. He identified himself and stepped into the
witness box. Before recording his statement, the
Magistrate interrogated him. At the time of recording
his statement before the Magistrate, he was without any
fear. He had gone to the Magistrate at about 3 pm and
his statement was completed till 04.00 pm to 04.30 pm.
At the time of recording statement, he had taken oath.
He did not tell anything new before the Magistrate. At
that time, he was remembering his statement given
before the SIT. Before the Magistrate, he did not tell
that the person lifted along with Anil Bheda was
Ramnarayan Gupta. He did not remember whether he stated
before the Magistrate that they were taken to DN Nagar
police station. He also did not remember whether he had
stated before the Magistrate that brother of Ramnarayan
Gupta gave some fax and documents as a result of which
his life was saved. The witness denied that, he had not
stated before the Magistrate that, the squad of Pradeep
Sharma had lifted Ramnarayan Gupta from Sector No.9 at
Vashi. The witness could not give any reason about the
said omission from his statement before the Magistrate.
498. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not state before Magistrate
...511/-
Exh.1124 511 (J-SC 317/10)
that, 'police had taken Anil Bheda and his family at
Kolhapur for some time and thereafter had kept in hotel
at Andheri for one month'. Omissions, Kolhapur, one
month and Andheri have been brought on record. He did
not state before the Magistrate that, he (Bheda) told
him that police had stated that he (Bheda) should give
a statement stating that he (Bheda) had met him (the
witness) and that he had given statement accordingly.
He did not state before the Magistrate that, he felt as
his family's life was in danger he should help him. He
also stated before the Magistrate that, 21.10.2007 when
he had gone to the office of the Collector at Bandra
one Hitesh was with him. Omission as regards to,
accompanied by one Hitesh has been brought on record
from statement before the Magistrate. Omission as
regards to, 'taken loan from Anil Bheda' has been
brought on record. He met Hitesh only for one time and
that too in the office of the Collector. Prior to that,
Hitesh was unknown to him. Thereafter, he saw the said
Hitesh when he had come for his deposition before the
Court. Omission as regards to, the witness seeing
Hitesh for the first time in the office of Collector,
has been brought on record. Omission that, he knew Anil
Bheda in both the markets at Masjid Bandar as well as
Vashi and he was in trading business till 2003, he had
suffered losses in his business and hence, he had
stopped business of trading in grains and started
...512/-
Exh.1124 512 (J-SC 317/10)
dealing in real estate, has been brought on record.
499. The witness further deposed that, Anil Bheda
had not told him that thereafter police had sent his
wife and his family out of Bombay for sometime.
Portion marked A has been brought as omission from
the statement Exh.370. Omissions, kept them in
different vehicles at Bhandup Complex, Sector-9 and
family have been brought on record from the statement
dated 23.9.2009 before the SIT. Omissions, Bheda and
Hitesh have been brought on record. During
examination in chief when he deposed that, the police
had stated he(Bheda) should give statement stating that
he(Bheda) had met him(witness) and that he(Bheda) had
given a statement accordingly, he did not feel that
Anil Bheda was speaking false that police told that he
had met him before proceeding to Shirdi at Thane
Railway Station. He did not feel that he had never met
Anil Bheda on 11.11.2006 and if his phone record was
checked, he would be satisfied. He had given his old
mobile number to the SIT. Neither police demanded the
documents about it nor he gave those to the police.
From January 2007, till date he was doing business in
Mumbai. During that period, he did not tell Anil Bheda
about telling his name to the police. He was called at
Vashi police station only on one occasion. He was
called at the SIT for one time. On both those
...513/-
Exh.1124 513 (J-SC 317/10)
occasions, police had inquired with him where he was
on 11.10.2006. He did not remember which was the day on
11.11.2006. On that day, he was in the market. The SIT
did not demand any documents from him to show that he
was in the market on 11.11.2006. He had no documents
to show where he was on 11.11.2006.
500. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the witness denied that, he was
deposing false that on 11.11.2006 Anil Bheda had met
him and had told that he was going to Shirdi and that,
since he was indebted to Anil Bheda he gave false
statement before Vashi police station and the Collector
regarding his meeting with Anil Bheda. The witness
further denied that, he gave false statement before
Vashi police station and the Collector that life of
Anil Bheda and family was in danger and that, he was
deposing false that squad of Pradeep Sharma had lifted
Anil Bheda and Ramnarayan Gupta from Sector 9, Vashi
and that they were kept in different vehicles at
Bhandup and thereafter taken to DN Nagar police station
and that the brother of Ramnarayan Gupta had sent some
fax and documents as a result of which his life was
saved. The witness further denied that, Anil Bheda did
not tell him that police took him and his family to
Kolhapur and thereafter and he was kept in a hotel for
about one month. The witness also denied that, police
...514/-
Exh.1124 514 (J-SC 317/10)
told him to take his name as the person to whom he met
before proceeding to Shirdi and accordingly he gave
statement to Vashi police station. He also denied that,
he was deposing false that he met Anil Bheda and Hitesh
before going to the Collector office at Bandra and he
identified said Hitesh (accused no.5) at the instance
of police. The witness also denied that, he gave false
statement before the SIT at the instance of Anil Bheda
and police and that, they had brought pressure on him
to tell that he had given false statement before Vashi
police station and Collector, Bandra. The witness
denied that, the officers of the SIT exerted pressure
on him to give false statement before the Magistrate.
He did not inquire with Anil Bheda since January 2007
to September 2009 as to what happened in respect of
giving false statements. So also, Anil Bheda did not
speak with him about this. During that time, Anil Bheda
was doing his business. During that time, he did not
ask Anil Bheda as to what happened to the threats of
his life. So also, he did not tell him about danger to
his life. He did not read the newspaper about the
events in respect of death of Ramnarayan Gupta. He
himself never felt to disclose before any court or
higher police officers about the true facts. The
witness denied that, what he stated before Vashi police
station and the collector at Bandra were the true
facts.
...515/-
Exh.1124 515 (J-SC 317/10)
501. It has come in evidence of Mr.Anil Laxman More
(PW-51), PC, Exh.379 that, in the year 2006 when he was
attached to Versova police station as a Police
Constable, accused no.11 Sartape was Incharge of
detection staff. On 11.11.2006, ASI Devkate and Police
Naik Kokam (Accused no.19) did patrolling duty in
police station area, whereas witnesses, HC Kamble, PC
Naik went to Andheri General Lockup for taking accused
of their police station to regional office at Bandra
for identification parade. He came to know that an
encounter had taken place near Nana Nani Park.
Therefore, he went and saw PI Sankhe, PSI Harpude
(Accused no.17) and PC Chavan were present there.
Accused Harpude asked him to collect blood sample and
cartridge from the spot and and accordingly he gave it
to Accused Harpude. Accused Harpude collected soil
mixed with blood from the spot. The witness further
deposed that, on 08.09.2010, his statement u/s.164 came
to be recorded in Bandra Court vide Article 44.
502. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, his statement was recorded only once on
16.08.2010. Since 2004 to 31.05.2010, he was attached
to Varsova Police station and at the time of recording
his statement, he was attached to MHB Police Station.
Since 1993 he was serving in police department and
...516/-
Exh.1124 516 (J-SC 317/10)
joined Varsova police station in the year 2004. Versova
police station was not having lock up. There was
general lockup at Andheri. Therefore, the accused were
kept in Andheri lock up. Arrested accused of their
region of other police stations were also taken to
Andheri Lock up. They used to take accused to The
Additional Commissioner for weekly identification
parade. For that purpose, no written order was issued.
The witness further deposed that, he did not remember
whether on 11.11.2006 some time after 12.30 p.m. he
himself and police Head Constable No. 22119 left the
police station for day patrolling. At that time his
buckle no. was 32734. The buckle no. of 22119 was of
Head Constable Kamble. He did not know whether H.C.
Kamble had asked station house officer to take entry
about leaving their police station. He knew that while
going to patrolling duty it was necessary to take entry
in the station dairy. He also did not remember whether
station dairy entry was made in respect of either going
to Andheri lockup, from there to regional office at
Bandra and thereafter back to Andheri General lockup
and Varsova police station. SIT did not show him any
station diary at the time of recording his statement.
Police maintained their personal dairy, but denied that
they took signatures of P.Is on the said diary. He did
not produce the said diary till that day before any
officer. The SIT did not demand the said diary from
...517/-
Exh.1124 517 (J-SC 317/10)
him.
503. Further he denied that, on 11.11.2006 he went
to the spot in his personal capacity and out of
curiosity. He also denied that, his senior officer
asked him to go there. The witness categorically
deposed that, HC-Kamble asked him to go there, but he
did not accompany the witness. He alone went to the
spot. The witness denied that, when he went to the
spot, number of officers from Varsova Police Station
were present there. He saw only two officers of his
police station present there. He did not report to any
officer after returning to police station as to what he
did on the spot. He did not know whether PSI Sankhe
was investigating the above encounter. He did not state
to anybody before recording his statement by the SIT
that as per the direction of PSI Harpude he collected
blood sample and revolver from the spot and handed over
it to PSI Harpude. He also did not state to anybody
before recording his statement by the SIT that at about
8 to 8.30 p.m. he went to the spot as per the direction
of HC Kamble. Except his words there was no proof to
show that on that day at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m he went
to the spot.
504. Further cross examination discloses that, he
did not know when PI sankhe and PSI Harpude had reached
...518/-
Exh.1124 518 (J-SC 317/10)
the spot. They were present on the spot when he reached
there. The SIT did not show him the video shooting of
the spot. He never saw the blood sample and revolver
after 11.11.2006. He never came to know about
appointment of the SIT in connection with this crime.
His police station had received the message about
recording his statement by the SIT. On the next day of
receiving the above message, he went to the the SIT.
The SIT did not show him anything before recording his
statement to remind him of the event of 11.11.2006. He
did not make any entry of the said event anywhere. On
the second time when the SIT called him, they asked him
whether he was ready to give his statement before
magistrate. He was called one day before magistrate to
record his statement. Omission as regards to, 'going to
Andheri General Lock up', 'after completing day
patrolling duty'' have been brought on record. The
witness denied that, he gave his statement before the
SIT and to the Magistrate under pressure of the IO and
was deposing false before the Court at the say of the
IO. The witness denied that, when he went to the spot,
the media persons were present and they were shooting
the spot and also, he asked the media persons to go
away and stop video shooting the spot. His colleagues
were asking the media persons to go away. He personally
did not know which squad committed the above encounter.
The witness could not tell who told him that squad of
...519/-
Exh.1124 519 (J-SC 317/10)
Pradeep Sharma committed the above encounter. The
witness denied that, ASI Devkate did not ask him to
take the accused to the regional office and also that,
he and Kokam would go for patrolling duty. As per
summary given by PSI Chalke he gave his statement dated
16.08.2010. He could not tell as to at what places he
did patrolling duty on 11.11.2006. The witness denied
that, on that day he left his police station for
patrolling duty after 12.30 p.m. along with HC-22119.
While going for patrolling duty they informed the
station duty officer and accordingly station diary was
prepared. PSI Jadhav was Station Duty Officer and
station diary was with him. He could not identify
handwriting of PSI Jadhav and that of HC-22119.
505. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not remember whether he asked
the station duty officer to take entry of his returning
to the police station after patrolling duty was over.
The witness denied that, that day after his patrolling
duty was over, he directly went to his house and that,
there was no station dairy about his return to police
statement. He informed the concerned police station
officer accordingly to take entry after his return.
After perusing the station diary dated 11.11.2006, the
witness replied that, there was no station diary about
his return to the police station. The witness denied
...520/-
Exh.1124 520 (J-SC 317/10)
that, he was deposing false at the instance of the
police. He never made any station dairy entry till
date. The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006 he did not
go to any place. There were two beat chowkies(out-post)
within Versova Police Station i.e. 1) Yaari road and 2)
Saat Bangla. He did not remember whether on 11.11.2006,
PSI Harpude was beat officer of Yaari Road police
chowki. A Beat Movement Register known as Beat Dairy
was maintained in every police chowki.
506. It has come in evidence of Smt.Purba Ketan
Bhattacharya (PW-52), Exh.384 that, since June 1998,
she has been serving as Primary Teacher in St. Mary's
Multi-purpose High School and Jr. College, Section-10,
Vashi, New Bombay. Principal of the school received a
letter from the SIT. Exh.385 had signature of the
principal of the school Father Mr.Abraham Joseph.
Thereafter, the principal asked her to answer queries
made by the SIT. The school furnished requisite
information vide letter Exh.386, which had signature of
principal Mr. Joseph. It was sent along with the reply
to the queries, copy of school leaving certificate and
copy of attendance certificate. It has further come in
her evidence that, register in respect of school
leaving certificate of students was maintained in the
office of the school. Original school leaving
certificate is always given to the students and the
...521/-
Exh.1124 521 (J-SC 317/10)
carbon copies of it are maintained. Carbon copy of
school leaving certificate of one Parth Anil Bheda is
at Sr.No.3575. It is maintained in regular course of
the school business. The photo copy of the school
leaving certificate of Mr.Parth Anil Bheda given to the
SIT is at Exh.387. The witness brought original
attendance register of the student by name Parth which
was mentioned at Sr. No.4 in her handwriting. As per
the said entries, master Parth was absent since 13
th
November onwards till 11
th
December 2006. She was class-
teacher and had written all the entries in the
attendance register in her handwriting in Exh.388. It
bore signature of the principal for attesting the same.
507. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, the attendance register was submitted to the
office at the end of academic year. Somebody remains
in-charge of the said register. A clerk remains in-
charge of the attendance register. Leave notes received
from the parents are not kept in the attendance
register. If there is a leave note for a longer period,
it is maintained by the class teacher. The witness did
not remember whether she had received any leave note of
Parth Bheda. She remembered that officer of the SIT or
father Joseph had asked her whether she had received
leave note of Parth Bheda. At that stage also, she did
not recollect whether she had received any leave note
...522/-
Exh.1124 522 (J-SC 317/10)
of Parth Bheda. Further evidence of the witness
disclose that, father Joseph was alive and working in
the school and was able to depose in the Court. No
police officer was present at that point of time when
Father Joseph had called her in the office. Father
Joseph did not ask her to sign any document. Class
teacher was not concerned with the school leaving
register. There is a column in the school leaving
certificate in respect of signature of the class
teacher. However, she had never signed the said
register. School leaving certificate Exh.387 had not
been prepared in her presence. She saw the said school
leaving certificate for the first time when Father
Joseph called her. At that time, the said certificate
had already been prepared. The witness denied that, she
could not vouch for the correctness of the contents in
the school leaving certificate. As per Exh.387, the
date of admission is 15.06.2007 and date of leaving
school is 30.04.2008. The witness clarified that, the
said date was of admission to secondary section. The
witness admitted that the above document did not show
that Parth Bheda was in their school in the year
2006-2007.
508. The witness further deposed that, document
Exh.386 did not bear her initials at any place and
that, there was nothing on Exh.386 collectively which
...523/-
Exh.1124 523 (J-SC 317/10)
would show that she prepared it. The witness
categorically deposed that, it would be wrong to say
that, Exh.380 was prepared by Father Joseph. Again the
witness deposed that, page no.1 of Exh.380 was prepared
by Father Joseph and page no.2 was prepared by her at
about 9.30 am. She had prepared the above letter.
Further evidence of the witness discloses that, till
01.05.2012 no police officer contacted her in respect
of attendance of Parth Bheda. The witness admitted
that, when police recorded her statement on 3.5.2012,
Father Joseph was present with her. Police did not
record statement of Father Joseph on 3.5.2012. Both the
documents i.e. the attendance and school leaving record
remain with the office after academic year. At the time
of recording her statement, she had not shown the
original registers to the police. When police recorded
her statement, copies of the documents given by Father
Joseph to police were shown to her. It was the decision
of Father Joseph to send copies of the documents to
police. Police had not asked for any documents of the
school. At that point of time, Father Joseph did not
ask her to verify the record, but she herself prepared
the said record. However Father Joseph attested the
attendance register though he did not prepare it. At
that time, two copies of attendance sheet had been
given to the police. They were of the months November
and December 2006.
...524/-
Exh.1124 524 (J-SC 317/10)
509. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, her school maintains punctuality about
the attendance. The witness has denied that, if a
student remains absent for long time, his parents are
summoned. The school did not maintain any record as to
why the student remained absent. Leave notes were
mentioned in the calender i.e. diary/ handbook. There
was no column for remarks of the principal in the said
calender. She did not remember whether Parth had
submitted any separate leave application or made a note
in the calender. She was required to mention to the
Principal if the student remained absent for a long
time. The witness again stated that, she informed this
to the Superintendent of the school. She did not
remember whether she had informed to her supervisor
about the absence of Master Parth. Signature of the
Principal was taken in the attendance register on the
last date of the month. While signing the attendance
register, the Principal did not ask as to why Master
Parth was absent for a long time because the principal
did not sign the attendance register in presence of
teachers. The witness denied that, false and fabricated
documents were prepared at the instance of the police
as the police forced father Joseph to prepare the said
documents, and in turn, Father Joseph forced the
witness to prepare the same.
...525/-
Exh.1124 525 (J-SC 317/10)
510. It has come in evidence of Mr.Vishwajit
Manohar Chavan (PW-53), Exh.392 that, he was attached
to Versova Police station as a police constable since
November, 2005 till date. In the month of January 2006,
he was in District Staff. On 11.11.2006, he was on
night duty and joined duty at 8.00 pm. After sometime,
PSI Jadhav asked him to bring some blank papers, a
writing pad and a pen. Then, the witness, PSI Jadhav
and Sr.P.I. Vijay Sonone went to Nana Nani Park by
Peter Mobile Van. When they went there, they saw a mob
of people there and also some of their police officials
in civil uniforms. Thereafter they got down from the
vehicle and dispersed the mob. Then, PSI Jadhav was
having talk for about 20-25 minutes on his mobile
phone. Thereafter, the witness, PSI Jadhav and Sr.P.I.
Vijay Sonawane went to Cooper Hospital by the said
vehicle. At Cooper Hospital, they saw Versova - I
Mobile Van. API Mr. Sarvankar of D.N.Nagar police
station met them. Thereafter, they, along with
Sarvankar, went to Cooper Hospital and then to a
temporary mortuary room. In the said mortuary room,
there was a dead body of a man kept on a stretcher.
After seeing the said dead body, PSI Jadhav asked the
witness to bring two panchas. Thereafter he went out of
Cooper Hospital and brought two panchas. PSI Jadhav
started preparing inquest panchanama in presence of the
...526/-
Exh.1124 526 (J-SC 317/10)
panchas. Then photographs of the dead body were taken
through a private photographer. After completion of the
panchanama, he remained with the dead body till his
colleague police constable Mr.Sagar Nandivedekar,
buckle No.960392, came there. Then the said Sagar
Nandivedekar took the dead body to J.J. Hospital for
postmortem. Then the witness returned to the police
station on next day.
511. The witness further deposed that, on
13.11.2006, he was on day duty. He came to the police
station at 9.00 am. He met ASI Mr.Patade, storekeeper.
Thereafter he took articles seized by the police and
some bottles sent by J.J. Hospital to Kalina for
Chemical analysis. The above muddemal was in respect of
C.R.No. 302/2006 of Versova Police Station. Hospital
papers (4 in numbers), police station papers (4 in
numbers) and bottles were with him. The above papers
Exh.290 to Exh.293 and Exh.211 to Exh.214 were the
same. He gave the bottles in the custody of a dispatch
clerk of Forensic Laboratory, Kalina. He obtained
acknowledgment from the said clerk in respect of giving
the said bottles to him. The said acknowledgment was
made by the concerned clerk was on Exh. 290 to Exh.
293. The said clerk signed the acknowledgment in his
presence. One of the bottles i.e. article no.29 was the
same. The witness further deposed that, when he had
...527/-
Exh.1124 527 (J-SC 317/10)
seen the above bottle, it was having a seal.
512. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, after 13.11.2006, he was seeing the above bottle
for the first time before the Court. He saw the said
bottle for the first time on 13.11.2006 and in the
Forensic Laboratory. The witness denied that, ASI
Patade (Storekeeper) did the work of taking bottles and
giving it to the concerned clerk in the above
laboratory at Kalina. The witness also denied that, the
above bottles and the above letters were with ASI
Patade. He also denied that, he saw the above bottles
and the letters for the first time when ASI Patade had
called him. On 13.11.2006, ASI Patade called him at
about 9.30 am. Thereafter he left the police station at
about 3.00 pm and on that day he returned to the police
station at about 5.00 pm. On that day, at about 9.30
am, when ASI Patada called him, he told him that they
had to go to Kalina after taking lunch. Thereafter, he
met ASI Patade at about 2.30 to 2.45 pm. He was in the
police station since 9.30 to 2.30 to 2.45 pm. During
that period, he did not prepare any letter. The above
letters were not prepared in his presence. He saw the
above bottles and letters with ASI Patade as he was the
storekeeper. The witness denied that, he did not handle
the above articles. The above articles were in a brown
colour packet. It was only one packet. It was closed
...528/-
Exh.1124 528 (J-SC 317/10)
packet. He counted the said articles when they went to
Kalina and they were four in numbers. The witness
admitted that, when the packet was opened at Kalina, it
was then he came to know that four articles were in it.
He did not know who had prepared the said packet. He
could not tell as to in what condition the said packet
was. He did not state in his police statement that he
had obtained the acknowledgment from the clerk
concerned in respect of giving the bottles to him.
After giving the above brown colour packet to C.A.
office, he had no occasion to handle the said packet.
He did not know who sealed the above bottle and when it
was sealed. He did not know whose seal was on the said
bottle. He could not say how many seals were on the
said bottle. He could not tell who sealed the other
three packets and how those were sealed.
513. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, they had taken an entry in the station
diary while going to Kalina on 13.11.2006. However, he
had not given any report and did not make any entry in
his personal diary in respect of the act done by him
during 11.11.2006 to 13.11.2006. he had not made but
seen the station diary dated 13.11.2006. There was no
mention in the said station diary as to how many
packets did they take to Kalina. The witness admitted
that, panch witnesses called by him on 11.11.2006 were
...529/-
Exh.1124 529 (J-SC 317/10)
the rickshaw drivers and he verified the said fact. The
witness denied that, the above panchas were not the
rickshaw drivers. His signatures do not appear on Exh.
211 to Exh.214 and Exh.290 to Exh.293. The witness
denied that, he had not taken the articles to C.A.
Office and did not go to the C.A. Office and that, he
was deposing false at the say of the SIT.
514. It has come in evidence of Mr.Changdeo
Haribhau Godse (PW-54), Alternate Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Co., Exh.397, that, his office received
requisition vide Exhs. 398, 400, 402,405,407, 412, 414,
418, 420, 422,424, 426, 428, 430, 432, 434 (colly),436,
438, 440,442,444,446, 448, 450,452,454, 456 from the
SIT seeking information as regards to incoming and
outgoing calls, name and address of user and IMEI No.
of mobile instruments, CDR etc. and in response to the
requisitions, he submitted information vide Exhs.399
(colly), 401(colly), 403 (colly) and 404 (colly),406,
408 (colly), 409 (colly), 410 (colly), 411 (colly), 413
(colly), 415 (colly),416 (colly), 417 (colly),419
(colly), 421 (colly), 423, 425 (colly), 427 (colly),429
(colly),431 (colly), 433 (colly), 435 (colly), 437
(colly), 439, 441 (colly), 443 (colly), 445 (colly),447
(colly), 449 (colly), 451 (colly), 453(colly),
455(colly) and 457.
...530/-
Exh.1124 530 (J-SC 317/10)
515. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, there were one Nodal Officer and two alternate
Nodal officers working in their office in the months of
April 2010 and November 2011. Main duty of the Nodal
officer was to liaison the Law Enforcement Agency.
Whenever a request was made by the Law Enforcement
Agency to their office, it was alway made in writing.
The Law Enforcement Agency directly dealt with the
Nodal officers and they were not required to deal with
any other officers of the company. The information
supplied by the company i.e. by the Nodal officers was
exactly what was required by the investigation Agency
and it was not more than that. If, required information
was not available with the company, the investigating
agency or the Law Enforcement Agency was communicated
accordingly. If a letter was received by a Nodal
officer present at particular point of time, he would
retrieve the information from the computer and would
pass it to Law enforcement Agency. The witness denied
that, the person who retrieved the information, only
would send it to the Law Information Agency. All the
three Nodal officers had there own personal computers.
Each of the Nodal officers had got a unique password.
If information was retrieved by a particular person, it
would not reflect in the printout. There was a record
in the company as regards to the information as to
which person had retrieved a particular information.
...531/-
Exh.1124 531 (J-SC 317/10)
The said information was in the computer and it could
not be shown to the court. Information which was
retrieved by him was signed by him but, the covering
letter was not signed by him. Only Mr.Phulkar retrieved
information other than him in this case. The
investigating officer did not show him the said
information retrieved by Mr.Phulkar. Nishant Sheth did
not retrieve any information pertaining to this case.
The investigating officers did not show him the
information retrieved by Mr.Phulkar at any point time.
No one other than him, Nishan Sheth and Mr.Phulkar was
authorized to retrieve information and send it to the
Law Enforcement Agency. Charls Danial was also a Nodal
officer prior to Nishant Sheth.
516. The witness further deposed that, there was no
master computer in his company. His computer was linked
to the server. SMS or calls were finally registered in
the server. All these details were transferred to the
server from M.S.C.(Mobile Switching Center). The data
remained in the server for a period of one year. The
witness denied that, thereafter the data was purged
and that, before data was purged it was transferred to
master computer where it was stored for a period of 5
to 10 years. He was aware of the conditions of the
licenses given to the companies from time to time. He
had seen the conditions of licenses issued to Vodafone
...532/-
Exh.1124 532 (J-SC 317/10)
Company in the years 2006 to 2007. He could produce it
before the court. There was only one server for entire
area of Mumbai. There were 33 switches G.M.S.C. and
M.S.C., which provided information to the server.
Bombay circle covered, Bombay, New Bombay and Thane
district upto Bhyandar and Kalyan. The witness denied
that, he had obtained the information supplied to the
investigating agency in this case, only from his
computer and that he did not obtain it from any other
department and that, he obtained subscriber details
from subscriber/ customer relations department. The
witness on his own deposed that, the said information
was available in his computer. The witness further
denied that, Cell ID information was obtained from
maintenance department. The information which was of a
period of more than one year was obtained from I.T.
Department. No information was obtained from master
computer at any point of time. It did not happen that,
he retrieved the information from master computer and
the said information was provided to the Law
Enforcement Agency. He stated in his statement dated
14.11.2011 before the investigating officers that the
information sent to the SIT was retrieved from the
master computer of their company and that the said
information was retrieved by him. His statements were
recorded on 22.04.2010, 01.06.2010 and 14.11.2011.
Prior to recording his statement dated 14.11.2011, he
...533/-
Exh.1124 533 (J-SC 317/10)
read his statements dated 22.04.2010 and 01.06.2010.
When his statement was recorded on 22.04.2010 record of
certain Cell ID's was shown to him. The investigating
officers told him that, he suspected that those Cell
Id's were not correct. He checked it and corrected it.
He had furnished previous incorrect information. He had
taken it from his computer. Prior to meeting
Mr.Ghorpade on 22.04.2010 he did not realize that he
sent incorrect information.
517. The witness deposed that, the information
retrieved by the Nodal officers bore initial of the
officer concerned and seal of the office. The witness
denied that, the incorrect information was there in the
computer. He did not deliberately give incorrect
information. He was shown letter dated 26.03.2010. He
was in receipt of this letter on 26.03.2010. On
29.03.2010 he sent the requisite information to the
S.I.T. He also obtained signature of the person
concerned to whom he supplied this information. Letter
dated 26.3.2010 was marked Exh.458 and information
document was marked Exh.459 colly. The witness could
not tell as to which information was incorrect in
document Exh.459.(Colly). All information in this
document was not incorrect. He had been providing
information time and again to the investigating agency
in relation to this case since 2010 to 2011. He
...534/-
Exh.1124 534 (J-SC 317/10)
supplied the information since the year 2009. All the
information provided from time to time was not
certified. The witness denied that, the Law requires a
certificate to the information which was to be
supplied. They gave certificate only when it was
demanded by the Law Enforcement Agency. It was for the
first time in the year 2011 that the investigating
officer asked him to give certificate to the electronic
record. In this case he did not give any certificate in
respect of the information given to the investigating
agency. The witness denied that, he did not have
personal knowledge as regards to these certificates.
The witness was shown Exh.432 and Exh.433 (Colly). On
seeing Exh.432 he could not say as to whether he dealt
with information supplied vide Exh.433 (Colly). Without
perusing the documents concerned he could not tell
whether he personally retrieved the information
therein. On the basis of forwarding letter he could
not tell whether a particular information was retrieved
by him or not. In the year 2011 when the investigating
officer asked for the certificate, he was not handicap
by any reason. There was no specific reason for not
issuing certificate under his own hand. He had issued
certificates in respect of electronic record at some
point of time. When in the year 2011, the
investigating officer asked him to issue certificate,
he requested Mr. Vikas Phulkar to issue certificate.
...535/-
Exh.1124 535 (J-SC 317/10)
There was no request by investigating officer to issue
certificate in relation to document Exh.432.
518. The witness further deposed that, no
certificates were asked for by the I.O. to these
electronic documents Exhs.442, 444, 446, 450, 452, but
certificates were provided. Only in respect of Exh.448
a certificate was asked for by the I.O. He did not put
signature/initial, stamp of the office on any of these
certificates. He did not remember whether Mr. Ghorpade
had shown these certificates to him at the time of
recording his statement dated 14.11.2011. He did not
remember whether Mr. Ghorpade asked him at that time as
to whose signatures appeared on those certificates and
that, whether Mr. Ghorpade asked him as to why dates
did not appear on the certificates. On 14.11.2011 Mr.
Ghorpade had shown him some documents. Those documents
included certificates. He could not tell as to whether
Mr. Phulkar was present when Mr. Ghorpade had come. He
did not know whether any inquiry in respect of the
certificates was made with Mr. Phulkar or not.
Normally forwarding letter was not sent alongwith the
certificates. There was no proof, other than his bare
verbatim, to show that those certificates were sent
along-with the documents to the investigating officers.
These certificates had been provided to them by their
legal department. There was only one certificate for
...536/-
Exh.1124 536 (J-SC 317/10)
CDR. Only numbers and the period were changed. Rest of
the contents remained same. The said certificate was in
respect of customers application form. The witness
denied that, only name and number changed. The witness
on his own deposed that, the text also changed. The
information of C.A.F was fed manually in the computer.
This information was not automatically generated. The
witness denied that, CAF was not an electronic record.
They provided certificates though it was not an
electronic record.
519. The witness also deposed that, Government of
India had laid down some guidelines in respect of
application forms, providing prepaid, postpaid, SIM
Cards and also as regards to procedure dealing with
those application forms and necessary documents along-
with the application. In case of prepaid SIM card, the
mobiles got activated within 4 to 5 hours, and in
respect of postpaid it got activated within 2 to 3
working days. Only after the SIM card got activated,
its record of CDR began to be maintained in the
company. Once a particular number was alloted by the
company to a particular person, same number could be
alloted to another person after it was deactivated. It
was applicable to prepaid and postpaid SIM Cards. The
period between deactivation and again allotting the
same number to another person could be normally of 3
...537/-
Exh.1124 537 (J-SC 317/10)
months and in some cases it could be of three to four
days. The investigating officer sought information of
activation only. Information of deactivation and
reactivation was not sought by the investigating
officer. On the basis of CDR printouts he could not
say as to whether those particular numbers were
deactivated. Their department did not deal with
subscribers form. After the document dealt with by
subscribers department, those were sent to warehouse.
Warehouse was an outsource. There was physical delivery
of documents from Warehouse to their office. He could
not tell name of the person who brought it. He was in
receipt of letter Exh.460. In response to the said
letter their office furnished information vide Exh.461.
The numbers mentioned in Exh.460 were not mobile
numbers. His company did not ask for any clarification
to I.O. in respect of document Exh.460 and numbers
therein. He was in receipt of a letter dated
01.03.2010 of the SIT Exh.462. In response to the said
letter his office furnished requisite information at
Exh.463 colly. The covering letter was signed by
Mr.Charls Danial. The witness identified his signature.
Letter Exh.405 made a specific request to furnish
information as regards to cell ID's and tower location
of the address mentioned therein. As no Cell ID's were
mentioned in the said letter, first they traced the
Cell ID's and then the addresses of the said Cell ID's.
...538/-
Exh.1124 538 (J-SC 317/10)
Column number-2 of Exh.406 showed the addresses
provided by police. Column number-4 was site ID and
Column number-5 was Cell ID, Column number-7 was the
address of Cell ID as per the record of the company.
Complete Cell ID's were mentioned in three documents
Exhs.459,461 and 463. In document Exh.406 only last 4
or 5 digits were mentioned. There was no such policy of
the company to sometimes mention the Cell ID number and
sometimes to mention only four or five digits. There
was no specific reason for not mentioning full number
of the Cell ID's in Exh. 406. Number 404 in Exh.461
was Country Code. Next code 20 was operators code. If
one said that it was City Code then it was wrong. Next
four or five digits were local area code. Last four to
five digits were Cell ID's.
520. The witness further deposed that, Cell ID's
were permanent numbers. Address was also permanent. If,
the Cell ID's was destroyed by any reason then that
number was not given to any Cell ID. Details of Cell ID
were saved in the server. The witness denied that, he
got the information of Cell ID's from his computer,
because his computer was linked with the server. All
details of all Cell ID's were taken from his computer.
He did not feed that information in his computer. He
had not been provided with CD's and therefore the CD's
were not fed in his computer. Data regarding those
...539/-
Exh.1124 539 (J-SC 317/10)
Cell ID's was provided to him by somebody else. Cell
ID's were constructed and maintained by maintenance
department. The witness denied that, Cell ID's were
available on CD's. He could unload information
regarding Cell ID's on CD's. He had no occasion to
provide any CD to the I.O. in this case. He could down
load Cell ID's on CD and produce before the court.
521. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Cell ID's were stored in a particular
format in the server. The format did not change. If,
the number of the Cell ID was wrongly typewritten then
the address would be wrong and that was the only
reason. At the time of obtaining the data, they typed
last 4 to 5 digits. If same number was typed twice,
thrice or if any number was typed, same address would
come. The Investigating officer asked him if five
digits instead of four digits and vice a versa were
fed, wrong location would be shown. Some Cell ID's had
only four digits. He stated before police that to
obtain these informations they feed 4 to 5 digits. If
five digits instead of four digits and vice a versa
were fed, wrong location would be shown. He did not
know whether police recorded it or not. Omissions as
regards to, to obtain these information they fed 4 to
5 digits, if five digits instead of four digits and
vice a versa were fed, wrong location would be shown,
...540/-
Exh.1124 540 (J-SC 317/10)
has been brought on record through statements dated
22.04.2010, 01.06.2010, 14.11.2011. The witness further
deposed that, when call was made from one mobile, it
was firstly received by BTS/ Cell ID (Base Transcriber
Station) BTS relayed to BSC (Base Station Control) from
BSC it was relayed to MSC. (Mobile Switching Center)
from there PSTN (Public Switch Telephone Network) from
PSTN, if it was a fixed land line it went to the
telephone directly. If there was a mobile of another
company, then it would be de-routed by PSTN back to BTS
and from there to the mobile of the receiver. If, it
was of the Vodafone, there would be the same procedure.
The range of BTS was approximately three to four
hundred meters in the city and in the open area it
might go up-to 15 to 16 kilometers approximately. Sea
shore area was as good as land line area. The
information as regards to range of BTS was available in
the company. It was available with network department.
He had seen it on many occasions. He could not tell the
cell ID in respect of which he had seen the range of
BTS. No one asked him about the range of a particular
Cell ID pertaining to this case. BTS was divided into
three or four parts. Three 'G' was extended upto 8
parts. In the year 2006 there was no 3 'G'. He did not
know when did three G start. Probably it was during
the last year. He did not know the sites of BTS were
Alpha, Beta, Gama and that, distance of the mobile from
...541/-
Exh.1124 541 (J-SC 317/10)
the BTS varied in the above three positions.
522. The witness denied that, when a person made a
call, the call would go to the nearest BTS, if that was
congested then to next BTS and so on and that, numbers
1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last digit of the Cell ID referred
to the sites of BTS. Every BTS got last digits as 1,2,3
& 4. Every last signal digit would show different
area. He did not know what was the approximate distance
between two BTS in Mumbai in the year 2006. The
witness denied that, same BTS was shared by two or
three service providers. If there was a building or
any other obstructions to a BTS then signal would go to
the BTS which was on a clear rout, though it may not be
so near. The witness on his own deposed that, that BTS
had to be near. It was possible that a particular area
could be covered by two BTS, commonly which was called
as over-lapping.
523. The witness further deposed that, call details
were stored in the server in a particular format. The
witness denied that, the format never changed. He did
not know when it was lastly changed. He had no idea as
to how many times did the format change since 2006 to
2011. He did not know whether there was any change in
the format during 2006 - 2011. He came across the
change. There were some additions and deletions as
...542/-
Exh.1124 542 (J-SC 317/10)
regards to certain columns. Sometimes chronology of the
calls also changed. These changes were made by I.T.
department. The changes were not done randomly. If
there was change in a particular number, there would be
bulk change in the chronological arrangement. The
witness on his own deposed that, change was only if
subscriber was in roaming. If, the subscriber was in
roaming then incoming call was immediately recorded in
server of the home network of the customer. If it was
with the same operator the call was recorded in server
of the home network within 24 hours. If the subscriber
changed the network to Airtel, IDEA etc., it would take
nearly up-to 60 days to record the call in the server
of the home network of the customer. The file was sent
(pushed) by the roaming network to the home network in
bulk. It would remain same in home network server
unless somebody made change.
524. The witness further deposed that, all calls
would be recorded in server in time sequence. So also
would be the case of SMS. If there was any SMS in
between the calls it would be recorded in between as
per time sequence. If a call was made and it was ended,
it would be recorded only once in the server. If a call
was made by subscriber of their company to a subscriber
of another company, the said call would be recorded as
an incoming call in the server of that another company
...543/-
Exh.1124 543 (J-SC 317/10)
and vice a versa. There could be difference of hardly
one or two minutes between timings of two companies.
The printouts of the CDR would reflect the same format
as that was in the server. They did not take printouts
of the CDR unless it was asked for by the Law
enforcement agency. He was interrogated by the SIT
only on three occasions. On those three occasions he
was interrogated in respect of CDR. The police did not
ask him during that time as to why there was inter-
change in the sequence of recording of the calls. They
did not ask him as to why certain calls were shown
number of times in the CDR. He was aware of the fact
that certain calls were shown repeatedly. They did not
ask him as to why certain calls made by the subscriber
of Vodafone company to the subscriber of other
companies did not reflect in other operators CDR. He
saw that certain calls were repeatedly shown in the
printouts. He was not aware as to whether a particular
number reflected in CDR provider earlier which was
shown repeatedly in the subsequent CDR supplied by him
to the I.O. Those changes were not made at his end. He
had no idea as to whether those changes occurred due to
the changes in the format in the server. He had no idea
as to why certain calls were reflected only once in
earlier printouts, but were repeatedly reflected in
subsequent printouts. The report date shown in the
printouts was the date when printouts were taken. The
...544/-
Exh.1124 544 (J-SC 317/10)
witness on his own deposed that the printout date was
the data retrieval date.
525. The witness further deposed that, the data was
retrieved only when there was a request to provide
data. He did not store the retrieved data in a separate
file in his personal computer. The day on which he
retrieved the data he took printout on the same day.
The printouts reflected the data which was seen on the
screen of his computer. Whatever was seen on the
screen, then he gave command, the same matter would
come on the printout. There would be no error in the
printout than what was there on the screen of the
computer. The date 29
th
June 2010 mentioned on fourth
page of Exh.433 was date of retrieval and printout.
Information Exh.433 was furnished in response to letter
Exh.432. Document Exh.464 bore his signature and seal
of his office. He did not remember as to whether the
said document was shown to him by the I.O. at the time
of recording his statements. He remembered that, he
took out the said printout. He did not remember whether
there was a request by the I.O. for providing said
printout. He could not tell as to when was the said
printout taken as there was no date on it. As there
was no date on any of the printouts of the Cell ID's
therefore, he could not tell as to when those printouts
were taken. H needed to check as to whether there was
...545/-
Exh.1124 545 (J-SC 317/10)
any letter from the I.O. to provide information Exh.
464. The correction in row number 7 Exh.464 was in his
handwriting. The date of correction was not mentioned
there. The I.O. did not ask him as to why the said
matter was put in his handwriting. He did not remember
as to when did the I.O. ask him to re-check the address
mentioned in row no.7. The correction was made only
after the I.O. asked him to re-check. Number of Cell
ID mentioned in Row nos. 1 and 2 were one and the same.
However address in row no.1 was not corrected and
reflected the same stated as it was before the
correction made in row number 7.
526. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, cell ID number mentioned in row no.1
in document Exh.459 was the same Cell ID number in row
number nos.1 and 7 in Exh. 464 and the address in these
two documents as regards to the said columns was
totally different. These datas were prepared manually
and were not computer generated datas therefore, there
was difference in addresses. All Cell ID's were
manually prepared and were not computer generated.
Exh.433 contained mobile no. 9769010500, for the period
01.08.2009 to 31.01.2010. The subscriber details were
not part of the printouts. He could not tell as to
whether he gave this printout to the police. He felt
that it was of their company. It was in the format
...546/-
Exh.1124 546 (J-SC 317/10)
supplied by their company. He did not remember whether
I.O. had shown him the said document at any point of
time. He could not say whether contents of the
printouts were correct or not and that, who gave the
printouts. When the printout bore his signature, then
and then only he could say that he had taken the
printouts. The document was marked Exh.465 colly.
527. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, after completion of procedure of filing
and processing application, a customer ID number was
alloted to the customer. Customer ID could be changed
and it did not remain same till it was surrendered or
discontinued. It could be changed if subscriber
category was changed. There was corporate subscriber
and individual subscriber and others. He had no idea of
other categories. The category changed at the request
of the subscriber. From the customer ID the category
could be traced out. It had to be found out from the
system. On the basis of number of ID it could not be
traced out. The system in which customer ID was stored
was BSCS. He could not tell the full form of the BSCS.
Customers service department was in-charge of that
system. On the request of customer, the customers
service department could change the customer ID in the
system. He had no idea as to whether customer ID in
system was changed relating to this case. He had no
...547/-
Exh.1124 547 (J-SC 317/10)
occasion to provide customer ID to Cell number
9833792771. He had taken out print Exh.431, Page 3 of
Exh.431 bore customer ID numbers, start date and end
date. The start date and end date was put manually by
customers service department. The start date and end
date also changed and it did not remain the same. The
witness gave reason as to why did the end date change.
He explained that, there were two systems. One was
prepaid, another was postpaid. In case of prepaid if
the subscriber was having validity of life time and if
he disconnected, before that, actual date of validity
would be shown in the system as end date. In case of
postpaid, the end date did not change. If it was a case
of prepaid customer for life time and if he
discontinued, the system showed some other date than
the date of actual discontinuation. Exact date of
discontinuation would also be shown and the date of
lifetime would also be shown. The start date would
also change in case of prepaid customer. The system
would have two dates. One was when this was activated
in the system and another was exact date of activation
by the customer. On being asked whether both the dates
appeared when he took out the print out, the witness
answered that, it depended upon the system. There were
sub systems. These were prepaid and post paid. If the
print outs were taken from prepaid and postpaid systems
there would be difference in the printout. Exh 431 in
...548/-
Exh.1124 548 (J-SC 317/10)
respect of number 9833792771 was taken out from prepaid
sub system. The customer ID showed therein was of
prepaid number. The start date was the date on which
the customer activated the number. It did not show
the date on which the number was activated in the
system. He could not say that this was because the date
of activation by the customer and in the system were
one and the same. In prepaid sub system actual date of
activation in the system was shown. The date of
activation of number in the system was not shown. He
could not give any reason as to why the date of
activation in the system was not shown in Exh.431. End
date was shown as actual date of disconnection. The
life time validity might not be there therefore it was
not shown in Exh.431.
528. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, e-mail bearing out-ward number
145/DCP/SIT/2010 dated 17/2/2010 from Versova Police
station, CR No 246 of 2009. In pursuant to the said E-
mail, their company furnished the required information
through e-mail of the company. The witness on his own
deposed that, there was no proof showing that their
company sent E-mail in reply to DCP/ SIT letter dated
17/2/2010. The document was in the format in which
their company used to send E-mails. The format of the
document was the format of their Nodal Desk. It looked
...549/-
Exh.1124 549 (J-SC 317/10)
like provided by their company. It was provided in the
year 2010 (Exh.473). The cell number mentioned in
Exh.431 and in Exhibit 473 was deactivated in the year
2007. If the print out were taken in the years
2008,2009,2010,2011 and 2012 end date would remain
same. The customer ID number, start date and end date
of cell number were different in Exhs.431 and 473. The
print outs were taken from two different systems i.e.
prepaid system and postpaid system. It was not changed
from prepaid to postpaid from start to deactivation.
The witness tendered a document Exh.474 and deposed
that, the condition as regards to storing data in a
particular system for a particular period was mentioned
in condition no 13.1 b. 13.1 b was in respect of
billing record. It was not mentioned in the conditions
as to what would happen to the records after the period
of one year. Record as regards to cell ID's was
provided to the government. The witness denied that, he
was deposing false before the court and that he was
guilty of perjury. The witness also denied that, he was
having hands in gloves with the investigating agency in
respect of the record that he had produced before the
court and that, the record produced before the court
was erroneous and incorrect. The witness further
denied that, he knew that the record was erroneous,
incorrect and fabricated therefore he had not issued a
certificate along-with the said documents and that,
...550/-
Exh.1124 550 (J-SC 317/10)
none of these documents were taken out from the system
by him and also that, he had falsely identified
signatures on the documents as his signatures and that
those were signed by other officers. The witness denied
that, in his anxiety of helping the prosecution he did
not see the documents in his examination in chief.
The witness produced document (Exh.475) and deposed
that, DGM Network Mr.Umesh Deshmukh supplied this
document to him. He gave a letter to Mr.Umesh Deshmukh
in writing. He did not receive this document along-with
a covering letter from Mr. Umesh Deshmukh. It was not
signed by Mr.Umesh Deshmukh or anybody from network
department. It was not certified. It was not taken out
in his presence. He did not know as to from which
system the said document was prepared. The witness
denied that, he did not write any letter to Mr.Umesh
Deshmukh pertaining to this document and that, Exh.475
was a fabricated document and that it did not show
range of BTS. He asked Mr.Umesh Deshmukh as to what
numbers denote the distance. The scale in the document
was written by him. No number in the document denoted
the distance. The witness on his own deposed that, the
colour denoted the distance. It was not mentioned in
the document that the colour code mentioned the
distance. He could not say as to what did the numbers
written in the document denote. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false that the colours denoted
...551/-
Exh.1124 551 (J-SC 317/10)
distance.
529. The witness further deposed that, Vodafone
Company was having manual policy for providing
information to Law Enforcement Agency. That manual was
of Vodafone India. The manual was not of TRAI but it
was of Vodafone itself. The witness denied that, the
internal manual had to be approved by TRAI (Telecoms
Regulatory Authority of India). He could not tell as to
whether every service provider had got its own manual
or not. It was not required as per the Manual to obtain
sanction of their superiors before parting with the
information to Law Enforcement Agency. He was not the
ultimate authority to part with the information to law
enforcement agency. Nodal officer Mr.Nishant Seth was
the ultimate authority in their company for providing
information to Law Enforcement Agency. The witness
denied that, before furnishing information to Law
Enforcement Agency Nishat Seth was to pass and approve
it before parting with the information. He did not
provide any data in the form of compact disc to the
SIT. Whatever documents he had handed over to the SIT,
did not have back up in the company system. The
witness denied that, he had personally taken out the
documents containing data from the computer. He handed
over the documents to the SIT only after verifying
genuineness of those documents. He never came across
...552/-
Exh.1124 552 (J-SC 317/10)
anomaly between these documents inter-se before handing
over those documents to the SIT. Mr Prasanna or other
officers put questions to him as regards to
discrepancies in the documents that he produced before
the SIT. The police brought the anomalies to his
notice and that he on his own never came across those
anomalies.
530. The witness further deposed that, Vodafone was
only GSM Service provider. They kept on upgrading their
software periodically or regularly. He could not say as
to whether the software which was with the company in
the year 2006, was redundant that day. The witness
denied that, if the software was upgraded, previous
data was deleted. He was not sure as to whether
frequency of Vodafone was 900 mega hertz in the year
2006. The frequency was 900 and 1800 2100 mega hertz in
Bombay that day. In Mumbai circle there were around
1500 cell sites in the year 2006. Every cell site had
its own output. Each cell site in Mumbai region had its
separate output. He could not say as to what was the
minimum and maximum output of each cell site in Mumbai
and that, even otherwise as to what should be the
minimum and maximum output of a cell site, even outside
of Mumbai. One cell site could handle maximum 87 calls
at one time irrespective of its output. He had no idea
as to whether some lines in a sale site were kept
...553/-
Exh.1124 553 (J-SC 317/10)
vacant for emergency calls. The radiation from a sale
site traveled in 360 degrees. There was overlapping of
radiation as there were 1500 cell sites in Mumbai. If a
person was travelling, the call was handed over from
one cell site to another cell site for continuation of
the call. Frequency in a cell site could be manually
adjusted to minimize overlapping. It was common to
have the meeting of waives of more than one service
providers in the same area from different cell sites.
There was a minimum acceptable signal required to
receive or to make a call. The nature of the calls
depended upon the signal strength of the handset and
distance from the cell site. He did not agree that the
make and the model of the handset affected the
reception from the cell site.
531. The witness further deposed that, strength of
a battery of a handset affected the reception of the
signals. The witness denied that, a stronger battery
connected to the farthest cell site and the weaker
battery connected to the nearest cell site. Buildings
of big walls and other interferences diverted the
signals to another cell site. There would be more
congestion if there were more users. There would be
less congestion if there were less users. Whenever
there was a congestion the call dropped or call failed.
It might be possible that if the number was re-dialled
...554/-
Exh.1124 554 (J-SC 317/10)
then it might connect to another available cell site.
When it was asked that, in case of congestion when the
call got diverted to the closest available cell site
the subscriber or the caller might be physically closer
to the earlier congested cell site, the witness
answered affirmatively.
532. The witness further deposed that, in the year
2006, there was only one control room for 1500 cell
sites in Mumbai, but there were different units under
the control room. The units were created area-wise
during the year 2006. There were approximately 10
units. He was not In-charge of those 10 units. On an
average, one unit had 150 cell sites. Each cell site
was individually numbered and given physical location.
Most of the cell sites in Mumbai were on building
terraces. Some of the cell sites were situated at the
flyovers. The witness denied that, the cell site at the
lower stage was having less frequency/range than that
at the top of the building. Cell sites were increased
from time to time. There were 3600 cell sites in
Mumbai. The data was collected locality-wise. It was
not physically possible to locate/ pinpoint the exact
locations such as room no., flat no., building no.,
street, where the caller was present. They could not
locate the caller from the cell site. If the call
commenced and was completed it was recorded in the cell
...555/-
Exh.1124 555 (J-SC 317/10)
site/ cell ID. If a person was passing by the cell site
passage was not recorded. Passage during the call was
never recorded. If the call ended at the another cell
site it would be recorded in that cell site.
533. The witness further deposed that, the
information given to the SIT pertaining to this case
related only to Cell ID information. He did not have
information of calls of a particular cell ID. The
information was in CDR. Whenever there was addition of
new cell site a new number was given to it. As soon as
they increased the number of cell sites the information
was distributed to the new cell sites. He could not say
as to whether with the increase of new cell sites, the
data also increased. Prior to handing over the
information to the IO, he verified it. There could not
be different addresses of one and the same cell IDs. He
could not say as to whether document Exh.459 was from
Vodafone. He personally did not prepare this document.
He did not recollect as to whether he or any other
officer from Vodafone handed over this document to the
SIT. He saw this document in the Court during cross
examination by accused no.1. Exh.459 was reply to Exh.
458. He personally received letter Exh.458. The
physical location of the cell ID ending with the last
four digits as 1992 was near Milan Sub-way,
Santacruz(W). Internal page no.5, entry at Sr. No.66
...556/-
Exh.1124 556 (J-SC 317/10)
in Exh.421 showed cell ID was ending with 1992, address
was plot no.6, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Sahar
Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai. Internal page no.6 of Exh.435
showed cell ID ending with 1992 having address at Tarun
Bharat Colony, Airport colony, JB Nagar. Internal page
no.2 of document Exh.463 showed cell ID ending with
digits 3414. The address of the cell ID was New Link
Road, near Danukar Wadi, Kandivali(W), Mumbai 67. Cell
ID ending with digits 3414 of document Exh.459 showed
address of the Cell ID as Road No.11, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai. Internal page no.7 of document Exh.435
showed cell ID ending with digits 3414. The coverage
area of the Cell ID was Gurunanak Road. he did not
know where Gurunanak Road was situated. Cell ID No.
2612 in Exh.463 showed physical location of the cell
ID was N. Datta Marg, near Churh, Four Bungalow,
Andheri, Mumbai. There were two entries of cell ID 2612
of document Exh.459. The address was Sharif Devji Marg,
Crowford Market. Address of 4493 Cell ID was Avdhoot
Chintan CHSL, Lohar Ali, Ambedkar Road, Kalyan-W. At
the same exhibit, address of 4493 cell ID was Radhka
CHSL, Bhakti Vedant Swami Marg, Mumbai. He did not
know its locality. Address of 4483 Cell ID was Mhape
Gaon, near Millenium Business Park, Mhape, Navi Mumbai.
534. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, internal page no.12, entry at Sr. No.
...557/-
Exh.1124 557 (J-SC 317/10)
218 of document Exh.421 showed address of 4483 Cell ID
as C.D Burfeewala road, Andheri(W), Mumbai. The address
of Cell ID 4561 was Sonari Village, JNPT Road, Uran.
Internal page no.8, entry no.158 of Exh.421 showed
address of Cell ID 4561 as MIDC, Andheri(E), Mumbai.
Vide document Exh.459, the address of Cell ID 3413 was
Nanepada, Opp. Shiv Ganesh Mandir, Mulund(E). Page No.
4, entry No.48 of Exh.421 showed address of Cell ID
3413 as Road No.11, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai. Internal
page no.7 of Exh.435 showed cell ID 3413, coverage area
of cell ID was Mhada Colony. He could not tell as to
where it was situated. Vide Exh.459, cell ID No.4593,
its address was Plot No.100, Sector-1(S), New Panvel.
On the same page, address of Cell ID no.4593 was
mentioned as DN Nagar, Andheri(W), Mumbai. Vide Exh.
463, cell ID No. was 4593. Address was DN Nagar,
Andheri(W), Mumbai. Entry of cell ID 4002 showed
address as Maharashtra Bank Lane, JP Road, Andheri-W,
Mumbai. Vide Exh.459, cell ID No. was 4002. Its
address was near City Point Hotel, Dadar(E). Vide Exh.
435, cell ID No. was 4002. Its coverage area was near
Horizon Apartments, Seven Bungalows. The witness denied
that, he deposed false and that he created records just
to satisfy the SIT and that, only to oblige the
police, he produced bogus records. In document Exh.419,
Ajit Soman was the subscriber of cell No.9820261059.
The date of commencement was 27 September 2007. He did
...558/-
Exh.1124 558 (J-SC 317/10)
not have previous record of the cell number. On
6.9.2010, Mr. Soman was the subscriber. He did not
remember as to whether the SIT made any inquiry in
respect of this subscriber in the year 2006. The
witness was shown document Exh.439, which was prepared
by him. Address of the cell ID was Shahbaz Village. He
could not tell its location and by perusing the
document Exh.439 as to when was this cell ID activated.
The witness denied that, he was deposing false. The
witness deposed that, he did not produce requisition
letter of Exh.464 as it was covered in statement.
535. It has come in evidence of Mr.Milind Subhash
More (PW-55), PC, Exh.466 that, in the month of
November, 2006, he was attached to Detection Branch DN
Nagar police station and accused no.9 Suryawanshi was
the Crime PI. At that time, accused no.1 Pradeep
Sharma was also serving as a P.I. On 12.11.2006, PN
Sumant Bhosale told him that officer Suryawanshi told
him that the witness along with Sumant Bhosale should
go to Mid-town Hotel, near Andheri Railway Station.
Accordingly, he took a pistol and five rounds by
effecting requisite entry vide Exh.467.Then he, along
with Sumant Bhosale, driver, Virendra and one more
person by name Dhabbu (i.e. accused no.5) were in the
Qualis vehicle. Accused no.5 used to remain outside
the office of accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma. The vehicle
...559/-
Exh.1124 559 (J-SC 317/10)
was taken to Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar. There, Ratnakar
Kamble and Tanaji Desai (i.e. Accused no.2 and Accused
no.3) were present. Both the accused introduced them
with one Anil saying that, there was danger to the life
of Mr.Anil and that Mr. Anil was the man of Pradeep
Sharma. Thereafter all of them, including Mr.Anil,
went to DN Nagar police station.
536. The witness further deposed that, by the
order of accused no.9 Suryawanshi, he and Naresh Phalke
went to Hotel Mid-town near Andheri Railway Station.
One constable (i.e. accused no.13 Devidas Sakpal) met
them below the hotel. Accused no.13 took them to one
room in the hotel, where Mr. Anil was present. It was
room no.204. The witness and Naresh Phalke remained in
the said room for the whole night to keep watch as
asked by accused No.13. Photograph Exh.308 was of
Mr.Anil. On 04.02.2010, the SIT had showed a person to
him. He was Mr. Anil whom he and Sumant Bhosale met at
Ghatkopar and in Hotel Mid-town. On 18.02.2010, he was
called at Metropolitan Magistrate Court, 10
th
Court,
Andheri(E). Accordingly his statement u/s. 164 was
recorded vide Exh.468.
537. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he was transferred to D.N. Nagar police station
in the month of November 2005. Since October, November
...560/-
Exh.1124 560 (J-SC 317/10)
2006 he was attached to detection branch. His
statements were recorded on 02.02.2010, 04.02.2010 and
19.03.2010 and on the relevant dates, he was attached
to D.N.Nagar Police station, which was within
jurisdiction of DCP ZoneIX and then D.C.P. Zone - IX
was Mr. Prasanna. Mr. Suryawanshi was In-charge P.I.
Crime of detection branch in D.N. Nagar Police station
and he was directly working under him. There was
difference of five to six days between his two visits
to Hotel Mid Town in November 2006. There was no
record available as regards to doing his duties in
November 2006 in respect of the present case. He did
not make any entry in the station diary before leaving
the police station for duty and returning back to the
police station after the duty was over. If a police
personnel leaves the police station for some government
duty and returns back from the duty entry has to be
taken in the station diary. He did the duty on those
two days in the capacity of police personnel. He did
not request the S.H.O. to take entry in the station
diary regarding the aforesaid duties. No one restrained
him from informing the SHO to take entry in the station
diary.
538. Further cross examination discloses that, a
constable maintains a personal diary (pocket diary) for
making entries of his day to day work. He maintained
...561/-
Exh.1124 561 (J-SC 317/10)
such diary and made entries in it. Such diary of
relevant time was not traceable. Except his bare
verbatim, there was no other proof to show that at the
relevant time he was on duty. He received a message on
01.02.2010 to attend the S.I.T. office at Powai on
02.02.2010. In the year 2006, he was having mobile no.
9821253516. He did not remember whether he made any
calls to or received any calls from his family or
friends. On both days the said mobile was with him.
Mr. Bhosale and Mr. Naresh Phalke were also having
their own mobiles with them. He did not remember
whether they made or received any calls on their
mobiles. Till 02.02.2010, he did not tell any one about
the duty that he did on those two days.
539. Further cross examination discloses that, he
could not tell confirmatively as to whether Mr.Pradeep
Sharma resumed his duty at D.N. Nagar Police station
after he resumed his duty at D.N. Nagar Police station.
He could not tell the month in which a room was
constructed for Mr. Pradeep Sharma but it was
constructed in the year 2006. He had no occasion to go
to Mr. Pradeep Sharma. He had no occasion to talk to
the outsiders who visited Mr. Pradeep Sharma. Pradeep
Sharma and his squad used to stay at the backside of
the building of D.N. Nagar Police station. One could go
to Mr.Pradeep Sharma through the police station and
...562/-
Exh.1124 562 (J-SC 317/10)
also there was an entry from backside of the police
station to the room / office of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. The
people coming to Mr. Pradeep Sharma were not visible to
them from the police station. Those persons coming to
Mr. Pradeep Sharma were not visible from the place
where the S.H.O. used to sit in the police station. On
11.11.2006, he resumed his duty after reporting to the
duty In-charge. He took roll call and then assigned
duty. He had no idea as to whether the officers In-
charge made entry in the station diary as regards to
his resuming duty. He did not make entry in the
station diary as regards to resuming patrolling duty
and returning from the patrolling duty. He stated
before the S.I.T. that, he remained in the police
station up-to 12.00 noon and then left for patrolling
duty and that he returned from patrolling duty at 9.30
p.m. This has been brought on record as omission. The
witness could not tell as to who told him name of the
person who died in the encounter. Another omission
that, 'the encounter was done by Mr.Pradeep Sharma and
that Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi was a member of said squad
of Pradeep Sharma', also has been brought on record.
Said portion did not appear in Exh.468. The witness did
not remember whether he carried any rounds on second
occasion. Mr. Bhosale and Mr. Phalke did not carry
pistol and rounds. He did duty at Ghatkopar and at
Hotel Mid Town in plainclothes. As he was attached to
...563/-
Exh.1124 563 (J-SC 317/10)
detection branch, he was not required to wear uniform.
Naresh Phalke and Sumant Bhosale also did not wear
uniforms as they were also attached to detection
branch. They did the duty of protection during their
duty hours. Mr.Sakpal who met him was also in
plainclothes. During the duty of those two days, he did
not come to know full name of that person. The
witness, Mr.Phalke and Mr. Bhosale did not ask the said
person his full name. As per his personal knowledge,
he was doing his lawful duty during those two days. He
never felt that the said person was forcefully
confined. He never spoke to the witness that he and
his friend were kidnapped and that his friend was
killed.
540. Further cross examination discloses that, on
02.02.2010, he was asked by the S.I.T. as to whether he
would give his statement before a Magistrate. On
02.02.2010, the S.I.T. did not ask him description of
Anil. On 02.02.2010, the S.I.T. did not ask him to
show the house situated in Ghatkopar and the room in
Hotel Mid Town. He did not remember whether some
officers from D.N.Nagar Police station were arrested
when he went to give statement to the S.I.T. on
02.02.2010. He did not come to know at any point of
time that some inquiry was in progress in respect of
encounter dated 11.11.2006. On 01.02.2010 also, he did
...564/-
Exh.1124 564 (J-SC 317/10)
not come to know that he was called on 02.02.2010 for a
statement in respect of encounter. Till 02.02.2010, I
did not know as to why he was called but he knew that
inquiry in respect of encounter was going on. He knew
that the inquiry was going on for a month prior to
02.02.2010. The witness did not know that the duty that
he did on two days was in respect of the encounter. He
did not know that the inquiry was in respect of the
said encounter. Only on 02.02.2010, he came to know
that Anil was having some relation with the said
encounter. Description of Dhabbu and Virendra was not
asked to him. Though he had seen green Qulias vehicle
on many occasions, he did not know its number. He
stated in his statement before the SIT on 02.02.2010 as
regards to making entry of the revolver and rounds in
the register maintained in D.N.Nagar Police station. He
could not assign any reason as to why said portion did
not appear in his statement dated 02.02.2010 or any
subsequent statements dated 04.02.2010 and 19.03.2010.
The SIT did not show him the said register. He recorded
statements during the course of his duties. The
statement was recorded as per the say of the person
concerned. He was aware that one has to state true and
correct facts in a statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. He stated
the facts before the Metropolitan Magistrate. He did
not state before Magistrate as regards to the entry of
the arms and ammunitions taken in the register of
...565/-
Exh.1124 565 (J-SC 317/10)
D.N.Nagar Police station. He had deposed this fact for
the first time before the court.
541. Further cross examination discloses that, he
did duty in Hotel Mid-town only in Room No.204 for one
night. He, Naresh and that person slept in the said
room. He went to the duty and remained in the room
up-to early morning when he was relieved. It did not
happen that, during the said night he did duty in two
rooms i.e. 202 and 204. He did not state in his
statement before police that he did duty in Room nos.
202 and 204. This has been brought on record as it
appeared in his statement. Omission as regards to, he
had shown Room No.204 to Mr. Prasanna, has been brought
on record through cross examination. He was the only
Milind More in D.N.Nagar Police station during the
relevant period. He was not asked as to whether he and
Milind More were on duty in Hotel Mid-town and in which
Room. This portion also has been brought on record as
omission from statement dated 19.03.2010. He did not
state the said portion before the SIT on 19.03.2010.
He did not know Room Nos. 204 and 202 till 19.03.2010
and he did not state the said numbers before the
S.I.T. till 19.03.2010. The officers and staff from
detection branch carried arms and ammunitions while
going for investigation. The entry as regards to the
purpose behind carrying the arms and ammunitions was
...566/-
Exh.1124 566 (J-SC 317/10)
not made anywhere. The arms and ammunitions were being
carried for the purpose of patrolling.
542. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not have talks with the persons
when he went for the first time to Ghatkopar. That
person remained in the room and they remained outside.
On the following day, when he came along-with them
through a vehicle, the witness did not have any talks
with him. His family members were present in the house.
He was brought open through the car from his house. The
witness did not restrict his movements during the
course of his duties. The said person was doing his
own works and he watched the said person. He did not
call anyone from his phone. He did not have a phone.
There was no phone in the room. He did not place any
orders. He also did not place orders in the morning.
The witness also did not place any order. The witness
could not tell as to how many rooms were there on
second floor of Hotel Mid Town. He did not know as to
whether entry of name of the said person was taken in
the register of the hotel as, he did not see the said
register. He remained in Hotel Mid Town since 10.00
p.m. to 10.00 a.m. on the following day. Naresh Phalke
was attached to D.N. Nagar Police station in the year
2010 and Sumant Bhosale was transferred during the year
2010. He met them on several occasion. Mr. Sumant
...567/-
Exh.1124 567 (J-SC 317/10)
Bhosale and Naresh Phalke never told him up-to
recording of his statement by the S.I.T. that, the said
person was a witness of the encounter.
543. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the witness denied that, he never did
duty at Ghatkopar and at Hotel Mid Town and that, his
superior officers pressurized him to give statement as
per their wish and that therefore, his statement u/s.
164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The witness denied that,
he gave false statement and that he was deposing false.
He further denied that, he did not go to Ghatkopar and
to Hotel Mid Town at any point of time and that,
accused no. 13 did not take him to Hotel Mid Town and
did not introduce him to Mr. Anil. He was working in
detection branch which was under Senior P.I. of the
Police Station concerned. They had to inform important
facts to the Senior P.I. If any complainant against
staff was to be made, it was to be made to the said
Senior P.I. They had to follow orders of the S.H.O.
and also had to inform important facts to him. There
was a separate room for detection staff in the police
station. Mr.Vishwasrao was attached to detection staff.
He was API. PSI Mr.Rajage was also attached to
detection staff. There was a separate diary kept in
detection branch. Names of detection staff were
entered into the said diary and roll call of the staff
...568/-
Exh.1124 568 (J-SC 317/10)
from detection branch was entered into the said diary.
Egress and ingress of the staff of the detection branch
and purpose behind going out and coming in the branch
was entered into the said register. The times related
to it were also entered into the said register. The
said register remained in the police station and no one
carried it outside of the police station. If a police
personnel from D.N. Nagar Police station had to go
outside of the jurisdiction of D.N.Nagar Police
station, he had to inform it to the Sr. P.I. Every
member of the detection branch had to make entry on his
own in the said diary, in respect of his movement. On
12.11.2006, he did not take entry in the said diary as
the said diary was not kept in the detection branch.
The diary was maintained in the branch one year after
he resumed his duty in the detection branch. The
witness denied that, when he resumed his duty in
detection branch the diary was available in the branch
and that, there was no entry in the diary dated
12.11.2006 regarding his visit to Ghatkpar. The
witness on his own deposed that, there was no diary.
The witness denied that, there was no entry in the
diary therefore, he was deposing false that there was
no diary. The S.H.O. in the police station maintained a
diary. At the relevant time, the S.H.O. had a diary. If
a police personnel was leaving police station for some
duty its entry was taken in the police station diary
...569/-
Exh.1124 569 (J-SC 317/10)
with the S.H.O. The entry of his visits to Ghatkopar
and Hotel Mid Town was not taken in the police station
diary. He did not inform the Senior P.I. That, he was
going to Ghatkopar. The witness, on his own, deposed
that, the officer who sent him had to inform it to the
Sr. PI. He did not take entry in the station diary
stating that, he was going outside of the jurisdiction
of the police station.
544. The witness further deposed that, the officers
took entry in the station diary in respect of the work
done by police personnel and officers. If the officer
directed a police personnel to go somewhere in respect
of some duty, its entry was taken in the station diary.
If the police staff went outside of the police station
for duty, its entry was taken in daily duty register
maintained by In-charge Hawaldar. The said register
maintained information of the police personnel and
staff and their daily movements. The witness did not
produce daily duty register before the S.I.T. to show
that, he went to Ghatkopar and to Hotel Mid Town. The
S.I.T. also did not show it to him. He did not make
entry anywhere as regards to his visits to Ghatkopar
and Hotel Mid Town. He, on his own, did not inform any
other officers stating that, he was going to Ghatkopar
on 12.11.2006.
...570/-
Exh.1124 570 (J-SC 317/10)
545. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Sumant Bhosale informed him on
12.11.2006 at 9.30 p.m that, he and Sumant Bhosale were
to go to Hotel Mid Town. Pradeep Suryawanshi personally
did not tell him that he and Sumant Bhosale were to go
to Hotel Mid Town. He did not tell Mr. Pradeep
Suryawanshi (accused no.9) that, as per his orders he
and Bhosale were going to Hotel Mid Town. At the first
occasion while he was to go to Hotel Mid Town he did
not see Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi in the police station.
He did not remember whether on that date i.e. on 12
th
there was Umang programme at Shahaji Raje Sports
Complex, Andheri(W). This sports complex was within
the jurisdiction of Amboli Police station. He did not
remember whether Amboli Police Station was in existence
in the year 2006. The witness could not not deny when
it was stated that Amboli police station came to be
established in the year 2010. Umang programme was
meant for police and it was conducted on yearly basis.
The Commissioner of Police, the Senior Police Officers
and staff attended the said programme. Sometimes Chief
Minster and Cine Artists also attended the said
programme. The programme was conducted since 6.00 to
7.00 p.m. The programme was of 3 to 4 hours. This
Sports Complex was under Oshiwara police station in the
year 2006. The road running in front of the complex
...571/-
Exh.1124 571 (J-SC 317/10)
came within the jurisdiction of D.N.Nagar Police
station. He did not remember whether on 12
th
there was
a programme and that policemen and police officers from
D.N. Nagar police station and Oshiwara Police station
were engaged in the said programme and also were on
bandobast duties. Letter Exh.471 was issued to
Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi by the Government Information
Officer, Western Control Room, Bandra (W), Mumbai, as
it was mentioned on the first page. The second page
mentioned that, Oshiwara Police station furnished the
information. The third page mentioned that the Diwali
Mela Karyakram namely Umang was organized in the
above mentioned complex. It was to resume at 6.00 p.m.
He did not remember as to whether there was a programme
on 12
th
at the said complex even after perusal of Exh.
471.
546. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he only remembered that there was a
programme called Umang in the year 2006. He
remembered that, this programme was generally around
Diwali Festival. The officers, police personnel
remained present for the said programme and specially
detection personnel were deployed for the said
programme. He knew Hotel Mid Town. The detection
staff visited hotels for checking therefore, as a
member of detection staff he knew the said hotel.
...572/-
Exh.1124 572 (J-SC 317/10)
Prior to 12.11.2006, he visited the said hotel on many
occasions. On 12.11.2006, at 9.30 p.m., he did not go
to Hotel Mid Town. He was on duty since 8.00 p.m. on
12.11.2006 till 2.00 p.m on 13.11.2006. It was Sunday
on 12.11.2006. On 12.11.2006, he resumed his duty at
2.00 p.m. as he was having double duty. Initially he
deposed incorrectly as regards to resuming the duty at
8.00 p.m. on 12.11.2006. It took 15 minutes to cross
distance between D.N.Nagar Police station and Hotel Mid
Town, on a bike. Bikes were not provided to them in the
capacity of detection staff. He could drive a bike. If
officer was on patrolling then there was a vehicle
provided for it. If officer was not there the policemen
went for patrolling on their own bikes. Mr. Phalke had
his own bike. Mr. Phalke might be having bike on 12
th
.
Mr. Phalke was not present on 12
th
. Sumant Bhosale did
not have a bike of his own. The omission from the
statement dated 02.02.2010 that there were four per
sons along with him and Bhosale in the vehicle, has
been brought on record. He did not state that, out of
those two persons one was driver. After he got into the
vehicle no one told him that they were to go to
Ghatkopar. He and Bhosale did not tell the persons in
the vehicle that, he and Bhosale were to go to Hotel
Mid Town. He did not inform the police station on
phone that though they were to go to Hotel Mid Town,
they were being taken somewhere else. Omission that,
...573/-
Exh.1124 573 (J-SC 317/10)
he had been taken to Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar, from his
statement dated 02.02.2010, has been brought on record.
The house in Ghatkopar was situated by the side of a
big road. There were no shops adjacent to the road.
On the other end of the road there was a Chawl. He did
not know whether people resided in the said Chawl.
547. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state in his statement dated 02.02.2010 before the SIT
that, Ratnakar Kamble and Tanaji Desai were present in
the said house. He and Sumant Bhosale stayed in the
Varanda of the house. The Varanda was at the front side
of the house. He did not see the room from inside. He
did not know whether there was a door at the front side
and also at the backside of the house. He could not
tell as to how many rooms were there in the house of
the said Chawl where they stayed. There were rooms at
the right and the left side of the house and were
adjacent to the said house. The witness could not tell
how many rooms were at the left side and how many rooms
were at the right side of the said house. He did not
know as to how many people in total resided in the said
house. On the following morning, he had talks with
father-in-law of Mr.Anil. No quarrel took place in the
said house or outside of the house in his presence. On
the following day, when he went to the SHO of the
police station to make an entry in the station diary
...574/-
Exh.1124 574 (J-SC 317/10)
but it could not be taken as no entry of their leaving
police station on the earlier day for Ghatkopar was
made in the station diary. He personally did not give
in writing to any officer or to Senior P.I. stating
that, they went to Ghatkopar. The witness denied
that, he did not go to Ghatopar through Qualis on
12.11.2006 and that he did not meet Ratnakar Kamble and
Tanaji Desai or Anil Bheda and that, he did not stay in
the Varanda of the house during night time. The
witness further denied that, it was false that on the
following date he, Bhosale, Ratnakar Kamble, Tanaji and
Anil went to D. N. Nagar Police station through the
Qualis and that, he had deposed false as regards to
above facts under pressure of Mr. Prasanna. He could
not tell date and day on which he visited Hotel Mid
Town. No diary was made of his visit to Hotel Mid Town.
When he went to Hotel Mid Town, he did not inform at
reception counter that he would remain in the hotel
during the night time. He did not make entry in the
hotel register. When he went to the room on second
floor of Hotel Mid Town, Anil was alone in the room.
The witness denied that, he deposed false that he went
to Hotel Mid Town and remained there during the night
time. He did not inform anyone about his visit to Hotel
Mid Town and Ghatkopar till recording his statement on
02.02.2010. The S.I.T. did not call him prior to
02.02.2010. He saw photograph of Anil for the first
...575/-
Exh.1124 575 (J-SC 317/10)
time during his Examination in chief before the court.
The witness denied that, he had deposed false against
Ratnakar Kamble and Tanaji Desai under pressure of DCP
Mr. Prasanna.
548. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he was transferred to D.N.Nagar Police
station in November 2005. He was attached to D.N.Nagar
police station till May 2012. He did not have any
relation with Mr.Pradeep Sharma and his squad
pertaining to official work. There was no discussion
between him on one side and Mr. Pradeep Sharma and his
squad on another side pertaining to any official work.
He did not know as to who visited Mr. Pradeep Sharama
and his squad. The total incident was fresh in his mind
on 02.02.2010, 04.02.2010, 18.02.2010 and 19.03.2010.
He did not remember as to whether he stated about
accused no.5 in his statement dated 18.02.2010 before
the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10
th
Court, Andheri (E).
He personally did not inform the Crime P.I. or Senior
P.I that, a civilian stayed outside of the office of
Mr. Pradeep Sharma. The witness on his own deposed
that, everybody knew it. He personally did not feel it
necessary to produce the said civilian before the
Senior P.I. The witness denied that, he did not have
any discussion with his associates or other staff from
the police station in this behalf. He did not point
...576/-
Exh.1124 576 (J-SC 317/10)
out this fact to Senior P.I., ACP, DCP, during their
rounds. He did not have interaction with the said
person at any point of time. He only knew name of that
person, but did not know his whereabouts. That person
was called as Dhabbu. He stated before the S.I.T.,
during inquiry, that the said person was called as
Dhabbu.
549. Omission as regards to, 'a person by name
Dhabbu used to stay outside the office of Mr.Pradeep
Sharma. He came to know his name as people were calling
him as Dhabbu', has been brought on record from
statement dated 18.02.2010 of the said witness. He did
not note down in his pocket diary that, a civilian,
who was called as Dhabbu by people, used to stay
outside the office of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. No inquiry as
regards to Dhabbu was made with him by the S.I.T. on
02.02.2010. The witness denied that, he had mentioned
name of Dhabbu at the say of investigating officer
Mr.Chalke and that, he never saw Dhabbu outside the
office of Mr.Pradeep Sharma. The witness further denied
that, he was not called as Dhabbu at any point of time
and that, he deposed false about Dhabbu. Except his
bare verbatim, he did not have any proof in witting to
show that Dhabbu stayed outside the office of
Mr.Pradeep Sharma. The witness denied that, Mr.Pradeep
Suraywanshi did not tell him and Mr.Bhosale at any
...577/-
Exh.1124 577 (J-SC 317/10)
point of time to go to Hotel Mid Town and that, he had
deposed false against accused no.9 under pressure of
DCP Mr. Prassana.
550. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, a police chawki was situated towards
right side of Hotel Mid-town. Police officers and
staff always remained at the said chawki. The witness
denied that, he deposed false that, after 12
th
he
visited Hotel Mid Town and that, he deposed false that
accused no. 13 met him at Hotel Mid Town and that
accused no. 13 took them to second floor of the hotel
and also that, he and Phalke stayed in the hotel at the
say of accused no.13. The witness denied that, he
deposed false that on the following day accused no.13
came to meet them at Hotel Mid Town and that, he did
not go to Hotel Mid Town therefore, he could not tell
the day, date and time.
551. It has come in evidence of Mr.Pravin
Purushottam Kasavalekar (PW-56), HC, Exh,476, that, on
01.09.2008, when he was attached to Dharavi police
station, Sr. PI Mr. Rajendra Thakur wrote a letter to
accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma directing him to deposit
arms and ammunitions, Sanad (Authority), I-Card in
Dharavi Police station. In response to the said letter,
accused no.1 deposited arms and ammunitions viz. (1).38
...578/-
Exh.1124 578 (J-SC 317/10)
Ruger revolver, butt no. 347 along with 6 live
cartridges and (2) 0.9 mm carbine, butt no. 600 @ 2
magazines and 88 rounds with PI Mr. Kamble, who was In-
Charge of Community. The witness inspected the arms and
ammunitions and made necessary entry (Exh.477) in the
station diary. With direction of Sr.PI Mr.Rajendra
Thakur, he deposited the above arms in Naigaon Depot
vide letter (Exh.478). Accused no.1 had deposited 88 of
carbine rounds. Article 69 Ruger revolver before the
court was the same.
552. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, on 11.02.2010, he was called by the SIT in
relation to Mr. Sharma. He knew as to why was the
S.I.T. formed, but denied that, since then he came to
know about the progress of the S.I.T. from newspapers
and from his friends. He came to know about it when he
resumed his duty in Dharavi Police station after the
year 2007 or 2008. Except the first phone he did not
receive any more phones from the SIT. He did not know
whether officers from the SIT visited Dharavi police
station prior to 12.12.2009 or till 12.12.2009. Till
10.10.2010, he followed orders of the Senior P.I.
553. The witness has further deposed during cross
examination that, to maintain register of arms and
ammunitions means maintaining entries as regards to
...579/-
Exh.1124 579 (J-SC 317/10)
different arms and ammunitions such as, S.L.R., 303,
410, musket, pistol, revolver, carbine and ammunitions.
The markings and numbers of the said arms and
ammunitions were also mentioned in a column in the said
register. In pursuance to it, the witness could tell
number of arms/ ammunitions and their categories. The
witness could not produce letter dated 01.09.2008
issued by Senior P.I. Mr. Rajendra Thakur to Mr.Pradeep
Sharma, as it was produced before the SIT and he did
not know whereabouts of the said letter. Omission,
Mr. Pradeep Sharma came to Dharavi Police station,
has been brought on record. The witness denied that,
Mr.Sushil Kamble went to the residence of Mr. Pradeep
Sharma, along-with the letter dated 01.09.2008 and that
Mr.Pradeep Sharma handed over the arms and ammunitions
to Mr.Sushil Kamble and got acknowledgment of
Mr.Pradeep Sharma on the said letter (Exh.480). The
letter had signature of Sr.PI, that of Sushil Kamble
and of Pradeep Sharma. The letter was addressed to
Pradeep Sharma at his residential address. The witness
denied that, he deposed false that Pradeep Sharma came
to police station and that he deposited arms and
ammunitions in the police station. The witness also
denied that, Exh. 477 was false.
554. Further cross examination discloses that, the
witness admitted that, the marking of 6 cartridges were
...580/-
Exh.1124 580 (J-SC 317/10)
not mentioned in letter Exh.480. There were no markings
of the cartridges mentioned in the entry number 39. As
an Armorer, he did not mention markings of those
cartridges. The arms and ammunitions deposited by Mr.
Pradeep Sharma were in the custody of Dharavi Police
station since 01.09.2008 to 12.12.2009. He knew that,
the arms and ammunitions relating to a dismissed police
officer had to be sent immediately to Naigaon Depot.
They made efforts to send arms and ammunitions
immediately. He kept the arms and ammunitions in a
cupboard on 01.09.2008 and those were in the same
cupboard thereafter. District Hawaldar was Senior to
him. The keys of the armory room remained with the
District Hawaldar. The witness denied that, when the
armory room was to be opened, its entry was to be taken
in the station diary and that, he did not know as to
when did the District Hawaldar opened the armory room.
The armory room was open to all. After his duty was
over at 8.00 p.m and if any one required arms and
ammunitions, he had to get those arms and ammunitions
from the District Hawaldar. In Exh.478, at one place
it was mentioned that revolver was deposited and at
another place it was mentioned that a carbine was
deposited. One signature was of the person who received
the arms i.e. both the articles and one signature was
put by him. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that he deposited both those arms at different sections
...581/-
Exh.1124 581 (J-SC 317/10)
and that, he did not get acknowledgment of the
revolver. The Senior P.I. had not mentioned marking of
the rounds in his letter Exh.478. Copy of letter Exh.
479 was not addressed to Mr.Pradeep Sharma. The witness
denied that, he deposed false under pressure of the
SIT.
555. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shankar @ Girish
Dal Singh (PW-57), Exh.481 that, he was doing business
as Estate Agent. He was taking contract of loading,
unloading through group of Mathadi Kamgaar. He and his
friend Sudesh Dhumare were doing the said work. Sudesh
told him that, control over Mathadi was with Janaya
Sheth i.e. accused Janardhan Tukarm Bhangage. Sudesh
introduced the witness with accused No.14 Janardhan
Bhangage, resident of CBD Belapur, who was handicap
below the neck. He used to visit house of accused no.14
Janaya Sheth. He saw that people belonging to gangsters
Guru Satam and Chhota Rajan used to visit house of
Accused Janaya Sheth. He also saw number of Estate
Agents at the house of Accused Janaya Sheth. Farmers
used to come to the house of accused no.14 Janaya
Sheth taking matters such as land matters to him.
Janaya Shety helped either farmers or the builder from
whom he got benefit, with the help of his own criminal
contacts. At the house of accused Janaya Sheth@
Janardhan Bhangage, he came to know about one Pandeji @
...582/-
Exh.1124 582 (J-SC 317/10)
Bhayya. Name of Pandeji @ Bhayya was Lakhan Bhayya.
Accused Janaya Sheth informed him that, Lakhan Bhayya
was the man of Guru Satam and Lakhan Bhayya was wanted
in police cases. Accused Janaya Sheth also informed him
that Lakhan Bhayya was his brother. He also met Babu
who was brother-in-law of Lakhan Bhayya and his friend
Anil Bheda. He also met retired Talathi Karmachari Mr.
Shirsagar, Estate Agents Kaling and Sunabe and builder
from Navi Mumbai Mr.Urmish Udhani. Mr.Urmish Udhani
used to prepare bogus documents and used to prepare
bogus men and thereby used to grab plots. Accused
Janaya Sheth used to hand over a dispute (Lafada)
matters to Urmish Udhani and Urmish Udhani used to take
advantage of criminal contacts of Accused Janaya Sheth.
He further deposed that, one person by name Yunus was
serving in the house of accused Janaya Sheth and
accused Janaya Sheth used to do his works through
Yunus. Yunus looked after inside and outside works of
accused Janaya Sheth.
556. The witness further deposed that, he used to
be with Lakhan Bhayya for maximum time. Lakhan Bhayya
used to deal with the properties. He did not understand
much therefore he used to take help of Babu and used to
give matters to accused Janaya Sheth. Accused Janaya
Sheth used to send those matters to Mr. Urmish Udhani
and used to get benefit out of it. There was a matter
...583/-
Exh.1124 583 (J-SC 317/10)
of Smt.Anandibai Deshmukh. The property was from
Airoli. The said file was with Lakhan Bhayya. Lakhan
Bhayya handed over said file to accused Janaya Sheth to
find out a good purchaser. Accused Janaya Sheth
accepted the file. Accused Janaya Sheth perused the
file and saw that there was a good benefit in it. Then
accused Janaya Sheth handed over the said file to
Urmish Udhani. Lakhan Bhayya accepted the file because
there was a good benefit. After one or two months
Lakhan Bhayya came across a good customer. Lakhan
Bhayya asked accused Janaya Sheth to return the file.
He further deposed that, accused Janaya Sheth thought
that if Lakhan Bhayya settled the matter on his own, he
would be deprived of the benefit. Accused Janaya Sheth
did not return the file to Lakhan Bhayya, saying that
the file was lost.
557. The witness further deposed that, after one
to two months Lakhan Bhayya came to know that the said
file was with Kaling. Name of Kaling was Pundalik. A
quarrel took place between Kaling and Lakhan Bhayya.
Lakhan prevented Kaling from going to accused Janaya
Sheth. Anil Bheda met him outside of his own house.
Anil Bheda informed him that Lakhan Bhayya consumed
liquor and went to the house of accused Janaya Sheth.
Lakhan Bhayya abused accused Janaya Sheth and also gave
threats to him saying that his son would be assaulted.
...584/-
Exh.1124 584 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness, along-with Lakhan Bhayya, went to the
house of accused Janaya Sheth so as to settle the
matter between them. They talked cordially and there
was settlement between them. Lakhan Bhayya told the
witness that either this or that day accused Janaya
Sheth would kill him (Mera Game Karega). Lakhan Bhayya
also told him that, Urmish Udhani cheated him. Lakhan
Bhayya also said that he would see Urmesh Udhni (Usko
bhi dekh lunga). Accused Janaya Sheth was angry with
Lakhan Bhayya on the count that Lakhan Bhayya
threatened to kill his son and that, Kaling @ Pundalik
was prevented from going to the house of Accused Janaya
Sheth. Due to this accused Janaya Sheth and Urmish
Udhani came together. Accused Janya Sheth and Urmish
Udhani came together against Lakhan Bhayya.
558. The witness further deposed that, on
11.11.2006, when he was at home, he received a call
from his friend Dhiraj from Navi Mumbai, between 12.30
to 1.00 p.m. saying that, some gaonwale (villagers)
picked up and took away Lakhan Bhayya and Anil Bheda.
As it was incomplete information again he rang to the
witness on his mobile saying that police from Crime
Branch took away Lakhan Bhayya and Anil Bheda. Then he
immediately rang to Babu, brother-in-law of Lakhan
Bhayya and brother of Lakhan Bhayya by name Ramprasad.
He gave information on their mobile that he received
...585/-
Exh.1124 585 (J-SC 317/10)
from Dhiraj. At that time, he was having Reliance
Mobile bearing no. 9323459998. During night time he saw
on television that there was an encounter of Lakhan
Bhayya. He was confident that the said work was done by
accused Janaya Sheth @ Janardhan Bhanange and Urmish.
As he was friend of Lakhan Bhayya and used to be
together, he feared that, he would be killed and
therefore he ran away to his village and returned back
to Mumbai after one or one and half years. He came to
know that, accused Janaya Sheth was searching for him.
Then he went to the house of accused Janaya Sheth and
asked him as to who killed Lakhan Bhayya to which
accused Janaya Sheth told him that the game of Lakhan
Bhayya was done by Subhash lefty. The witness further
deposed that, after 20.03.2010, the S.I.T. contacted
him so as to give statement in the Court i.e. Andheri
Court. He went to Powai. Mr.Ghorpade took him to
Andheri Court. His statement was recoded by the Judge
vide Exh.482.
559. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he went away to his village Mahendra Nagar, Nepal
on the following day after he watched the news on
television during previous night. For the period of
one-one and half years, he was at Mehendra Nagar,
Nepal. During the said period of one - one and half
years, he did not meet any persons known to him. He
...586/-
Exh.1124 586 (J-SC 317/10)
met Mr.Ramprasad Gupta six months prior to the alleged
incident. He did not remember whether he met
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta again during the period of six
months prior to the alleged incident. Since he went
to his village after the incident, he did not meet
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta till police recorded his statement.
It would be false to say that, he was in Mumbai for 15
to 20 days after 11.11.2006 and he met Mr.Ramprasd
Gupta after 15 to 20 days after 11.11.2006. He knew
Mr.Shayamsundar, brother of Lakhan Bhayya for one year
prior to the incident dated 11.11.2006. He had with him
phone number of Shayamsundar. He did not remember the
said phone number. Prior to 11.11.2006, he had phone
number of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not know as to
how many mobiles did Ramprasad Gupta have. He had only
one mobile number with him of Mr. Ramprasad Gupta. He
did not remember whether mobile numbers 9324280012,
919821376490 of Mr. Ramprasad Gupta were with him. He
did not remember mobile number of Babu, brother-in-law
of Lakhan Bhayya. On the day of incident, he informed
the incident only to Mr. Ramprasad Gupta and Babu. Only
Dhiraj informed him that Lakhan Bhayya and Anil Bheda
were picked up and taken away. Except on first and
second occasion, he did not have any more talks with
Dhiraj. There was no more time than five minutes
between two talks on phone between him and Dhiraj. If
one says that he rang to Dhiraj, it would be incorrect.
...587/-
Exh.1124 587 (J-SC 317/10)
It would be false to say that, he rang to Dhiraj and
asked him whether Lakhan Bhayya and Anil Bheda had come
to his house. He told Dhiraj that, after sometime he
would receive another phone. When asked as to who told
him that Dhiraj would be contacted by another phone,
the witness answered that, the reason was that prior to
calling Dhiraj he called Ramprasad Gupta.
560. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it was after he received phone from
Dhiraj he did not contact Ramprasad Gupta before he
received second phone of Dhiraj. He rang to Ramprasad
Gupta after he received both phones from Dhiraj and not
before that. The witness denied that, on that date he
did not have any talks on phone with Mr.Dhiraj and also
that Dhiraj did not have any talks on phone with him.
He rang to Babu within two to three minutes after phone
of Dhiraj to him was over. Initially, he rang to Babu,
then to Ramprasad. He talked to Babu in Hindi. He told
Babu that Sheth ko thode wakt phele kai admi apne sath
gadi me leke gaye.. The witness denied that, he did
not talk to Babu and Ramprasad on phone. He met
Shayamsundar as the last occasion two to three months
prior to 11.11.2006. He did not remember how many days
prior to 11.11.2006 he had talks with Shyamsundar on
phone. No officer from the S.I.T. relating to this case
met him prior to 20.03.2010. Prior to 20.03.2010, on
...588/-
Exh.1124 588 (J-SC 317/10)
his own he did not go to the S.I.T. at Pawai. For the
first time on 20.03.2010 he met the S.I.T. officer
relating to the death of Lakhan Bhayya and gave him
statement. He came to Mumbai from his village at the
end of the year 2008 but he could not tell the month.
During his stay at his village in Nepal, he did not
contact any known person including Janaya Sheth from
Mumbai.
561. The witness further deposed that, since 2008
to 2010, during the stay in Mumbai, he did not meet
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta and Dhiraj. He met Anil Bheda during
the said period. Lakhan Bhayya was his close friend.
Dhiraj and Anil Bheda were his close friends. He did
not have talks with Ramprasad Gupta since 11.11.2006
till 20.03.2010. He did not feel it necessary to make
inquiry with Ramprasad Gupta as regards to death of
Lakhan Bhayya. On 20.03.2010, on his own, he went to
the S.I.T. The reason behind his going to the SIT was
to inform the SIT as regards to murder of his friend
Lakhan Bhayya. On 20.03.2010, Anil Bheda told him
that, dthe SIT office was situated at Pawai. In
February 2010 he came to know for the first time that,
the S.I.T. was investigating into the murder of Lakhan
Bhayya. Prior to that, he did not know it through
electronic media or print media. He could not tell the
date from February 2010 on which he came to know about
...589/-
Exh.1124 589 (J-SC 317/10)
it. Even on 20.03.2010, he did not come to know as to
for how much period prior to that day, the S.I.T. was
carrying on investigation of this case. He felt it that
he should give information to the S.I.T. since February
2010 to 20.03.2010. When he saw the news on T.V. and
in the newspapers in the month of February, he felt
that he should give the information to the S.I.T. Even
then, he did not go to the SIT till 20.03.2010.
562. The witness further deposed that, on
11.11.2006, he rang to Babu in between 1.00 p.m to
1.15 p.m. He rang to Mr. Ramprasad Gupta after a few
minutes. On that day, he had talks on phone with Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta on 8 to 9 occasions. He had talks with
Babu on phone for only one time. He had talks with
Dhiraj on that day on 8 to 9 occasions. On 11.11.2006,
he had talks with Dhiraj between 12.00 to 10.00 p.m.
He had talks with Mr. Ramprasad Gupta since 01.15 p.m.
to 10.00 - 11.00 p.m on that day. On 11.11.2006,
between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., he watched news of
encounter on T.V. He met Mr. Ramprasad Gupta on 1 or 2
occasions during the year prior to 11.11.2006. When he
first time met him he knew that he was an advocate.
Lakhan Bhayya introduced him to Ramprasad Gupta in
Thane. He did not remember as to where did he and
Lakhan Bhayya go. Mr. Ramprasad Gupta met them in
Thane and that he was not with them. Mr. Shayamsundar
...590/-
Exh.1124 590 (J-SC 317/10)
was with Mr. Ramprasad Gupta. 7 to 8 days prior to
11.11.2006, he had been to the house of Janaya Sheth.
It was the day on which he tried to make a settlement
between Janaya Sheth and Lakhan Bhayya. On that day he
took Lakhan Bhayya with him to the house of Janaya
Sheth. They stayed at the house of Janaya Sheth for
about 20 to 30 minutes. On that day he settled
(compromised) the matter between Janaya Sheth and
Lakhan Bhayya.
563. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, dispute between Janya Sheth and Lakhan
Bhayya was on account of property of Smt. Anandibai.
The file of Anandibai was brought to Janaya Sheth in
order to search for a customer or purchaser. If the
property was sold then Janaya Sheth and Lakahan Bhayya
would have been benefited. The witness could not tell
the date and month of handing over the file to Janaya
Sheth. The said file was not handed over to Janaya
Sheth by Lakhan Bhayya in his presence. He had no
occasion to see the said file. Therefore, he could not
tell as to what documents were therein the said file.
As he did not see the file, he could not tell whether
there were original documents or xerox copies in the
said file. He could not tell as to who were present at
the time of handing over the said file to Janaya Sheth.
He did not know at the time of handing over the file
...591/-
Exh.1124 591 (J-SC 317/10)
as to whether any rights were vested in the person to
whom the said file was handed over. He had seen the
file only in the hands of Lakhan Bhhaya but he had not
seen the said file with any other person. At that time
also, he did not take the file in his hand and did not
open it. He had seen the file in the hands of Lakhan
Bhayaa before it was handed over to Janaya Sheth. He
did not remember as to how many days prior to handing
over the said file to Janaya Sheth and where he saw it
in the hands of Lakhan Bhayya. He never met Smt.
Anandibai or her family and also did not see them at
any point of time. He did not know as to who gave the
said file to Lakhan Bhayya. He had no occasion to see
the said file till date since he saw it in the hands of
Lakhan Bhayya. The witness denied that, it was
necessary that a person must be a owner of a property
if he wanted to sell the property. The witness on his
own deposed that, the property can be sold through a
bogus person.
564. The witness further deposed that, after there
was settlement between Lakhan Bhayya and Janaya Sheth,
no problem remained between them. No new transaction
took place between Janaya Sheth and Lakhan Bhayya since
the time of the settlement between them. He did not
know as to on which date and in which month did Janaya
Sheth hand over the said file to Urmish Udhani. When
...592/-
Exh.1124 592 (J-SC 317/10)
the said file was handed over to Urmish Udhani, he was
not present. After Janaya Sheth handed over the file
to Urmish Udhani, Lakhan Bhayya made demand of the said
file. At that time the witness was present. The
purchaser who came to Lakhan Bhayya for purchasing
property, did not come to him in his presence. He did
not know what offer did the purchaser tender to Lakhan
Bhayya. Lakhan Bhayya went to demand the file to
Janaya Sheth only after the said purchaser had come to
Lakhan Bhayya. Meeting between Lakhan Bhayya and Kaling
took place at CBD Belapur. He could not tell East or
West. The said meeting took place on 02.11.2006. He
was not present at the said place. He was not present
when threats were given to Kaling. It would not be
correct to say that, he threatened Kaling. He and
Kaling did not meet in respect of this file. He might
have seen Kaling at the house of Janya Sheth for about
100 times. He and Lakhan Bhayya along-with each other
did not go to the house of Janaya Sheth after the day
of settlement between them. The witness on his own
deposed that, he alone also did not go thereafter. He
did not know whether Lakhan Bhayya alone went to the
house of Janaya Sheth after the said day. He did not
know whether Janaya Sheth and Lakhan Bhayya were
talking cordially with each other since the day of
settlement between them. He did not know whether they
were talking to each other or not after the settlement.
...593/-
Exh.1124 593 (J-SC 317/10)
565. The witness further deposed that, Mr. Chalke
had typewritten his statement dated 20.03.2010. He
personally read the statement. He knew little bit
Marathi. Mr. Chalke read over and explained his
statement to him. His statement dated 20.03.2010 was
reduced into typewriting as per his say. Nothing wrong
was type written in it. He stated correct fact that,
Thereafter Janya Sheth and Bhayya were cordially
talking to each other. He had no occasion to meet
Anil Bheda after the incident of Gem of Lakhan Bhayya
and prior to coming back to Mumbai. In November 2006,
he was residing in Ghansoli. He did not remember the
said address. He was residing there since 2004. He
could not tell the month. It was a Leave and License
premises. It was of a Marathi person. He could not tell
his name. He was residing there up-to 12.11.2006. He,
along with his wife and children, resided in the said
premises. He had a daughter by name Kajal of age 3 and
half years in the year 2006. He regularly paid rent to
the Estate Agent. He did not know the expiry period of
the said Leave and License. He did not have a copy of
the said agreement. Before he resided in Ghansoli, he
was residing in Sewree, Mumbai since 1997 to 2004. He
did not remember the said address. It was road number
15, Sewree. He did not remember the number of
...594/-
Exh.1124 594 (J-SC 317/10)
authorized hut. The said hut was of his elder brother.
566. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had been residing at the present
address since he returned from Nepal. The said
residence was hired on rental basis. Ashok Madhavi was
the owner of the said premises. He paid a rent of Rs.
7,500/- per month. He was having Leave and License
agreement of this premises with him. He could not
tell as to on which date the first agreement took place
and what was its end date. The said agreement was
renewed four times. His ration card was from Kings
Circle. He did not remember the address mentioned on
the ration card. It was near Shanmukhanand Hall,
opposite Gandhi Market. The ration card stood in his
name since his birth. His ration card had not been
transferred anywhere from the said place. His father
resided at the said place and the premises were in the
name of his father. His driving license bore address
of Airoli. Before that he had a license of two-wheeler.
567. The witness further deposed that, police made
inquiry of his mobile number in respect of mobile in
2006 at the time of recoding his statement dated
20.03.2010. In November 2006, he had only one mobile.
He had given the said mobile number to police. Police
...595/-
Exh.1124 595 (J-SC 317/10)
did not mention the said number while recoding his
statement dated 20.03.2010. Police had written down
the said number. He did not remember as to where did
the police write the said number. He did not tell the
police that they did not write down the mobile number
in his statement. In the year 2006, he had only one
mobile bearing number 9323459998. The said mobile was
with him upto 12.11.2006. As the said incident took
place, he switched off the mobile and went to Nepal.
Since then he had not operated the said mobile till
date. The said mobile was with him since the year 2005.
He did not know the month. The said mobile was
purchased while he was at Ghansoli but the address
given for purchase of the said mobile was of Sewree.
568. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he knew Adv. Ganesh Iyer for a period
of two to three years prior the incident. He was told
that he was an advocate practicing at Kurla Court. He
never met him prior to the incident. He had no
occasion to meet him since the incident till date. His
friend Santosh Mhatre told him that Ganesh Iyer was an
advocate. It was heard that, Ganesh Iyer was having
his office somewhere in Sion. His visiting card was
never given to him. He did not know his mobile number.
He never had his mobile number with him. Santosh Mhatre
had his own case with Ganesh Iyer and in relation to
that Santosh Mhatre told him that Ganesh Iyer was an
...596/-
Exh.1124 596 (J-SC 317/10)
advocate. Till date, he did not have information as to
whose cases did Mr. Ganesh Iyer defend and who were his
friends. He came to know Janya Sheth only after Sudesh
took him to the house of Janya Sheth. He and Santosh
Mhatre were childhood friends. Santosh Mhatre resided
opposite to Cenemax, Sion. Santosh Mhatre was arrested
by police on one or two occasions. He did not know the
cases in which he was arrested. After he was
introduced to Lakhan Bhayya, he came to know that he
was a man of Company. The meaning of company was
Gangster. He had never been arrested by police till
date. He was not interested in gangs and criminal
matters. The witness denied that, he always kept
himself away from criminals and criminal activities.
Due to this, friendship between him and Lakhan Bhayya
developed.
569. The witness further deposed that, he did one
or two deals in the properties. He did the said deals
in the year 2005. It was in respect of flats. He did
not remember as to who was the owner and who was the
purchaser. He did not remember the month of the said
dealings. The dealings were done with the help of
Lakhan Bhayya. Though his friendship with Lakhan Bhayya
developed, he did not get involved himself in criminal
activities. He did not have any enmity with anybody,
including Janya Sheth and Urmish. He did not have
enmity or quarrel with anyone on account of property
...597/-
Exh.1124 597 (J-SC 317/10)
dealing. Police never came to his house searching for
him till date. No one gave threats to him till date.
He had no fear of his life from anyone.
570. The witness further deposed that, he did not
know as to how many cases were pending against Lakhan
Bhayya in the courts prior to 11.11.2006. He also did
not know as to what kind of cases and how many cases
were pending in which courts against Lakhan Bhayya. He
knew that Lakhan Bhayya was wanted in some cases. The
witness on his own deposed that, Janya Sheth told this
to him. He had no occasion to meet Mr. Ramprasad Gupta
since the incident till date. Since 11.11.2006 till
date he did not ring to Mr.Ramprasad Gupta except on
11.11.2006. He might have met Lakhan Bhayya for about
100 times since the year 2004 till 11.11.2006. The
witness denied that, they were intimate friends. They
were good friends. They did not watch films together.
They dined together on one or two occasions. He did not
know as to when the body of Lakhan Bhayya was claimed
after his death by his relatives. He did not feel it
necessary to meet Mr. Ramprasd Gupta and his family or
to attend the funeral rites of Lakhan Bhayya after
death of Lakhan Bhayya and prior to going to his native
in Nepal. He did not remember as to who told him,
Janya Sheth was searching for him. He came to know
this in the year 2008, but he could not tell the month.
...598/-
Exh.1124 598 (J-SC 317/10)
He alone went to meet Janya Sheth. He was not afraid
to go to Janya Sheth at that time. Till then everything
became calm and quiet. Janya Sheth told him in the year
2008 that Lefty did the game of Lakhan Bhayya. Since
his meeting with Janya Sheth in the year 2008 he had no
occasion to meet him thereafter till March 2010. He
did not write down anywhere that Janya Sheth told him
that Lefty did the game of Lakhan Bhayya. He did not
make any application of it anywhere. Omissions as
regards to, 'Subhash Lefty yane Lakhan Bhayyacha Game
Kela' and Kela Asava have been brought on record.
571. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know where did Urmish
Udhani reside. He was engaged in construction business.
He did not know the place where his construction
business was going on. His office was situated in
Sector 17 in Vashi. He, along-with, Lakhan Bhayya did
not visit his office at any point of time. He did not
know whether Lakhan Bhayya helped Urmish Udhani at any
point of time. He did not know whether Lakhan Bhayya
did any work of Urmish Udhani. Lakhan Bhayya talked to
him in respect of Urmish Udhani on one or two
occasions. He did not remember as to how many days,
months or year prior to the murder of Lakhan Bhayya did
he talk to him about this. Lakhan Bhayya told him that
a file pertaining to a property was given to Urmish
...599/-
Exh.1124 599 (J-SC 317/10)
Udhani and that Urmish Udhani cheated him. He did not
know as to how many files were given to Urmish Udhani
and at what time those were given to him. He did not
know whether there was enmity between Urmish and
Bhayya. Lakhan Bhayya threatened Urmish in his presence
saying, Dekh Lunga. The talks took place on one or
two occasions in his presence. He had never seen Guru
Satam and Chota Rajan. He saw Chhota Rajan on T.V. He
did not know where did Guru Satam reside. He knew
Lakhan Bhayya by names Pandeji@ Bhayya. In the year
2004, he to know through Janya Sheth that his name was
Lakhan Bhayya. He used to call him Pandeji or Bhayya.
His other friends also used to call him Pandeji or
Bhayya. Till the time of incident, he did not know that
his name was Ramnarayan Gupta. He never introduced
himself to be Ramnarayan Gupta to the witness or to
others in his presence.
572. The witness further deposed that, on 29
th
, he
was informed that, he was to give statement on 30
th
before the court. No letter in writing was sent to him
stating that he was to give statement before the court
on 30
th
. On 20
th
March, he was told by police that they
would ring to him for the purpose of giving statement
before the court. He left home between 3.00 p.m. to
3.30 p.m. for giving statement before the court on 30
th
March. First he went to the S.I.T. office Pawai. He
...600/-
Exh.1124 600 (J-SC 317/10)
reached the court between 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. His
statement started between 4.45 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. It was
concluded at 5.30 p.m. It was recorded in the chamber
and not in the open court. He met Mr.Ghorapade in the
office of the S.I.T. at Pawai. Mr.Ghorapade did not
introduce him to the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Mr.Ghorapade did not meet the Magistrate after he had
taken the witness to the court. He did not know whether
Mr.Ghorapade went away from the court after he had
introduced him with the Karmachari of the court. He
did not see Mr.Ghorapade in the court premises after he
had introduced him to the court Karmachari. No police
person other than Mr.Ghorapade came with him to the
court. Except introducing him to the Karmachari of the
Court Mr. Ghorapade did not do any thing. He did not
know whether he handed over any envelope or any
application to the said Karmachari.
573. The witness further deposed that, he was taken
to the Magistrate 10 to 15 minutes after he was
introduced to court Karmachari by Mr. Ghorapade. The
Karmachari left the chamber immediately after he had
taken the witness to the chamber of the magistrate. He
did not know whether the Karmachari handed over any
papers to the magistrate in his presence. The typist
was inside the chamber of the magistrate when he
entered into the chamber. No one was called from
...601/-
Exh.1124 601 (J-SC 317/10)
outside after he entered into the chamber of the
magistrate. The magistrate told him to give statement
in short. He did not remember as to what first question
did the magistrate ask him after the Karmachari had
introduced him to the magistrate. The first sentence
that he stated before magistrate was of Mathadi. The
magistrate did not ask me any questions during the
period of his stay in the chamber of the magistrate
since beginning to the end. He did not hand over any
papers/ documents to the magistrate. The magistrate did
not ask him for any papers/ documents. While going to
the chamber of the magistrate, he did not have any
documents/ papers with him. The Karmachiri introduced
him to the magistrate saying that he was a witness of
the S.I.T. and that his name was Shankar Singh. Except
this he did not tell anything more to the magistrate.
The witness told his residential address to the
magistrate. Thereafter the magistrate started writing
down through the typist.
574. The witness further deposed that, the
magistrate made inquiry with him as to whether he gave
a statement to the police. He informed the magistrate
that he gave statement before the S.I.T. on 20.03.2010.
He did not know whether this fact was written by the
magistrate or not. The question relating to his
statement before the S.I.T. was asked by the magistrate
...602/-
Exh.1124 602 (J-SC 317/10)
after he had asked his name and address. Question
regarding statement dated 20.03.2010 was asked to him
after the magistrate had asked his name, address and
about Mathadi. The magistrate did not make demand of
papers/ documents to him when he asked his name and
address. His statement before the magistrate was read
over to him and he also read it. The magistrate read
over it to him. The statement was reduced into writing
as per his say. While giving statement before the
magistrate he remembered everything as regards to the
incident.
575. The witness further deposed that, when Bhayya
gave threats to Janya Sheth saying that he would kill
his children, the witness was not present there. He did
not know as to when and where was the said threat
given. He personally did not know about it. He stated
in his statement before Metropolitan Magistrate that on
11.11.2006 he rang to Adv.Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. The
magistrate reduced into writing this fact in his
statement before the magistrate. Omission, on
11/11/2006 he rang to Adv. Ramprasad Gupta has been
brought on record. It did not appear in his
Examination in Chief. He did not state before
magistrate that, he and Sudesh went to Janya Sheth in
the year 2000. It did not appear in his statement
before SIT on 30.03.2010. He stated 2004 and not 2000
...603/-
Exh.1124 603 (J-SC 317/10)
which appeared in his statement before Magistrate. He
did not remember whether he stated before the
magistrate that Janya Sheth used to hand over a
dispute(Lafda) matters to Urmish Udhani. Urmish Udhani
used to take advantage of the criminal contacts of
Janya Sheth. He did not state before Magistrate that,
one one person by name Yunus was serving in the house
of Janya Sheth and Janya Sheth used to do his works
through Yunus. Yunus looked after inside and outside
works of Janya Sheth. He did not remember whether he
stated in his statement before the magistrate that, he
saw that, people belonging to Guru Satam and Chota
Rajan used to visit house of Janya Sheth, Lakhan
Bhayya told him that, either this or that day Janya
Sheth would kill him (Mera Gem Karega) Lakhan Bhayya
also told me that Urmish Udhani cheated him. Lakhan
Bhayya also said that he would see Urmish Udhani (Usko
bhi Dekh Lunga). The witness did not remember whether
he stated in his statement before magistrate that
Janya Sheth was Angry (Khapha) with Lakhan Bhayya on
the count that Lakhan Bhayya threatened to kill his son
and that Kaling @ Pundalik was prevented from going to
the house of Janya Sheth. Due to this Janya Sheth and
Urmish Udhani came together. Janya Sheth and Urmish
Udhani came together against Lakhan Bhayya and During
night time he saw on television that there was an
encounter of Lakhan Bhayya. He was confident that this
...604/-
Exh.1124 604 (J-SC 317/10)
was the work done by Janya Sheth and Urmish and that,
he thought that as he was a friend of Lakhan Bhayya
and they used to be together, he might be killed
therefore he ran away to my village. Omission as
regards to, he came to know that Janya Sheth was
searching for him has been brought on record through
cross examination.
576. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he came to know that name of Lakhan
Bhayya was Ramnarayan Gupta only after watching the
T.V. The body of Lakhan Bhayya was shown on the T.V. He
did not remember as to whether the said body was fully
covered by clothes or not. He did not know what were
the charges leveled against the accused in the Charge-
sheet. He did not know the crime number of the case.
The witness denied that, he was deposing false under
pressure of police and that he deposed hearsay things
in respect of Janya Sheth and that he did not have
personal knowledge of those things. The witness denied
that, he deposed false that he ran away to his native
on the following day of the incident. Police did not
ask for document from him in respect of his fleeing
away on the following day of the incident and returning
back to Mumbai in the year 2008. The witness denied
that, he was intimate friend of Lakhan Bhayya
therefore, at the say of brother of Lakhan Bhayya he
...605/-
Exh.1124 605 (J-SC 317/10)
was deposing false. The witness further denied that,
after 11.11.2006, he was regularly meeting Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta in Mumbai and that, he gave a false statement
before the magistrate at the say of police.
577. It has come in evidence of Mr. Vilas Laxman
Utekar (PW-58), PC, Exh.483 that, on 22.03.2010, when
he was attached to Dharavi police station as Asstt. to
Police Inspector, as per directions of Sr PI Mr.
Hemant Patil, he handed over six live cartridges in the
name of Mr. Pradeep Sharma (i.e. accused no.1), which
were deposited in the police station, to API Mr.
Ghorapade from the SIT under panchanama (Exh.486)
prepared in presence of two panchas.
578. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, S.I.T. recorded his statement only once i.e. on
15.11.2011. He did not take entry anywhere as regards
to his duty dated 22.03.2010. He did not record in his
personal diary as regards to the panchanama and about
production of six live cartridges. The xerox copy of
panchanama that he received was handed over to
Mr.Kasavalekar on the following day. Since, then he
had never seen the said panchanama. He did not take
entry anywhere as regards to description of the said
live Cartridges. Since then, he had never seen those
cartridges. At the time of recording his statement
...606/-
Exh.1124 606 (J-SC 317/10)
police did not ask him description of those cartridges.
579. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, since the year 2003, he was attached
to Dharavi Police station. Since 2008 to 2010, he had
been the Asstt. of Police Inspector (Administration).
Arms and ammunitions remained in the custody of police
inspector (Administration). Every police station has
one and the only armory In-charge. The witness has
denied that, after duty of the armory In-charge is
over, he hands over the key of arms and ammunitions
section to the police inspector (Administration). He
hands over the key to the District Hawaldar after his
duty is over. He has further denied that, the District
Hawaldar hands over the arms and ammunitions if
required after the duty of the armory Hawaldar is over.
District Hawaldar hands over the arms and ammunitions
if required by any police personnel after the duty of
armory Hawaldar is over. Armory Hawaldar sometimes
does day duty and sometimes does night duty. Since 2008
to 2010, Pravin Kasavalekar was the armory Hawaldar.
He did not remember as to who was the District Hawaldar
during the said period. He could not tell as to whether
there were one or more persons working in the capacity
of District Hawaldar. The Armoury Hawaldar hands over
his charge to the District Hawaldar after his duty was
over and again takes charge from him on resuming the
...607/-
Exh.1124 607 (J-SC 317/10)
duty. He did not know that there were six live
cartridges kept in the Armoury Section till 22.03.2010.
He was told to bring those live cartridges. He could
not tell name of the District Commender who was In-
Charge of Mr. Kasavalekar on 22.03.2010. Hemant
Patil, Ssenior P.I. told him that, the key of the
armoury was lying in their safe. The witness further
deposed that, it happened that armoury Hawaldar Mr.
Pravin Kasavalekar was on leave and his cupboard key
was in their safe and therefore he was called by the
Sr. Inspector. Their safe was in the cabin of P.I.-
Administration. When he was called by senior police
inspector, Police Inspector (Administration) Mr. Sushil
Kamble was not present there. Entry as regards to
keeping the key in the safe was not taken anywhere. Six
cupboards were alloted to Armoury Hawaldar. Keys of all
six cupboards were in their safe. The key of the safe
was with the District Commander. He did not take the
key of the safe from District Commander and the key of
the cupboard from the safe till he rang to Pravin
Kasavalekar. Prior to that, he did not know that Pravin
Kasavalekar was having custody of those six live
cartridges.
580. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, prior to 22.03.2010, he had no occasion
to open the armoury. He rang to Mr. Kasavalekar at
...608/-
Exh.1124 608 (J-SC 317/10)
about 05.15 p.m., from his mobile to his mobile. Mr.
Kasavalkear told him that the six live cartridges were
kept in the cupboard of armoury. He told the witness
the specific cupboard. The said cupboard did not have
any number. He did not remember as to whether he was
alone or there was somebody else present when he opened
the said cupboard. There was only one blue coloured bag
in the shelf of the said cupboard. There was a brown
box in which the bullets were normally kept. He took
out the box from the blue bag. He did not remove the
bag. There was nothing else except the box in the said
bag. The witness denied that, he saw the box on two
occasions i.e. first when he took out it and the second
when he handed over to the S.I.T. Officer. He did not
hand over the box to Senior inspector Mr. Patil. He
handed over only six rounds to Mr. Patil. He only
removed the six live cartridges from the box and only
after removing the cartridges, he kept the empty box in
the blue bag. Mr.Hemant Patil told him to bring only
rounds therefore, he did not hand over the empty box to
him. When he handed over the six rounds to Mr. Hemant
Patil except him, Mr.Hemant Patil and two S.I.T.
Officers were present. No one else was present in the
cabin of Mr. Hemant Patil. He saw two persons called by
Mr. Ghorapade for the first time when they were called
in the cabin of Mr. Hemant Patil. Those two persons
immediately came into the cabin after he handed over
...609/-
Exh.1124 609 (J-SC 317/10)
the live cartridges to Mr. Hemant Patil. He did not
know as to when did those two persons come to the
police station and who called them to the police
station. No inquiry was made with those two persons in
his presence. He was educated up-to 12
th
Std. He did
not read copy of panchanama that he received. The
witness further deposed that, it was not written in the
panchanama that he was present at the time of recording
the said panchanama. The witness denied that, on
22.03.2010, he did not do any work and no such
panchanama was recorded in his presence and that he did
not produce the six rounds. The witness further denied
that, he was deposing false at the say of the S.I.T.
and that the SIT did not take charge of any rounds in
his presence.
581. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sushil Prabhu
Kamble (PW-59), PI, Exh.487 that, when he was attached
to Dharavi police station, on 01.09.2008, a letter was
issued in the name of Pradeep Sharma (accused no.1) for
depositing arms and ammunitions and Saranjam, which
included I-Card and Sanad. The letter was handed over
to accused no.1. On 01.09.2008, accused no.1 Pradeep
Sharma deposited arms, ammunitions and Saranjam in the
police station. Accused no.1 had brought one .38 bore
revolver (butt no.347 of Ruger Company), six rounds and
9 mm carbine, butt no.600, two magazines and 88 live
...610/-
Exh.1124 610 (J-SC 317/10)
cartridges. Accordingly, the witness took entry of
deposing the arms and ammunitions by accused no.1 vide
entry no.39 i.e. Exh.477 in the station diary. A copy
of letter (Exh.480) was in respect of arms and
ammunitions received from accused no.1, which had
signature of accused no.1. On 10.12.2009, a letter
(Exh.488) was received from Naigaon Depot stating that
arms and ammunitions belonging to accused no.1 were
required in a crime from Versova police station.
Accordingly, the witness through Sr PI sent the arms
and ammunitions to Naigaon Depot vide Exh.478. Naigaon
Depot sent a letter Exh.479 seeking information F.I.R,
Spot panchanama etc. Article 69 - .38 bore Ruger
Revolver before the Court was the same.
582. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, the S.I.T. called him only once and his statement
was also recorded only once i.e. on 10.06.2010. After
12.12.2009 till date, he had not seen Article 69. When
94 rounds were brought to the police station from
Naigaon Depot, its entry was not taken anywhere by him.
When Arms and Ammunitions were taken from Armory for
sending it to Naigaon Depot, its entry was not taken.
Except making station diary as regards to taking Arms
and Ammunitions from Mr. Pradeep Sharma, its entry was
not taken anywhere else. Letter for sending Arms and
Ammunitions on 12.12.2009 was prepared by him. The
...611/-
Exh.1124 611 (J-SC 317/10)
letter bore signature of the Sr.P.I. Only one letter
was prepared on that day. The letter did not bear his
signature. Except his bare verbatim, there was no
other proof to show that on 12.12.2009 he sent Arms and
Ammunitions through Pravin Kasavalekar and that he
received back the Ammunitions. The witness denied that,
after 12.12.2009, he had no occasion to see the
ammunitions. He had one occasion to see the ammunitions
in the cupboard of Mr.Pravin Kasavalekar. It might be
one or two months after 12.12.2009. It was during his
visit to Armory.
583. The witness further deposed that, during
inspection, the arms and ammunitions were taken out of
the cupboard. During his said visit, the ammunitions
were taken out of the cupboard. There was no record of
this visit. They had a safe (Tijori) in Armory Section
for keeping the keys. The safe was in the custody of
police inspector (Administration). The witness denied
that, the key of the safe was with the District
Commander. The key of the safe remained with the
constable who was working under Armory. The key of the
safe remained with P.I.(Administration). He never
handed over key of the safe to District Commander. He
did not hand over the key to the constable who was
working under him.
...612/-
Exh.1124 612 (J-SC 317/10)
584. The witness further deposed that, Mr.Utekar
was his orderly. He handed over key of the safe to
Mr.Utkear. Mr.Kasavalekar had the key of Armory. After
his duty was over, key of the Armory was kept in the
safe. After duty of the Armorer was over and if any
one required Arms and Ammunitions then the Arms and
Ammunitions were given to the said person by District
Commander. The District Commander did not enter into
the Armoury Section. The witness or his orderly opened
the Armory Section. He did not know whether an entry
in respect of opening and closing the Armory Section
was taken anywhere or not. On 12.12.2009, he did not
tell Mr. Kasavalekar to take entry as regards to
keeping the ammunitions separate and safe. He made
inquiry with him as regards to keeping ammunitions
separate and safe. In the month of January 2010, he
saw the ammunitions. Since then, he had no occasion to
see those ammunitions. For the first time, he had
deposed before the court that, he told Mr. Kasavalekar
to keep the ammunitions separate and safe and that, in
the month of January 2010, he saw the ammunitions.
585. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, document Exh.488 did not bear his
signature and endorsement to the effect that he
received the said letter. There were two corrections
in document Exh. 478 at Serial no.1, column nos.2 and 3
...613/-
Exh.1124 613 (J-SC 317/10)
as regards to The make and butt and the
manufacturing number. Both these corrections were made
by different persons, who did not put their initials
and dates at the said corrections. True copy of a
letter dated 12.12.2009 sent by Senior Police
Inspector, Dharavi Police station, to the Senior Police
Inspector Armory Naigaon Depot, Mumbai did not have
corrections which were found in Exh.478.
586. Further cross examination discloses that, the
butt numbers were alloted to the arms by Naigaon Depot
and were written in white paint. Article 69 had butt
number, but did not paint in white paint by Naigaon
Depot. Every weapon had got written on it its
manufacturing number. There was no mention of make,
model, manufacturing number of the revolver in Exh.
4777. Mention of name of the Manufacturer and the
number in the said document was mentioned after perusal
of the revolver. The revolvers with them were not kept
in sealed condition. He saw the revolver for the
first time after surrender of the revolver and after
receipt of the letter from Naigaon Depot. When the
rounds were brought back by Pravin Kasavalekar from
Naigaon Deport, those were not sealed and its entry was
not taken anywhere. Omission as regards to, Senior
P.I. rang to Mr.Pradeep Sharma and told him to produce
documents as directed by Naigaon Depot and that, he
...614/-
Exh.1124 614 (J-SC 317/10)
handed over the ammunitions to Pravin Kasavalekar for
keeping it in separate and safe custody, have been
brought on record through cross examination.
587. Further cross examination discloses that, on
22.03.2010, he was attached to Dharavi Police station
in the capacity of P.I. (Administration) till July
2010. After 12.12.2009, there was no correspondence as
regards to the ammunitions deposited in the Armory
Section of Dharavi Police station after those were
returned back from Naigaon Depot. He came to know that,
the police from S.I.T. took away those ammunitions (six
rounds.) He could not tell as to whereabouts of the 88
rounds. The witness denied that, he prepared a false
document Exh. 478 at the say of the S.I.T. and that, he
and the SIT caused disappearance of original document
of Exh.491 from the Court. The witness also denied
that, he did not send arms and ammunitions to Naigaon
Depot and that he did not see the ammunitions after
those were sent back to Dharavi Police station. The
witness denied that, Mr.Pradeep Sharma did not deposit
the Arms and Ammunitions in his presence and that, the
arms that were allegedly sent by him to Naigaon Depot
did not have any concern with Mr.Pradeep Sharma.
588. It has come in evidence of Mr.Maruti Yashwant
Patil (PW-60), H.C., Exh.492 that, on 10.12.2009, he
...615/-
Exh.1124 615 (J-SC 317/10)
was on duty at Magazine Section, Naigaon Armory Depot.
At about 12.45 pm, API Chalke, along with PI Gaonkar
from SIT and his team and two pachas had come along
with document/ letters (Exh.493, 493A,494,495,496
(colly),502) to Naigaon Depot and asked him to hand
over arms and ammunitions, as mentioned in the letters,
to Mr.Gaonkar by making entries in the register vide
Exhs.497,497-A,498,499, 499-A,500, 500-A, 501, 501-A,
503, 503-A,504,504-A,505,505A,506,506A,507, 507A, 508,
508A, 509, 509A, 496A, 510, 510A, 478, 478A, 491A,
491B,511, 511A,495 and 495A. Article-19 and 21 i.e. 9
mm pistols, Article-18 a revolver bearing butt no.624,
Article-17 weapon, Article-16 revolver of Ruger
Company, Article-15 a revolver before the Court were
the same.
589. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, on 05.03.2010, he went to the S.I.T. office as he
received a summons. He had not brought that summons
with him. He did not produce the said summons in his
office. The said summons did not direct him to produce
any documents. The witness denied that, except on
05.03.2010, he was never called by the S.I.T. for an
enquiry and that no enquiry was made with him except
on that day. He did not carry with him any documents
to the office of SIT on 05.03.2010. The enquiry was
made by the SIT in respect of the duties that he
...616/-
Exh.1124 616 (J-SC 317/10)
discharged on 10.12.2009 and 17.12.2009 at Naigaon. On
10.12.2009, for the first time, Mr. Gaonkar met him.
Mr. Gaonkar met him on second occasion on 17.12.2009
and on third occasion on 05.03.2010. On 10.12.2009 and
on 17.12.2009 when Mr. Gaonkar met him, he did not
issue any letter to him. There were no documents
related to this case in his custody. He did not
maintain any personal entry as regards to the duties
that he discharged on 10.12.2009 and 17.12.2009. He
made entry in the register of his office which was a
record in respect of the duties that he discharged.
The another record was the entries that he made on the
letters. The registers and the letters did not mention
that the Arms and Ammunitions were handed over to Mr.
Gaonkar by recording panchanama and sealing the said
Arms and Ammunitions. His signatures were not obtained
on the panchanamas. Naigaon Armory area was a
prohibited area and the general public had no access
into the said area. If a police officer was on duty and
was attached to a police station, he had to come in
uniform. The police officer concerned brought his I-
card with him and xerox of his I-Card is kept in his
office showing that the particular officer had come to
his office on a particular date. There was no register
maintained in his office showing date and timings of
the entry of a particular officer into their office.
The entry of the orderly or staff of that officer was
...617/-
Exh.1124 617 (J-SC 317/10)
also not taken anywhere in their office. I-Card of the
orderly or the staff was checked. There was no
necessity of obtaining permission of ACP/DCP for a
police officer for entering into Naigaon Armory. A
private person was not allowed go along-with the police
officer into Naigaon Armory. His duty hours were since
8.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. The Armory was closed at 7.00
p.m. Entire Armory was not closed at 7.00 p.m but only
Magazine Section was closed at 7.00 p.m. There were so
many registers maintained by them in respect of Arms
and Ammunitions. On receipt of Arms and Ammunitions,
initially entry was taken at Armory Section. Then its
entry was taken in Magazine Section when it was brought
from the Godown. There was entry of each and every
year. The bullets got the year of manufacture
inscribed on them and also name of the factory i.e.
'KF' was mentioned on them. He did not know whether the
batch number was also mentioned on them or not and the
meaning of words and or numbers written in between 'KF'
and the year. While the bullets or cartridges were
handed over to a Police officer, its description was
not entered anywhere. While the bullets or cartridges
were deposited by police officer in their section its
description was not entered anywhere. There was no
record with them to show that a bullet or a cartridge
of a particular year was handed over to a particular
officer. He saw document Exh.493 dated 05.12.2009 for
...618/-
Exh.1124 618 (J-SC 317/10)
the first time on 10.12.2009. He saw letter dated
09.12.2009 Exh.496 on 10.12.2009 for the first time.
It was in his handwriting. Document Exh.496 and 496A
did not mention that, P.I. Mr. Gaonkar received the
Arms and Ammunitions from the witness. The witness
denied that, on 10.12.2009 he was in receipt of only
two letters i.e. Exh. 493 and 496. The witness on his
own deposed that, the letters under reference in Exh.
496 were also along-with letter Exh.496. He saw those
letters for the first time on 10.12.2009. All those
letters did not bear his signatures. Except his bare
verbatim, there was no other proof to show that those
letters came to him. He did not state before the
S.I.T. in respect of letters dated 12.11.2009,
02.12.2009 and 24.11.2009.
590. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, letters Exh.493 and Exh.496 did not
specifically mention as to which Arms and Ammunitions
were required. There was no mention as to of which
year the rounds were required. There was a letter
which mentioned the year of the rounds that were
required. On perusal of Exh.493 and Exh. 496, he could
not tell as to which was the said letter that mentioned
the year of the Ammunitions. It could not be said that
the manufacturing year of the Arms and Ammunitions
would be the year of receipt by the Armory. The entry
...619/-
Exh.1124 619 (J-SC 317/10)
of the Arms and Ammunitions was taken on the date of
the receipt of the Arms and Ammunitions and not of the
year of its manufacture. The year of the manufacture
was mentioned on the Arms and Ammunitions. Entry dated
24.12.2001 at page no. 453 in register no.7 showed that
a revolver was handed over to Mr. Pradeep Sharma on the
said date. The witness on his own deposed that, he did
not know anything about it as the entry was not made in
his handwriting. It was also mentioned in the said
entry that, 30 rounds were given along-with the
revolver. Description of those 30 rounds was not
mentioned in the said entry (Exhs.512 and 512A).
Documents Exh.478 and Exh.478(A) did not bear his
signatures anywhere on those document. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of the
S.I.T and that, he had produced false and fabricated
documents at the say of the S.I.T.
591. Further cross examination discloses that,
entry at page no. 352 of register no.16 was made on
04.09.2004. As per the said entry, Tanaji Bhausaheb
Desai received 30 rounds along-with one pistol from
their section. The said entry was not in his
handwriting. There was no description of the rounds
mentioned in the said entry. There was no mention as to
when did their section receive those rounds. The
manufacturing year of the rounds was also not mentioned
...620/-
Exh.1124 620 (J-SC 317/10)
in the said entry(Exhs.513 and 513A). Entry dated
08.12.2009 on the same page Exh.500 was as regards to
Mr.Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai depositing one pistol and 30
rounds. Mr.Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai received 30 rounds
and again deposited said 30 rounds therefore, it meant
that he did not use any of those rounds. Generally
they did not write the particular year of the
particular rounds such as - 98-25, 94-3, 87-1, 2002-1.
The reason behind not writing this was that when the
Ammunitions of the same batch were handed over to a
particular police officer/ personnel then they did not
take its entry but when the ammunitions of different
batches were handed over at one time by the police
officer to them then its specific entry was taken in
the register. Such instructions were not there in the
police manual. The witness denied that, he was
depositing this on his own and not at the instructions
of his superiors. Rounds of one and the same batch
were given to the police officer. There was no other
proof of this than his bare words. The entry Exh.500
was in his handwriting.
592. The witness further deposed that, writing
overleaf of Exh.502 was in his handwriting. He gave
the acknowledgment and made entry in the register.
There was no description given in the acknowledgment
about the rounds received by him. The entry Exh. 501
...621/-
Exh.1124 621 (J-SC 317/10)
was as regards to Arms taken in custody by the S.I.T.
The witness denied that, he was deposing false at the
say of the S.I.T and that, entry Exh.500 i.e. bracketed
portion was taken at the say of the S.I.T. on
10.12.2009. Entry dated 25.12.2008 was not in his
handwriting (Exh.508). It was in the handwriting of ASI
Gavade. There was no mention of manufacturing year and
Company.
593. The witness further deposed that, there were
two types of allotments of Arms and Ammunitions. One
was Allotment to the police station and another was
Allotment to the individual police officer. Their
section did not call its annul report from the
concerned. Their office called such report. The report
was called to verify the status and condition of the
Arms and Ammunitions supplied to the concerned. Senior
P.I. from their office called such report. As per his
knowledge the report of the use of Arms and
Ammunitions was to be submitted by the concerned within
a week of its use. If the report was not submitted
within a week, it was reported in the monthly report.
Unless their office got information as regards to use
of the Ammunitions, they did not get the Ammunitions
deposited, if those Ammunitions were less. The Senior
P.I had power to call this information. The verifying
officer first gave his report to the Senior P.I. of the
...622/-
Exh.1124 622 (J-SC 317/10)
Armory Department. This report was made in writing.
Then the Senior. P.I Armory handed over a letter in
writing to the constable concerned, addressed to the
Senior P.I. of the police station concerned. The Senior
P.I instructed the constable concerned to take the
letter to the police station and to supply the
requisite information by reply letter. The Arms and
Ammunitions were returned back to the police station.
There was only one Inward Section in Armory department.
He could not tell whether the repairs section had any
separate register or not and that, as to how many times
did he get the Arms and Ammunitions deposited since
2007 to 2010. He did not get deposited the Arms and
Ammunitions unless he saw this signature, endorsement
and stamp from the repairs department on the said
letter. The constable brought the letter of an
individual weapon for the purpose of depositing. In
respect of Butt no. 2912, he followed the same
procedure. Except butt no.2912 there was no reference
of any other weapon in the said letter, which was
brought by police personnel from Versova Police
Station. The said letter remained with office. Without
perusing the letter, he could not tell as to whether he
received the said letter on 19.07.2008.
594. The witness further deposed that, without
perusing the letter, he could not tell whether he
...623/-
Exh.1124 623 (J-SC 317/10)
could produce letter dated 19.07.2008. Only one
signature of the person depositing the Arms and
Ammunitions was obtained at the entry in the History
Sheet of a particular weapon. Entry dated 19.07.2008
Exh.497 was in his handwriting. Entry in Exh.500 and
Exh.501 were in his handwriting. Writing in Exh.497,
Exh.500 and Exh.501 were in his handwriting. The
witness was shown register no.49, page no.323 entry
dated 19.07.2008-marked Exh.514. The witness further
deposed that, entries at Exh.497 and at Exh.514 were
in his handwriting. Entry at Exh.498 was not in his
handwriting. Xerox true copy of Exh.514 was marked Exh.
514(A). The witness denied that, the rounds along-with
butt no.2912 were the same as supplied, therefore, he
got it deposited. There was no question of informing
Senior P.I. as the letter itself had come from the
Senior P.I. The Senior P.I. put his signature on the
letter which in itself showed that he was to get the
Arms and Ammunitions deposited. There was over writing
in the entry as regards to date in letters and in
figures and also in words wherein letter '30' was
overwritten as '29'. The endorsement at the top of the
entry was not in his handwriting. He could not tell
the meaning of the said endorsement. During day time
the register in their section was in the custody of all
working in Magazine Section, including the witness. The
said endorsement was made by the superior officer. If
...624/-
Exh.1124 624 (J-SC 317/10)
there was overwriting one had to put initials at the
said overwriting. The overwriting was done by him. He
could not assign any reason as to why he did not put
initials at the overwriting. One of the rounds was
fired and the empty cartridge was deposited in the
Muddemal. The person concerned informed him this
therefore, he obtained his two signatures at the said
entry at Exh.497. The witness was shown entry at Exh.
507. There was mention of total number of used
cartridges. Police Head Constable deposited the
cartridges. He obtained only one signature by making
bracket against the 11 cartridges. This entry was made
by A.S.I. Gavade. Every officer had his own method of
working.
595. The witness further denied that, he received
30 rounds along-with butt no. 2912 and that, he made
overwriting at the say of superiors and that, he did
not adopt the correct procedure to be adopted when
there were less rounds. The witness denied that, second
part of entry at Exh.497 was not in his handwriting and
that, except his bare verbatim there was no other proof
to show that the second part of the entry was correct.
The witness also denied that, he fabricated the second
part of the entry at Exh.497 at the say of his
superiors and that it was not there on 19.07.2008. The
witness could not tell as to whether the barrel became
...625/-
Exh.1124 625 (J-SC 317/10)
unclean if it was not used for a long period. He made
endorsement 'BRC' when it was sent by repair section.
'BRC' meant barrel was not clean. He could not tell
meaning of word Kharab. The witness denied that, he
was deposing false at the say of the S.I.T.
596. The witness further deposed that, Exh.502 did
not bear his signature at any place. The letter was
addressed to Senior P.I., Armory Naigaon. It was a
letter from Senior P.I. of Andheri Police station. He
could not tell as to at what time he received the said
letter and also its date. The date was mentioned as
08.12.2009 therefore, he said that, he received the
letter on 08.12.2009. He could not tell as to who
submitted the said letter to the Senior P.I., Armory
Naigaon. He did not know why 'BRC' was written on the
said letter as he personally did not inspect the
weapon. It was written by Mr. Sawant therefore, the
witness also wrote 'BRC'. Word 'BRC' was not written
at the entry overleaf of Exh.502. If barrel was not in
proper condition (Kharab) then 'BRC' was written. He
did not know whether BRC actually meant 'barrel
required cleaning'. The witness was shown pages 351 and
352 of register no. 16. Last two entries on page 351
were shown to him. On 11.06.2002, Mr. Tanaji Desai
received one pistol butt no 786 along-with 30 rounds
and on 17.04.2004 he deposited the said pistol and 30
...626/-
Exh.1124 626 (J-SC 317/10)
rounds. The endorsement 'BRC' was made at the said
entries. As per those two entries, it appeared that
the total rounds received by Tanaji Desai were
deposited as those were and any of the rounds were not
used. Entry was marked as Exh.515 (Colly). Both
entries at Exh.515 did not show specific numbers
inscribed on the rounds. Prior to handing over the
pistol to Mr. Tanaji Desai, it was in custody of
another officer by name P.I. Prafulla Sadhashiv Joshi.
As per entry at the top of Exh.515, the said pistol was
used for firing by Mr.Prafulla Joshi. The entry was at
Exh.516. There was no mention of seizure of the pistol
under panchanama with reference to entry Exh.501 and
letter Exh.502. The entry as regards to Prafulla Joshi
was marked as Exh.516. There was no mention of seizure
of the pistol under panchanama, putting it in the
polythene bag, keeping it in the wrapper, affixing
label of signatures of panchas and sealing the same,
was not mentioned in Exh.501 and Exh.502. The witness
on his own deposed that, there was no such practice. He
handed over pistol in open condition to Mr.Gaonkar.
Omission as regards to, Each of the Arms and
Ammunitions were kept in a separate polythene bag.
Then, those were wrapped in brown papers, had been
brought on record from the statement dated 05.03.2010
of the witness before the SIT. The witness denied that,
he deposed false before the court at the say of
...627/-
Exh.1124 627 (J-SC 317/10)
officers from the S.I.T.
597. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Arm butt no.468 was the general Arm
alloted to the police station. There was no register/
record maintained by their section as regards to
allotment of weapons by the police station to a
particular officer. Therefore he could not tell as to
which officer and on which date did the police station
allot a particular weapon. There was no mention of name
of any officer at Sr.No.10 in Exh.507. There was
mention of use of one bullet in CR no.302/06 of Versova
Police Station but there was no mention of name of any
police officer who used the said bullet. There was no
description of the round. There was no year of the
round mentioned in the said entry. Entry Exh. 507 was
not in his handwriting. The witness denied that, he
could not tell on the basis of the said entry as to
when the Arms and Ammunitions were received as per
entry Exh.507. The witness on his own deposed that,
the entry was not taken unless the Arms and Ammunitions
were received. Omission as regards to, Entry at
serial no.10 shows that one round was fired in Versova
CR No.302/06 has been brought on record. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of
officers from the S.I.T.
...628/-
Exh.1124 628 (J-SC 317/10)
598. It has come in evidence of Mr.Vinaykumar
Keshavprasad Chaube (PW-61), Exh.517, that, since, July
2006 till 2008, he was DCP, Zone-IX, Mumbai. On
11.11.2006, he was informed by his RTPC (Radio
Telephonic Police Constable) that, one Ramnarayan Gupta
was killed in a police operation in Nana Nani Park. The
said operation was carried out by police officers from
Versova police station and DN Nagar police station.
599. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he was Nodal Officer for Umang programe.
Besides the said assignment as the Nodal Officer, he
was having his regular duties in the capacity of DCP
Zone-IX and in that capacity, he was in-charge of
Versova police station and DN Nagar police station,
which were within the jurisdiction of Zone-IX. He was
responsible for and accountable to his senior officers
for law and order and security within Zone-IX. He was
reporting the matters but not on day to day basis but
when asked for and as per priority and time. If any
information was furnished it was received by his office
and whenever guidance was sought by subordinate
officers, it was provided to them. The Sr. Officers
started coming between 4 pm to 5 pm for attending dress
rehearsal as well as for issuing guidance as the VIP's
such as the Chief Minister etc., were to attend the
programme on 12.11.2006. The dress rehearsal programme
...629/-
Exh.1124 629 (J-SC 317/10)
came to an end about 10 pm or 11 pm. The RTPC might
have informed him at 9.00 or 9.30 pm. He did not know
whether by that time the news flashed on T.V. He did
not know whether some Sr. police officers from Versova
police station, DN Nagar police station, Oshiwara
police station or any other police officers were
present at the time when he received the information. A
discussion as regards to the said incident took place
at the said Andheri Sports Complex. Afterwards, he came
to know that, a Writ Petition was filed by brother of
the deceased, but he did not know its number was WP
2473/2006. He did not remember as to whether he
attended the said W.P time and again in the High Court.
The witness denied that, he attended meetings in this
behalf with his senior officers and Junior Officers.
600. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11.11.2006 he could not visit Nana
Nani Park as he was busy in Bandobast and in
preparations for Umang Programe. In an ordinary course,
he was required to visit the place where firing had
taken place. Zone-IX has jurisdiction from Bandra to
Oshiwara, which includes Bandra, Khar, Juhu, DN Nagar,
Versova and Oshiwara police stations. During the course
of his duties, he is required to visit these police
stations. He is not required to go through all case
papers in crimes registered in these police stations
...630/-
Exh.1124 630 (J-SC 317/10)
during his visits to these police stations. He is
required to go through only those case papers in which
guidance is sought. Information in respect of serious
offences such as murder, rape, attempt to commit murder
etc. is furnished to his office, after the offence is
registered. Many times, guidance is sought from his
office during the course of investigation of such
crimes. Immediate superior officer to him was then
Additional Commissioner Mr. Bipin Bihari. The report in
respect of police firing is required to be submitted to
the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home, DGP, CP, NHRC, SHRC
and to the collector. He was supposed to submit his
report to above mentioned authorities if police firing
took place within his jurisdiction. He did not
remember whether he visited Versova police station
within a week or so. He submitted reports to the above
mentioned authorities in respect of firing in Nana Nani
Park and it was submitted on the basis of report
received from the police station concerned. He did not
remember whether he had gone through other papers
except report and FIR. The report was correct at that
time, which was filed on the basis of police station
report and FIR. He was satisfied with the police
station report and the FIR. He did not remember as to
whether he had filed the report within a week or two
after the said report from Versova police station was
received. The report was prepared by his office, he
...631/-
Exh.1124 631 (J-SC 317/10)
read the report. He was satisfied with the report and
then he put signature on it. The report was prepared
under his instructions.
601. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, at the time of submitting the said
report, he was satisfied that there was a genuine
encounter at Nana Nani Park. Lakhan Bhaiya was killed
in the said encounter. On the basis of police station
report, he came to know that Lakhan Bhaiya was a
gangster and belonged to Chhota Rajan gang and was
involved in number of serious crimes. He did not
remember whether all these facts were incorporated in
his report. Ramprasad, brother of the deceased, did not
approach him and he did not file any complaint with him
when he was DCP, Zone-IX. It was very difficult to say
that, as to what was the ideal course of action to be
taken in a case of serious offence like murder etc.
and it depends upon number of factors including
priority, law and order problem in the area, security,
priority cum level of complications involved in the
case. Visit to the scene of offence is one of the
important aspects during the course of investigation.
The witness denied that, he was giving incorrect
evidence under pressure of the SIT.
602. It has come in evidence of Mr.Rakeshchandra
...632/-
Exh.1124 632 (J-SC 317/10)
Rambuz Prajapati (PW-62), Nodal Officer from BPL Mobile
Communication Ltd., Exh.519 that, since the year 1996,
he has been serving in BPL Mobile Communication Ltd.,
which is known as Loop Mobile India Ltd.. On
12.11.2009, he received letters/E-mails vide Exh. 520,
522, 524, 525 (colly), 527,529 (colly), 534, 536, 538,
540, 542, 544, 545, 547, 549, 551, 553, 555, 557, 559,
561 and 563 from the SIT, seeking information regarding
(1) incoming and outgoing calls made and received on
Cellular Nos. mentioned therein, for a period of
11.11.2006, along with Cell ID, name and address of
user and IMEI Number, (2) SDR and CDR of mobile
numbers mentioned therein, for a period since
12.11.2006 to 13.11.2006, (3) for providing certified
hard copies of CDR and SDR, (4) information in respect
of prepaid card 9821552987, (5) information of tower
locations and coverage area of cell I.D. mentioned in
the said letter, as on 11.11.2006, (6) information
regarding communication details and subscriber details
of mobile numbers mentioned at serial nos.1 to 11 of
the particular mobile numbers and the particular
days /dates and duration mentioned against the said
numbers, (7) providing CDR and SDR for a period of
13/08/2009 to 05/09/2009 with Cell ID and Tower
location in respect of mobile no. 9821056311, etc.
Accordingly, the witness retrieved the information and
submitted the same vide Exhs.521(colly), 523 (colly),
...633/-
Exh.1124 633 (J-SC 317/10)
526 (colly), 528, 530, 535 (colly), 537 (colly), 539
(colly), 541 (colly), 543 (colly), 546 (Colly), 548
(colly), 550 (colly), 552, 554 (colly), 556, 558
(colly), 560, 562 (colly) and 564 (colly).
603. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, his duty was to liaison the Law Enforcement
Agencies. Since 2008 onwards, there was one Nodal
officer and two alternate Nodal officers. All
correspondence would be signed by the Nodal officer.
Retrieving and furnishing information was done by all
Nodal officers. In order to provide information, they
had been provided with computer terminal. They were
provided with passwords. He did not share his password
with alternate Nodal officers and it was same with them
as they were provided with their separate passwords.
The record as to who retrieved the information was in
the Logs. The logs were preserved for one year. That
day, logs of the years 2008-2009-2010 were not
available. On-line record was maintained for a period
of one year. After one year, the information from on-
line record was sent to Archives and it was stored in
Compact Magnetic Disc. Whatever Information he
retrieved and furnished to the SIT was all retrieved
from Compact Magnetic Disc. The SIT recorded his
statements on 01.06.2010 and 15.11.2011. The
information of November 2006 was furnished to him by
...634/-
Exh.1124 634 (J-SC 317/10)
the I.T. Department. The defence has brought omissions
as regards to, If server fails there is a back-up for
continuity of the information in CDR in respect of
CDR. The witness denied that, he did not state the
said portion in his statement dated 15.11.2011 before
the SIT. There was no mention of said portion in his
statement dated 15.11.2011. He correctly deposed during
examination in chief that, CDR was on-line recorded in
server in the computer. The server was a part of the
computer.
604. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it would not be incorrect to say that,
Server was attached to or connected to the Computer.
Call details were recorded in a Server first. He did
not have any idea as to how many servers were there in
their Company in the year 2006. He did not remember
whether there was any occasion to use the back up
system in the year 2006. Before furnishing the
information to the SIT, he did not make inquiry as to
whether there was any occasion to use the back up
system in the year 2006. The witness further deposed
that, he knew the fact that, the electronic records had
to be certified, if those were going to be used in the
Court of law. For that purpose, their Legal Department
had furnished a format of the said Certificate. In that
certificate, they had to feed only the number and the
...635/-
Exh.1124 635 (J-SC 317/10)
period. They furnished the certificate only when it
was called for. In this case, only once he was asked to
furnish the Certificate. Rest of the information that
he furnished was without a Certificate/s. Omissions as
regards to, On-line CDR record is maintained for one
year. Old records are kept on magnetic cassettes as a
back-up. If data beyond one year is required to be
supplied to the investigating agency, then we buy more
time to submit the data as it is in the archives, have
been brought on record. The witness admitted that ,
there was no mention of Magnetic Cassettes as a back
up, in his said statements and also that, data of a
period of more than one year is in the Archives in his
statements. He did not know whether the call details
were recorded in a particular format in the Server. He
had occasion to retrieve and furnish information in
thousands of cases therefore, he had occasion to see
the format. The information was given in different
formats. For the current year, information could be
stored in the Server. After a period of one year, the
said information went to the archives. He did not know
whether it was stored in the same format in the
archives as that in the Server. He did not know whether
the format in which the information was stored was one
and the same. The information, which was permitted by
D.O.T., was supplied to the Law Enforcement Agencies.
The information which was not to be given to the Law
...636/-
Exh.1124 636 (J-SC 317/10)
Enforcement Agency as per the D.O.T., was not supplied
to their Computer Terminal. That information would be
available in the Archives. It would not be correct to
say that, the same format in which information was
stored in the Server would be same in the Archives. He
did not know as to whether the archives had got its own
different format for storing information.
605. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, cell IDs were maintained by Network
Department. They were responsible for erecting and
maintaining the Cell IDs. Record of the Cell IDs was
provided to them by the Network Department. The record
which was required by them was provided to them by the
said department. The said record was the record which
was requested by the S.I.T. Record of the customers was
maintained by the I.T. Department. It was available in
the server.
606. The witness further deposed that, every Cell
ID had unique number and unique address. One Cell ID
had a fixed number and it never changed. If the
location changed then new Cell I.D. number came into
existence. If Cell ID number changed its address
changed. They did not have any Master Computer at the
relevant time in their Company. They had all
information in the server only. In this case all
...637/-
Exh.1124 637 (J-SC 317/10)
information sought by the S.I.T. in respect of the CDR
was in the archives, from there it was restored in the
server and from there it was taken. It was not possible
to retrieve the information directly from Compact
Magnetic Disc. It was not possible to the run query on
the Magnetic Disc as it was already full. He did not
try to do it. Nobody informed him that the Compact
Magnetic Disc did not have space. The witness denied
that, the information that he supplied to the S.I.T.
was retrieved form the Master Computer. He did not
state in his statement before the S.I.T. that all the
information that he supplied to the S.I.T. was
retrieved from the Master Computer. The witness could
not assign any reason as to why portion marked A in
his statement dated 15.11.2011 was so written.
607. Further cross examination discloses that, page
nos. 2 and 3 in Exh.595 colly were shown to the witness
and was asked whether he agreed with the contents
therein. The witness answered that he did not know. As
far as the range of Cell ID was concerned, he did not
possess its technical knowledge. He did not come across
this document in their Company. He did not know whether
the information stored in the server and thereafter
transferred to Compact Magnetic Disc would be stored in
the same format in which it was recorded in the server.
He did not know whether the same format as in the
...638/-
Exh.1124 638 (J-SC 317/10)
server was restored from Compact Magnetic Disc. He did
not know as to how did a call record repeatedly appear
in the format or printout. He had never come across
that there was some disturbance in chronological order
of recording of the calls. He did not know if it
happened and how did it happen.
608. Further cross examination discloses that, he
had taken information directly from the server in
respect of mobile no.9664840955 and 9821552987. When
the S.I.T. wrote a letter dated 22.03.2010 to him, he
realized that there was a mistake committed in respect
of furnishing information in respect of above two
numbers. He did not recollect as to how did the mistake
occur. Till he received letter dated 22.03.2010 from
the S.I.T., he did not realize the said mistake. The
moment the Sim Card became operational either by making
a call or receiving a call, the call was recorded in
the server. Cell ID was created to serve a particular
area. The same Cell ID would never be shifted to
another area. The 4/8 below his signature in Exh.537
was part of his signature. Information in Document E-
mail (Copy) dated 28.06.2010 was furnished by their
office in pursuance to letter O.W.no.81/DCP/SIT/2010
dated 11.06.2010 vide Exh.596(Colly). The information
supplied vide Exh.560 and Exh.597 pertained to one and
the same number 9821376490 and for the same period i.e.
...639/-
Exh.1124 639 (J-SC 317/10)
11.11.2006 to 13.11.2006. Information formats in Exh.
560 and Exh.597 were not in the same format. He could
not say as to why there was difference in the formats
of Exh.560 and Exh.597. IMEI number was mentioned in
Exh.597, but it was not mentioned in Exh.560. Cell ID's
were mentioned in Exh.560 but those were not mentioned
in Exh.597. The witness did not remember whether he
replied Exh.542. The witness denied that, their company
did not have call records and whatever call records
were produced were fabricated and that, he along-with
the S.I.T. fabricated the documents by putting 4/8
below his signatures. Timings of SMS, Cell ID number,
date, called party, calling party, called Time-SMS were
automatically recorded in server. These would be
reflected in the printouts. He could not say whether
while saving in the archives, the SMS were deleted. He
did not remember whether the S.I.T. questioned him as
regards to different addresses of the same Cell ID.
Proper person to answer this query would be a person
from Network Department.
609. It has come in evidence of Mr.Arun Vasantrao
Awate (PW-63), retired ACP, Exh.566 that, in November
2006, when he was ACP of DN Nagar police station,
accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma, accused no.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi and Mr.Taware, Mr.Avudhoot Chavan were
police inspectors in DN Nagar police station. Accused
...640/-
Exh.1124 640 (J-SC 317/10)
no.15 Palande and some constables were on deputation of
squad of Pradeep Sharma. As per the orders of
Additional Commissioner of Police (West Region), the
said squad was formed. On 11.11.2006, when he was on
bandobast duty at Andheri Sports Complex, at about 8.00
pm to 8.15 pm, Mr.Vijay Sonawane, Sr.P.I. of Versova
Police station informed him that, there was an exchange
of fire between police and accused within the
jurisdiction of Versova Police Station. On 12.11.2006,
he came to know that, one Ramnarayan Gupta @ Lakhan
Bhaiyya was killed by a joint team from Versova police
station and DN Nagar police station.
610. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, Mr.Palande was transferred from Kalachowki to
D.N.Nagar on deputation. Mr.Palande assisted him in
investigation of cases under S.C. S.T. Acts. He did not
know whether Mr.Palande also discharged other duties/
assignments of D.N.Nagar Police station. On 12.11.2006,
he made inquiry as regards to the person who died in
the police firing. During enquiry, he came to know that
the person who was killed in police firing was a wanted
accused. On 12.11.2006, he was on duty. On 12.11.2006,
he came to know that Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in an
encounter by the police from D.N. Nagar Police station
and Versova Police station, in their Joint operation.
All the F.I.R., statements, and Investigation papers
...641/-
Exh.1124 641 (J-SC 317/10)
were placed before him for his endorsement. He did not
call the officers whose statements were recorded in
C.R.No.302/06 of Versova Police station for the purpose
of questioning them. Vinaykumar Chaube(PW-61) was then
his immediate Superior in the capacity of D.C.P. He did
not remember whether he met him on the next day of the
encounter. As per police manual, all senior officers
are required to visit the scene of offence in a serious
crime. Those officers include Sr. P.I., ACP, DCP. He
did not ascertain whether the DCP visited the scene of
offence. The exchange of fire between the police and
the accused took place within the jurisdiction of
Versova Police station. When Mr.Vijay Sonawane P.I.
from Versova Police Station informed him between 8.00
pm to 8.15 pm as regards to exchange of fire between
the police and the accused, he was expected to visit
the scene of offence, but as he was engaged in
bandobast duty, he could not go to visit the spot. He
did not tell Mr.Sonawane to relay the said information
to other superior officers, such as D.C.P. and the
Additional C.P. He also did not inform the incident to
the DCP and the Additional C.P. On 11.11.2006, he
might have had an occasion to meet Mr.Chaube at the
Umang festival. He did not ask Mr.Chaube as to
whether he had occasion to visit the spot or that he
had received the information.
...642/-
Exh.1124 642 (J-SC 317/10)
611. Further cross examination discloses that, he
did not remember whether he had any talks with Mr.
Chaube on 12.11.2006 when he came to know that,
Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in police firing. He knew
that, in case of a police firing, D.C.P is required to
submit his report to the Collector NHRC, SHRC and
Additional Secretary(Home) and other Authorities. He
ascertained on 12.11.2006 when papers were placed
before him that a report was submitted to the D.C.P.
A.C.P. was supposed to take rounds during day time of
the police stations within his jurisdiction. At the
orders of regional office a Sr.P.I. took night rounds
within his Zone. As a Senior P.I., he had also received
such orders and he had taken such rounds. There were
three ACP's in Zone-IX at the relevant time. As per the
C.P.'s order, the D.C.P. also took night rounds. He met
DCP within two to three days during his visits within
the jurisdiction of the witness. There were meetings
with the DCP at his office or at the police station but
it depended upon the contingencies. The D.C.P. and
A.C.P. were required to supervise investigation in
serious crimes.
612. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in respect of C.R.No.302/06 of Versova
Police station, he had occasion to supervise the
...643/-
Exh.1124 643 (J-SC 317/10)
inspection. He did not give instructions to the I.O
during the course of investigation and on the basis of
the papers of the crime placed before him. He gave
instructions to the Senior P.I. Those instructions were
given from time to time till filing of the charge-
sheet. Within a few days after the incident, he came to
know that a Writ Petition came to be filed before the
Hon'ble High Court. He had a discussion as regards to
the Writ Petition with the Senior P.I. of Oshiwara
Police station. He did not remember whether he had
discussion about it with the D.C.P. He had no occasion
to assist the D.C.P. in preparation of the report to be
submitted to the competent authorities. He did not
come to know at any time that the D.C.P. was making
such an enquiry. He had an occasion to talk to the
Senior P.I. of Oshiwara Police station as regards to
the said enquiry. At that time, he was satisfied that
the investigation was progressing in the right
direction. As a supervising officer, he did not suspect
that the investigation was not progressing in the right
direction. While acting as a supervising officer, at
no point of time, he had doubt that the police firing
of 11.11.2006 was not genuine.
613. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Senior Inspector, Oshiwara Police
Station was not seeking his guidance as regards to the
...644/-
Exh.1124 644 (J-SC 317/10)
Writ Petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court. He did
not remember as to whether he went through the files
filed by Oshiwara Police station in the said Writ
Petition. He did not remember whether he ascertained
from Oshiwara Police station as to what stand did they
take in the Writ Petition. When the Writ Petition was
filed, he felt that further guidance/ instructions was
necessary to the Sr.P.I. of Oshiwara Police station. He
did not remember whether he gave further instructions
to the Sr.P.I. of Oshiwara Police station.
Subsequently, he came to know that, an inquiry was
being conducted by the Collector. His co-operation was
not required in the said enquiry by the Collector or
his superiors. He did not participate in the said
enquiry. He did not remember whether Senior P.I. from
Oshiwara Police station from time to time kept him
informed about the said inquiry. He did not remember
whether Senior P.I., Oshiwara Police station informed
him that the D.C.P. concluded enquiry and submitted his
report to the competent authorities.
614. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he made enquiry with the I.O. of
Versova Police station and Oshiwara Police station as
regards to incident dated 11.11.2006. He did not make
enquiry with the officers who were involved in the said
incident. Statements of those officers were placed
...645/-
Exh.1124 645 (J-SC 317/10)
before him and he was satisfied with those statements.
He had no occasion to see any orders as regards to
formation of a special squad under Mr.Pradeep Sharma by
the superior, as far as the entries were concerned. He
did not remember whether there were such entries. He
did not remember whether he had any occasion to enquire
with the Senior P.I. of Oshiwara Police station,
Versova Police station and D.N. Nagar Police station as
to with whose orders the said officers/ personnel were
deputed in the special squad under Mr.Pradeep Sharma.
He did not issue any letter to his superior officer or
to the P.I. of police station under him, making enquiry
as to with whose orders the special squad was formed/
constituted. He had knowledge that the squad was formed
by the orders of the Additional C.P. A special squad,
which included officers from different police stations,
could not be constituted without written authority. He
had no occasion to see the orders of the Addl.
Commissioner of Police. He received the said
information from somebody else. If it was necessary
then the correspondence from the police stations within
his jurisdiction were routed through his office to the
office of D.C.P. or Addl.C.P. Some necessary
correspondence in respect of incident dated 11.11.2006
were routed through his office. He orally asked Mr.
Pradeep Sharma as to by whose orders the special squad
was formed. Pradeep Sharma was attached to the police
...646/-
Exh.1124 646 (J-SC 317/10)
station within his jurisdiction. He did not ask Sr.
PI of any of the police stations from his jurisdictions
to furnish record as regards to formation of the
Special Squad and deputation of the officers to the
said squad. He was having knowledge that such squad was
formed by Add. C.P. He had no occasion to inform
anybody as regards to formation of the said squad till
his statement was recorded by the SIT on 05.07.2010.
615. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11.11.2006, he did not make inquiry
with Mr. Vijay Sonawane as to who was the person killed
in the police firing. Vijay Sonawane also did not know
as to who was killed. On 11.11.2006, he did not ask
anybody as to who was the person killed in police
firing. He did not know that a person was killed in
the police firing. He did not remember as to whether
on 11.11.2006, he learned anything about the incident
from wireless. His vehicle had a wireless set. DCP and
Superior Officers had wireless sets in their vehicles.
All informations were not necessarily relayed on
wireless. Those could be informed on telephone.
616. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it was not necessary that such an
incident would be relayed on wireless, as it could be
...647/-
Exh.1124 647 (J-SC 317/10)
informed on telephone. At the relevant time, he had a
mobile phone. He did not try to contact DN Nagar or
Versova police station to find out the incident. Sr.PI
of DN Nagar police station was with him. He did not
remember as to whether he asked him to contact DN Nagar
police station and to find out the incident. He did
not contact Mr. VIjay Sonawane, who had left the venue
for the spot. He did not feel it necessary to inquire
as the necessary information might have been given to
him. It was necessary for him to make inquiry as
regards to the exchange of fire to know as to whether
anybody was injured or dead during the said fire. He
did not make the inquiry.
617. Omissions as regards to, On 11.11.2006 he did
not receive any information as regards to Lakhan
Bhayya and that, On that day he did not receive any
information as regards to the said exchange of fire,
from Mr. Sonawane or from any other officers, have
been brought on record through cross examination.
Omissions, on 11.11.2006 he did not receive any
information as regards to Lakhan Bhayya and On that
day he did not receive any information as regards to
the said exchange of fire, from Mr. Sonawane or from
any other officers, have been brought on record
through cross examination. The witness denied that, he
deposed false that as per orders of Addl. Commissioner
...648/-
Exh.1124 648 (J-SC 317/10)
of Police (West Region), the Special squad was formed
and Mr.Pradeep Sharma along with some police personnel
were serving in the said Special Squad and also that,
API Mr. Palande was also a member of the said squad.
The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006, he was informed
about the said encounter and death of Lakhan Bhaiya in
the said encounter and that, he was trying to cover up
his lapses, as he failed to take necessary action by
saying that he did not know details of the incident on
11.11.2006.
618. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sunil Narayan
Sawant (PW-64), Exh.567 that, he was attached to Armory
Workshop at Worli as a constable. Words 'Ruger, .38,
figure 347, 161-21934, Changali and striking off C.A.L.
380 is in his handwriting in Exh.47 (1
st
page). Entry in
Exh.510 was made on the basis of endorsement made in
Exh.478. A letter Exh.502 bore his signature and
Article-23 pistol before the Court was the same pistol.
Exh.500 bore his name and buckle number. The
endorsement therein was made as per endorsement on Exh.
502. Article 23 was the same pistol which he inspected
and of which he made endorsement. If the Arm/s cannot
be made clean by normal cleaning then BRC endorsement
is marked. If a weapon(Arms) is kept at open place for
considerable time, then the dust and carbon from the
atmosphere gets deposited at the said arm/s. So also
...649/-
Exh.1124 649 (J-SC 317/10)
dust and carbon get deposited in the barrel.
619. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he did not state in his statement dated
24.03.2010 before the SIT that, details as regards to
his handwriting, overwriting and his signature in Exh.
478. There was no signature at the overwriting and also
date was not mentioned at the said overwriting or
writing as Ruger and the writing as 161-2193 and
Changali. His signature did not appear at any place
on Exh.510. The witness denied that, Exhs.478 and 510
were bogus, false and fabricated documents and that he
was deposing false. The Armoury Division and his
section receives 30-35 revolvers/ pistols in one day.
If the date of inspection of the arms is entered
anywhere, then only he can say that on a particular
date, a particular arm/s was inspected. They do not
mention the date of inspection on that particular
weapon or arm/s. Only by perusing the weapon/arm/s, he
cannot tell the date of inspection of that particular
weapon/ arm/s. There is no date mention at his
handwriting / signature on Exh.502. Only by perusal of
the said endorsement, he cannot tell as to on which
date the particular arm/s was inspected.
620. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, during the course of his training at
...650/-
Exh.1124 650 (J-SC 317/10)
Pune, there was also training of firing. When a pistol/
revolver comes to his section, it is perused only with
open eyes and if it is not in a good condition (Kharab)
then they write endorsement BRC. If a revolver/ pistol
falls down, it can be damaged (Kharab). The witness
denied that, in such a situation, they write
endorsement as 'BRC'. The barrel has to be made cleaned
regularly. If the barrel is not cleaned then dust and
carbon particles get deposited in it and if it is so,
then they write BRC. There was no mention of reason
behind writing BRC in Exh.502. One who uses firearm
is required to keep the barrel clean. If it is not
kept in clean condition for years together then it gets
rusted and becomes non-use. Only on perusal of the
barrel of a revolver, he cannot tell as to when was it
cleaned. They have a procedure of cleaning the barrel
(1) using rod and planet chhindhi, (2) by using
kerosene and oil (3) use of grass wire with kerosene,
oil and chindi and (4) by suing gauze wire. If BRC is
written then pistol cannot be used and if it is tried
to be used then bullet gets stuck and cannot be fired.
The witness denied that he was deposing false.
621. It has come in evidence of Mr.Yogesh
Shrikrishna Rajapurkar (PW-65), Nodal Officer from
Bharati Airtel Ltd.,Exh.569 that, he received letters
Exhs.570, 572, 574, 576, 578, 580, 582 and 584 from the
...651/-
Exh.1124 651 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT, seeking information of tower locations and
coverage area of Cell ID's. as on 11.11.2006 as
mentioned in the said letter; details of Cell ID's and
tower locations in the month of November 2006 and the
detail addresses of the buildings on which the Towers
were fixed; for providing SDR's of mobile no.
9892344123 as on 11.11.2006 and its date of activation;
providing hard copies of information already sent
through E-mail as regards to SDR, date of activation,
CDR with Cell IDs and Tower locations as on 11.11.2006;
for providing information regarding communication
details and subscriber details of mobile numbers
mentioned therein; for providing SDRs and hard copies
of it, date of activation of the mobile numbers
mentioned in the letter and for providing CDR and SDR
of mobile number 9867429023 for a period from
13.08.2009 to 05.09.2009 along-with Cell ID and tower
location, respectively. In response to the same, his
office furnished information vide Exhs.571(colly.),
573(colly.), 575 (colly.),577,579(colly.), 581(colly.),
583 (colly.) and 585 (colly.).
622. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, till the time of deposing before the Court, the
witness was The Assistant Nodal Officer. Since, the
year 2007, he had been serving in the said Company. He
was not a computer expert. The Data from server was
...652/-
Exh.1124 652 (J-SC 317/10)
stored in master computer and he retrieved the data
from his computer after it was taken from master
computer. A copy of the said data came on his computer.
Once it came on his computer, he could not make any
change in his computer. Once the Data came to his
computer it did not go back to master computer. The
witness denied that, once the data came to his computer
he could manually manipulate the data. He technically
did not know site ID and cell ID. He did not know Alfa,
Beta, Gama. He did not know what was Cell Tracker. He
never operated a software used as Cell Tracker. He did
not know the Software used as Cell Tracker. He did not
know whether by using Cell Tracker software one could
know Cell ID of the company and coverage area. He did
not know as to how a call of a caller travelled from
one tower to another and its reverse system. Except
retrieving the information and furnishing it to the
S.I.T. on demand, he did not do any other work. He did
not know as to what kind of format was there in the
server and in the master computer. Even on his own he
did not try to find out as to what was the format in
the master computer or server. He did not remember as
to for how many times he visited the S.I.T. or he was
called by the S.I.T. He did not remember whether he
went to the SIT on four to five occasions and that on
those occasions the SIT interrogated him and then he
left the office of the S.I.T.
...653/-
Exh.1124 653 (J-SC 317/10)
623. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he had seen documents Exh.570 to Exh.
585 in the court for the first time after he sent the
documents to the S.I.T. He did not know as to how much
area was covered by a tower. He did not know whether a
tower covered an area of 1000 to 1500 meters. In the
year 2006, he was not in the company therefore, he did
not know as to what area did one tower cover at the
relevant time. Even after joining service in the year
2007, he did not verify as to what area did one tower
cover in the year 2006. He was not an engineer. Cell
ID and Site ID showed Tower location. Cell ID and Site
ID never changed. Addresses of one Cell ID and Site ID
could not be the addresses of another Cell ID and Site
ID. Addresses of 11092 and 11093 in Exh 571 were one
and the same i.e J.P. Road, opposite Indian Oil Nagar,
Andheri (W) Mumbai. Addresses of the Cell ID's were fed
in Master Computer.
624. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Cell ID No. 11093 showed its address
as Heritage, GP. Road, D.N. Nagar, Andheri(W) and that
of 11092 as the same address. These addresses were
different than that in Exh.571 in respect these two
Cell ID's. He did not know the starting point of J.P.
Road and that, whether, J.P. Road started from S.V.Road
...654/-
Exh.1124 654 (J-SC 317/10)
and went up-to Kamdhenu, Kokilaben Hospital. He did
not know whether length of the road was about 10 to 12
kms and that this road had so many lanes or by-lanes.
Address of Cell ID 11842 in Exh.571 was Rukhmini Nagar,
Andheri(W). He did not know where was Rukhmini Nagar
situated in Andheri(W). There were different addresses
of these Cell IDs. Navrang Cinema was situated in
Andheri(W). In Exh.571 tower Location was mentioned and
in Exh.575 area was mentioned. He did not know as to
whether J.P. Road which started from S.V.Road covered
Versova Police Station, four Bungalows, Seven
Bungalows, Apana Bazar, D.N.Nagar Police Station and
Andheri Sports Complex and that it touched Yari Road.
Addresses of Cell ID no.12413 were different in Exh.571
and Exh.575. In Exh.571 coverage area was not mentioned
though it was asked for in Exh. 570. Address of Cell
I.D. no.14542 in Exh.575 was Manish Nagar, Four
Bungalows and its address in Exh. 571 was Vira-Desai
Industrial Estate, Linking Road, Andheri(W). Those were
two different addresses of the same Cell ID. He did not
know whether the road started from the place opposite
to Sports Complex, Garden Court Restaurant and went up-
to Beheram Baug for about more than 1000 meters.
625. Further cross examination discloses that,
address of Cell ID no.15743 in Exh.571 was OFF number
110, first floor, Plot no.14/B, Sector no.19 Vashi,
...655/-
Exh.1124 655 (J-SC 317/10)
Navi Mumbai and its address in Exh.575 was Roma
Complex, Romi House, Plot no.14 opposite Dora Bazar,
Vashi, Navi Mumabi. Those were two different addresses.
He did not know meaning of word, OFF and that whether
Dora Bazar was situated in Sector no. 9. He did not
know whether Roma Complex, Romi House was situated in
Sector no.9, on Palm Beach Road. Addresses of Cell ID
15242 were different in Exh. 571 and Exh.575.
Jogeshwari and Oshiwara were different places and were
far-away from each other. The Towers were affixed on
top of the buildings, or commercial complexes. He did
not know whether the tower was fixed at Flat no. 366 as
mentioned in Exh.571. Addresses of Cell ID 15333 in
Exh.571 and in Exh.575 are different. Addresses of Cell
I.D. numbers of 16921, 16922 and 16923 were one and the
same in Exh.571. Addresses of Cell I.D. number 16922
in Exh.571 and Exh.575 were different. The sectors were
different. In Exh.575 address of Cell ID number 16922
was mentioned as Mumbai. There was difference between
Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. There was difference of sectors
mentioned in Exh.571 and Exh.575 in respect of Cell ID
no.16923. Address of Cell ID no. 16921 was Navi Mumbai,
Sector 29 and address of the said Cell ID in Exh. 575
was Sector no.10, Mumbai. In Exh.570 and Exh.574
information as regards to the same Cell ID was asked
for by the S.I.T. All information retrieved and
furnished to the S.I.T. was computer generated.
...656/-
Exh.1124 656 (J-SC 317/10)
626. Further cross examination discloses that,
addresses of Cell I.D. 16732 and 16733 in Exh.571 were
one and the same. There was no mention of Sector number
in Exh.571. Addresses of these Cell ID's in Exh.575
were different than their addresses in Exh.571. There
was no mention of Sector of Cell ID 17022 in Exh. 571.
There was no mention of Bus Depot in respect of Cell
I.D. 17022 in Exh. 575. Addresses of Cell ID 60171 in
Exh.571 and Exh.575 were different. He did not know
whether, Koknipada and Ghartan Pada were different
areas and that, whether distance between these two
areas (locations) was of 30 kms. Cell I.D. number 40132
and its address Sector no. 9 A, Navi Mumbai which was
mentioned in Exh.571 was not mentioned in Exh.575.
Letter Exh. 570 did not mention the time of its receipt
in their office and name of the person who received the
said letter. It did not bear his signature or initials.
Exh.571 did not bear seal of their office. There was no
date below his signature on Exh.571. The witness denied
that, therefore, he could not tell as to on which date
the information was furnished. He did not put date
after he put his signature. I prepared Exh. 571. When
he went to the office of the SIT he did not carry with
him the documents which were shown to him before the
Court. The witness denied that, he furnished the
information by making corrections in Exh.575 at the say
...657/-
Exh.1124 657 (J-SC 317/10)
of the S.I.T. as the said information did not appear or
was incorrect in Exh. 571 or vice versa. A copy of
Exh.571 remained in his office record. A different
information was sought by letters Exh.570 and Exh.574
by the S.I.T. At the time of sending information vide
Exh.575, he knew that the information was already sent
vide letter Exh.571. Cell ID and Site ID were in
respect of tower location i.e. the place where tower
was fixed or erected. He did not know whether the range
of a tower or numbers of towers increased as per the
density of population.
627. Further cross examination discloses that, he
did not receive Exh.572. It did not bear initial or
signature of the person from his office who received
the said letter. It did not mention time and name of
the person who received it but date was mentioned
there. The information of Cell ID's was retrieved from
the Master Computer by feeding addresses in it. The
said information was provided by the I.T. Department.
The said information was forwarded by him to the S.I.T.
The information furnished by the I.T. Department was
reflected on the computer of his office. He could not
tell as to on which date and at what time did the
information from the I.T. Department reflect on his
office computer. It was not mentioned at the first
page of Exh.573 that information was furnished on his
...658/-
Exh.1124 658 (J-SC 317/10)
office computer by the I.T. Department and then it was
retrieved and was furnished to the S.I.T. There was a
password and a unique number of the computer provided
to him by his office. The 2
nd
page of Exh.573 did not
bear unique number provided to him by the I.T.
Department. That day meant September, 2010. He did
not know whether cell I.D. nos. 16921 and 54561 were
one and the same or not.
628. Further cross examination discloses that, in
his reply letter Exh.573 which was in response to
letter Exh.572, there was no mention of In front of
Magnum, Opus Building, Versova Link Road, Nana-Nani
Park, Seven Bungalows, Andheri, Mumbai. The requisite
information demanded in letter Exh.572 was not
furnished in Exh.573 in respect of the addresses.
Address as required in Idem no. 4 and 5 in letter Exh.
572 was not furnished in Exh.573. The addresses of the
Cell ID's furnished by him were different than demanded
by the S.I.T. He relied on the information furnished by
the I.T. Department, got it typed and furnished the
same to the S.I.T., along-with his covering letter.
Exh. 573 page no. 2 did not bear his signature or
initial. Except his bare verbatim, there was no other
proof to show that page no.2 of Exh.573 was prepared by
him. The witness denied that, he furnished wrong Cell
ID's along-with addresses to the S.I.T. He was asked to
...659/-
Exh.1124 659 (J-SC 317/10)
furnish information as regards to addresses of the Cell
ID's mentioned in Exh.572. He did not have any recored
to show that he requested the I.T. Department to
furnish the requisite information sought by the S.I.T.
There was also no record to show that the I.T.
Department furnished the information at his request. He
did not know as to who received letter Exh.578. Page
nos. 2 to 6 of Exh.579 did not bear his signatures or
initials. Information as regards to the Cell ID's
mentioned in Exh. 578 was in the backup system, when it
was asked on 22.03.2010 vide O.W.no.228/DCP/SIT/2010.
There was overwriting on outward number. He did not
know in whose handwriting the said over writing was
made. Activation date of Cell ID no. 9867429023 was
28.01.2006 as mentioned in Exh.579. On 1
st
page of the
said document there was no seal and his signature.
There was no seal on 2
nd
page (Exh. 579). The
information of 7 mobiles mentioned in Exh. 579 was
received by him from the I.T. Department. He did not
know as to when did the I.T. Department furnish
information to him which was mentioned at page nos. 2
to 6 in Exh. 579. When the information was furnished
by the I.T. Department to his office, the information
along-with date and time was furnished to his office.
629. Further cross examination discloses that,
there was no seal and date below his signature at Exh.
...660/-
Exh.1124 660 (J-SC 317/10)
585. It was reply of Exh.584. The details of mobile
number 9867429023 were asked for. There was mention of
Mobile no.9867429023. The Mobile number was one and the
same in Exh.584 and Exh.579. Activation dates of the
same mobile were mentioned different dates as
28.01.2006 and 31.01.2006. He knew that there was
activation, deactivation and re-activation. Those dates
were fed in the server and in the Master Computer. When
the I.T. Department retrieved the information, the same
dates would be reflected. Information in Exh.579 and
Exh.585 was furnished to him by the I.T. Department and
that he did not verify it. Information furnished to him
at the relevant time by the I.T. Department was not
with him while deposing before the Court. page 1
st
and
2
nd
of the said Exhibit did not bear seal of his office.
Inward number on 1
st
page was not of his Company. He
could not tell as to of which office/police station was
the said Inward number. He knew that format in server
or Master Computer did not change. There were changes
in the format of CDR's in Exh.579 and Exh.585. The data
in server was received in time sequence. He did not
know about it as regards to the information in backup.
The date and time column and the calls were not in time
sequence in Exh.579 as those were taken from backup.
Only hours and minutes were mentioned in it. The
witness denied that, in one document the format was of
12 hours while in another document the format was of 24
...661/-
Exh.1124 661 (J-SC 317/10)
hours.
630. Further cross examination discloses that,
page no.1
st
, O.W.no.507/DCP/SIT/2010 dated 23.08.2010
information as regards to mobile no. 9867429023 of a
period since 09.11.2006 to 15.11.2006 was furnished,
though it was asked for 09.11.2006 to 30.11.2006.
Information of mobile no.9867156442 and 9867777724 was
also furnished. The information was furnished to him
by the I.T. Department as per Exh.580, in respect of 4
mobile numbers. Exh.580 did not bear signature or
initial of the person who received the said letter.
The witness denied that, any person from his office put
seal on the letter received by the office. He did not
know who placed the said letter on his table on
24.08.2010. His signatures were not on page nos.2 to
13 on Exh.581. It was forwarded to his computer by the
I.T. Department. It did not bear electronic signature
of forwarding authority of I.T. Department. He did not
mention in enclosure column of forwarding letter, the
page numbers of Exh.581. He forwarded information to
the S.I.T. on the same day on which he received the
information from the I.T. Department. Except his bare
verbatim there was no other proof to show that the
information was sent to the S.I.T. on the same day on
which he received it from the I.T. Department. The
time format in Exh. 581 was of 12 hours. About 24 calls
...662/-
Exh.1124 662 (J-SC 317/10)
in Exh. 581 were printed repeatedly.
631. Further cross examination discloses that, the
Mobile number of the caller of SMS from Vodafone, Loop,
Reliance, MTS, Uninor and Airtel to Airtel, Dolphin,
Videocon, Tata Docomo would be reflected on those
mobiles and vice versa. The beginning of the
Certificate would be ------I------, Nodal officer,
certify that. They get acknowledgment of the letter
issued by them. He did not know who put inward number
on Exh.581. He was not asked to furnish information as
regards to mobile no. 9892344123. He did not furnish
information of the said mobile number in letter Exh.
583. The SIT made inquiry within 10 to 15 minutes with
him and then he left office of the S.I.T. He did not
remember as to on how many occasions the S.I.T. called
him. The SIT did not show him documents and did not
record his statement accordingly. He gave statement on
the basis of documents which he had with him. He did
not furnish copies of documents to the S.I.T. at the
time of recording his statement. The S.I.T. did not
show documents Exh.582 and Exh.583 to him. It never
happened that they sent information to the S.I.T.
before they received the said information from the I.T.
Department. It also did not happen in respect of Exh.
582 and Exh.583. Exh.582 was dated 26.03.2010 and Exh.
583 was dated 25.03.2010. The witness made it clear
...663/-
Exh.1124 663 (J-SC 317/10)
that, it was a typing mistake. The acknowledgment of
Exh.583 was received by them on 04.05.2010. On
04.05.2010 copy of letter Exh.582 was with them. He did
not write as regards to typing mistake to the S.I.T on
04.05.2010. There was no seal of Company on document
Exh.583. Document Exh.583 was prepared on his computer.
632. Further cross examination discloses that, he
gave statement dated 15.10.2011 to the S.I.T. Outward
number mentioned in Exh.583 appeared in para no.7 of
his statement. He did not state contents in para no.7
in his statement dated 15.10.2011 before the S.I.T. He
could not assign any reason as to why said Portion
appeared in his statement dated 15.10.2011 before the
S.I.T. (Portion marked A). Exh.584 did not bear
signature and initial of the person who received the
letter as well as the time of its receipt. It also did
not bear seal of the Company. The certificate did not
bear name of the Nodal Officer. It spoke of the Nodal
officer. He put signature for the Company and not for
the Nodal officer. Page nos. 3 to 14 did not bear his
initial or signatures. The witness on his own deposed
that, It was system generated report and did not need
signature. It was written on the document. He did not
know about electronic signature. The witness denied
that, Electronic Generated Report required Electronic
signature. This information was taken from on-line
...664/-
Exh.1124 664 (J-SC 317/10)
server. The period of counting the backup year began
from preceding month of the present month. The I.T.
Department fed information in Master Computer. From
there it was transmitted to his computer and from there
he took the information and furnished it to Law
Enforcement Agencies or Security Agencies. He stated
this fact before the S.I.T. Master Computer was also
called backup system. The witness denied that, if a
Nodal Officer or Asstt. Nodal Officer had to retrieve
information, he had to get it from I.T. Department of
the Company. There was a Password of the system of
Master computer. The password was secret and it
remained with the I.T. Department and also with them.
Everyone from the Company did not have access to the
Master Computer. The witness denied that, he prepared
documents at the say of the S.I.T. and put his
signature on those documents and that, he was deposing
false as tutored by the S.I.T.
633. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not possess technical knowledge
regarding range of Cell ID. He did not know whether
contents were true and correct or not. He was not
competent to speak about range of Cell ID. In his
Company record was maintained for a period of one year.
After period of one year, that record went to the
backup. The witness denied that, after period of one
...665/-
Exh.1124 665 (J-SC 317/10)
year the information was reconstructed from the
archives. Information furnished to the S.I.T. was not
directly retrieved from the backup. According to him
information stored from backup was transferred to the
server. He did not know as to how the said information
was transferred from backup to the server and vice
verse. He was not involved in those processes. He did
not know whether the information in the server and in
the backup was stored in one and the same format or in
two different formats. He could not tell whether the
information as regards to SMS or Calls was recorded
chronologically in the server. Normally it did not
happen that if there was only one call or SMS there
were more than one entries in the call or SMS records
in the server. He did not know about it as regards to
the backup. In this case all reports except one were
retrieved from the backup. One report was retrieved
on-line i.e. Exh. 585.
634. The witness further deposed that, there was
one Master Computer in his Company. That Master
Computer covered the entire area of Greater Mumbai. He
could not tell how many servers were there in the
Company. He could not even tell approximate number.
The information was not retrieved from the Master
Computer. The contents in the Certificate in Exh.585
that, I Certify that printouts as detailed below are
...666/-
Exh.1124 666 (J-SC 317/10)
true and correct as per the Electronic Records,
supplied from the Master Computer. The Computer of
the Nodal Officer was connected to the Master Computer.
They take copies form their own Computers. He could not
tell as to how and when the information was transferred
from server to the Master Computer. He did not remember
whether he stated in his statement dated 15.10.2011
before SIT that, If the data was of a period of more
than one year then it was retrieved by I.T. I.T. feeds
the data in their server. It has been brought on
record as omission. The witness admitted that, he did
not state before SIT that, they retrieved data from
Master Computer. The witness could not tell as to how
the call details were not chronologically or in its
order mentioned in the information format. He could
not tell why there was difference as regards to calls,
chronology, format and repetition as regards to the
printouts of the same number for the same period
retrieved on two different occasions. He could not tell
as to why the address of the Cell ID's changed.
According to him address of the Cell ID was permanent.
The S.I.T. never questioned him as regards to change
of the addresses of the Cell ID's. He could not tell
as to how sometimes SMS were shown and sometimes were
not shown in the printouts of the same period and same
number. If a call was made or received from other
mobile provider, the same call would be recorded in
...667/-
Exh.1124 667 (J-SC 317/10)
their system as well as in the system of other mobile
provider. The witness on his own deposed that, there
could be difference of a minute or two.
635. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shabbir Mehaboob
Sayyad (PW-66), Exh.588 that, since the year 2000 to
January 2007, he was attached to Magazine Section
Armoury Division, Naigaon, in the capacity of a Police
Head constable. Entries vide Exhs. 589 and 590 in the
register show that, pistols and 30 rounds were allotted
to Versova police station, who in turn handed over to
PSI Ashok Bellare from Versova police station. Article
19 and Article 21 pistols before the Court are the
same. So also, entry at Exh.591 is in respect of
getting deposited a revolver along with 30 rounds from
PSI Mr.Dilip Palande (accused no.15) from General
Branch. Article-18 revolver before the Court is the
same. Entry Exh.592 is in respect of handing over
revolver and 30 rounds to accused Palande. Vide Exh.
512, he handed over a revolver and 30 rounds to Pradeep
Sharma (accused no.1). A letter Exh.593 was received
from accused Pradeep Sharma. Accordingly, he handed
over a revolver and rounds to Pradeep Sharma. Pradeep
Sharma deposited Ruger Revolver and 30 rounds.
Article-69 revolver before the Court is the same.
636. During cross examination the witness deposed
...668/-
Exh.1124 668 (J-SC 317/10)
that, he handed over arms and ammunitions to Mr.
Pradeep Sharma only after perusal of the orders of the
superiors. Entry Exh.512 dated 24.12.2001 is
description of the rounds. Entry by Mr. Santosh Brid is
in respect of depositing a revolver T.T. 700. Stamp at
Exh.593 is of The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Detection Crime Branch. Exh.512 does not bear his
signature at any place.
637. It has further come in his evidence that, the
witness has denied that, he cannot identify Ruger
Revolver if it is kept/ mixed with other revolvers or
weapons. The witness, on his own, deposed that, cross
entries were in the handwriting of Mr. Santosh Brid. He
did not carry any documents with him when he went to
the SIT for giving his statement. The SIT also did not
tell him to bring any documents. The SIT showed him
many documents and asked him as to which documents were
in his handwriting. He had seen the documents for the
first time with the SIT which were shown to him by
them. He did not know who handed over documents from
Armoury Department to the SIT.
638. It has come in evidence of Mr.Manoj Ambadas
Desai (PW-67), P.C., Exh.600 that, since 2002 to 2005
he was serving as a Police Constable in Magazine
Section, Armoury Division, Naigaon. He was assigned
...669/-
Exh.1124 669 (J-SC 317/10)
duties of distribution/ allotment of arm/s and
ammunitions to the police officers and police personnel
and also to get arms and ammunitions deposited from
those police officers and police personnel, if they
proceeded on earned leave and medical leave. Those
arms and ammunitions were being deposited on temporary
basis. He used to take entries of distribution or
arm/s, ammunitions and depositing of the arm/s and
ammunitions, in the relevant register. Vide entries
Exhs. 601 and 601A, Exhs.602 and 602A and 603 and 603A
in a Register, revolver, rounds and brass rods were
given to D.N. Nagar police station. Accused Pradeep
Sharma from Crime Branch deposited .38 bore revolver TT
Butt no.700, manufacturing no.405724 along with 22
rounds permanently in Naigaon Armory and one .38
revolver of Ruger Company butt no.347 along with 30
rounds. Article No.69 revolver before the Court is the
same which was allotted to accused Pradeep Sharma.
639. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, the witness joined the police department on
11.02.1996. Since 1996 to May 2005 he was serving in
Naigaon Armoury, LA-1, Naigaon, Mumbai. Since January
2002 to January 2005 he was serving in Magazine
Section. On 09.03.2010, the SIT recorded his statement
as per his say. He was interrogated by Mr. Prasanna and
he replied to his interrogation. Omission as regards to
...670/-
Exh.1124 670 (J-SC 317/10)
the endorsement overleaf Exh.593 was in his handwriting
and that signature of Pradeep Sharma was there below
the said endorsement has been brought on record.
Omission as regards to arms and ammunitions being
handed over to Pradeep Sharma is also brought on record
through cross examination. The witness denied that, he
had seen document Exh.593 for the first time before the
Court on that day and that, he deposed false about
document Exh.593. The witness also denied that, he
falsely identified Article 69 before the Court at the
say of the SIT. The Sr.PI, Armoury, issues orders to
replace old register by a new register. He did not know
whether the Sr.PI is required to submit his report to
the superiors stating that the register became old.
Information of a register becoming old is submitted by
Magazine Section to the Sr.PI. The information is not
submitted in writing. It is orally submitted. Orders
regarding maintenance of a new register are made in
writing. He could not tell as to when did the register
became old. He could not tell the date of commencement
of the new register. The witness denied that, he was
deposing false in respect of entries in old register
and its reference in the new register and its
comparing.
640. It has come in the evidence of Mrs. Geetanjali
Shrikrishna Datar (PW-68), Exh.604, that, in the year
...671/-
Exh.1124 671 (J-SC 317/10)
2006, she was serving as Sheristedar in Court Room No.
48 in City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay.
Then Presiding Officer of the said Court was HHJ Mr.
Vasekar. Cases under NDPS were being tried before the
said Court. At that time, she was having mobile bearing
No.9969062638, which was in the name of her husband.
She knew Mr. Pradeep Sharma as an officer. Mr.Pradeep
Sharma had some cases under Narcotics Act in different
Courts, including Court Room No.48 for a period of 5 to
6 years till the year 2006. There was one D.F matter in
her Court, in which one accused had been arrested and
was brought before the Court. The case was reopened
and Mr. Pradeep Sharma was the Investigating Officer in
the said case. Once Mr. Pradeep Sharma had come in
Court No.48. Thereafter, constables used to attend the
said case. The constable told her that, if certified
copy of the judgment was required, then she should call
Mr. Pradeep Sharma on his phone. The constable gave her
phone number of Mr Pradeep Sharma. The case was tried
in the month of October November' 2006.
641. In the month of November, 2006, phone of Mr.
Pradeep Sharma was given to her. She called to the said
phone. She heard only Hello and then phone was
disconnected. Then she received a call on her phone.
She said that, Judgment was ready and copy of the
Judgment could be received. The other side did not
...672/-
Exh.1124 672 (J-SC 317/10)
reply. She did not ask as to who was speaking at the
other end. She did not remember exact time of the phone
call that she made. At the time of recording her
statement, police officer had shown her list of
telephone numbers. The witness identified her phone
number from Exh.543. She did not remember the number to
which she made a call and to whom she talked on phone.
She did not know Hitesh Solanki. (As the witness
resiled from her earlier statement and declined to
fully support the prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the
State put questions to the witness as per the
provisions of Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act).
642. During the questions put to the witness under
Section 154 of the Evidence Act, the witness deposed
that, she served for a period of 28 years in the Court,
out of which she worked in the Court Room for a period
of 20 years in the capacity of Interpreter, Sheristedar
etc. Her statement was not recorded as per her say by
the SIT. Some portion was written down as per her say,
but some portion was not written down as per her say.
The witness denied that, she read statement and found
it to be true and correct. She knew importance of her
statement before the SIT and that there was possibility
of calling her as a prosecution witness. She did not
point out the facts which she did not state and which
were written in her statement and the facts which she
...673/-
Exh.1124 673 (J-SC 317/10)
stated and were not written in her statement to the
SIT. She did not tell her husband and her son that, the
SIT did not wrote down what she stated before them and
wrote down what she did not state before them though
her husband and son accompanied her to the office of
the SIT at the time of recording her statement. Mobile
no. 9969062638 is still with her husband and at the
time of deposing before the Court she was having mobile
no.9821445764. The witness perused Exh.543 (CDR) and
deposed that, she made a call on 11.11.2006 at 13.01
hours from her mobile number to mobile no. 9821552987
for 10 seconds. On the same date, at 13.14.17 hours,
she talked on the same mobile number for 91 seconds.
She received that call. At the time of recording her
statement, she was shown those two entries and was
interrogated about it. She gave information that, the
matter of Mr. Sharma was reopened in her court and that
one personnel met her and told her that, PI Sharma's
matter was on board and if he was unable to attend that
matter, but she did not state that or if warrant is
issued against Mr. Pradeep Sharma. She stated before
the SIT that, one mobile number was given to her by
writing it on paper. She contacted to the mobile
number, which was given to her by the police personnel.
As per the CDR, it is the said number which was
confronted by the SIT to her, from which she received a
call on her mobile on 11.11.2006. The witness
...674/-
Exh.1124 674 (J-SC 317/10)
categorically deposed that, it did not happen that on
11.11.2006, during first call, there was a talk on
phone and that she talked and there was an answer Thik
Ahe (All right) from the other end. It also did not
happen that, she told Sharma saheb tumchi 48 number
courtatli case sampli ahe (Sharmasaheb your case in in
Court No.48 is over). She also did not state this
fact in her statement before police. The witness could
not assign any reason as to why the said portion was so
written in her statement before the police. The witness
further deposed that, she did not verify as to who she
was talking to. It has further come in her evidence
that, the person at the other end said Thik Ahe (All
right) and disconnected the phone. She felt that, the
said number might be of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. At that
time, she did not try to know as to who was speaking
from the other end. She did not try to know as to who
was to send constable to her for collecting the copy.
It did not happen that, during second call, she was
told that, some constable would be sent to her for
collecting the certified copy and that she was
requested to hand over the copy to him. She could not
assign any reason as to why the said portion appeared
in her statement before the SIT. She did not state in
her statement before police that, Sharma saheb tumchi
court number 48 madhil case sampli ahe (The case of
Mr. Pradeep Sharma was over in Court No.48). The
...675/-
Exh.1124 675 (J-SC 317/10)
witness could not assign any reason as to why the said
portion appeared in her statement. She also did not
state that, Judgementchi certified copy ghenyas
konitari constablela pathvil tyanna copy dhenayachi
vinanti ahe and Me Po-ni Sharma yana, Sharma saheb
tumchi 48 number courtatil case sampli ahe.
643. It has further come in her evidence that, she
did not receive any more calls except those two calls.
The witness could not tell as to whether she made call
on mobile no. 9821552987 at 21-24-43 and spoke for 62
seconds on 15.11.2006. Even on that day, she did not
try to know as to who was there at the other end as it
was the phone of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. The witness was
shown Exh.543. The witness denied that she was deposing
false under the pressure of accused no.1 and that she
was fully aware that it was the phone number of Mr.
Pradeep Sharma and therefore, she did not try to know
as to with whom she was speaking.
644. During cross examination by the accused, the
witness deposed that, she did not remember as to who
was accused in the D.F case of 1986. The case was
reopened in October, 2006. Mr.Pradeep Sharma had come
in the court before the constable met her. Mr.Pradeep
Sharma did not meet her, as she was on leave on that
day. After she reached to the Court, she came to know
...676/-
Exh.1124 676 (J-SC 317/10)
that evidence of Mr. Pradeep Sharma was recorded in the
Court. She did not meet Pradeep Sharma personally in
relation to the D.F case. She did not know name of the
constable who had come to her. She also did not know
the police station from which he had come. She did not
remember number given by the constable. She also did
not know the number when she was called by the SIT.
645. It has further come in her evidence that, the
SIT showed phone number to her. She felt that perhaps
the said number might have been the number which was
given to her by the constable, but she could not
confirmatively depose that the phone number that
appeared in the CDR was the same phone number which was
given to her by the constable. She felt that, the
number might be of Mr. Pradeep Sharma as it was given
by the constable. Though she talked to the said phone
she could not tell as to who was at the other end. She
did not know as to in whose name the phone stood, which
was given to her by the constable. She did not record
the said number anywhere. She did not state before the
SIT that once Mr. Pradeep Sharma had come to Court No.
48 and cases under NDPS Act in which Mr.Pradeep Sharma
was the Investigating Officer were pending before
various Courts for the last five to six years. The
witness denied that, constable did not give her phone
number saying that it was of Pradeep Sharma. She did
...677/-
Exh.1124 677 (J-SC 317/10)
not know any incident except talking on phone on two
occasions. She also did not know any person. She, on
her own, did not give name of Hitesh Solanki to the
police. The police did not ask her as to whether she
knew Hitesh Solanki. She never tried to know as to who
was the person talking from other side. The said
person did not disclose his name. She did not know as
to whether on 11.11.2006 she talked to Pradeep Sharma
or any constable. On 14.03.2010, she did not know as to
whom did the number belong. On 11.11.2006, Pradeep
Sharma did not speak to her on cell number belonging to
him.
646. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shekhar Vinayak
Palande (PW-69), Nodal Officer from TATA Tel-Services
Maharashtra Ltd., Exh.605 that, since November, 2004 he
had been serving as a Nodal Officer in TATA Tele-
services Maharashtra Ltd. He received a letter (Exh.
606) from the SIT seeking information as regards to
CDR, SDR, Tower Location and Cell ID of mobile no.
9224394910. Accordingly, he supplied information sought
vide Exh.607(colly). He furnished the said information
under signature of Mr. Baby John, who was his senior
officer.
647. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, Mr. Baby John was appointed in March, 2004. At
...678/-
Exh.1124 678 (J-SC 317/10)
the time of furnishing requisite information to the
SIT, he and Mr. Baby John were serving as Nodal
Officers. He is not a Computer Engineer. As a Nodal
Officer his duty was to furnish information and nothing
more. Approximately, 2000 to 2200 BTS were in Mumbai,
in the year 2009 to 2010. Each tower has a special
Unique Code Number, which is important for tracking the
mobile number or its call. Cell ID and Site ID show
the actual area where the particular tower is located.
Each tower covers Alfa, Beta, Gama. Each tower's area
coverage depends upon population Density and Location
of the tower. One tower covers an area of 500 meters to
1500 meters. If the cell ID shows a person near a
particular tower it means the said person on call is
within the coverage area of the said tower. It does
not necessarily mean that he is at the particular
tower. If the requisite information sought by the Law
Enforcement Agencies is of a period of more than one
year, the said information is to be retrieved from I.T.
Department of their Company. The letter in this behalf
is sent from his personal computer to the I.T.
Department. It is sent from their Master Computer to
the I.T. Department of their Company. He did not have
his personal computer. They had only Master Computer.
First he inserts his User ID and password through VTM
tool and he takes requisite information. The
information comes to him with reference to his user ID.
...679/-
Exh.1124 679 (J-SC 317/10)
After receiving the information he passes it on to
the Law Enforcement Agencies.
648. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, they take printouts from the Master
Computer. If a person wants to enter into the Master
Computer he must have password. The witness further
deposed that, he did not have an authority to sign the
letter. Mr. Baby John had an authority to sign letter
therefore his signature does not bear on the letter.
Except his bare verbatim, there is no proof to show
that on 03.09.2010, he did not have authority to sign
the letter. He did not have any authority to receive
any letters. He had authority to retrieve information
from the Master Computer by using his user ID. Page
nos. 2 to 20 in Exh.607 do not bear his signature and
that of Mr. Baby John. As it is a computer generated
record therefore, it does not require signature. Last
page no.18 mentions that the document is computer
generated record therefore it does not require
signature. Last page means last of the CDR i.e. page
no.20 of Exh.607. The letter dated 03.09.2010 does not
mention as to how many pages are enclosed with the
letter. Page nos. 1 to 20 of Exh.607 do not show his
user ID. It is not in CDR and in Cell ID. Exh.606 is
a xerox copy. There is no proof except his bare
verbatim to show that the information was retrieved by
...680/-
Exh.1124 680 (J-SC 317/10)
him by using his User ID. The witness has denied that,
it is mandatory to issue a certificate by a Nodal
officer when a computer generated information in
respect of SDR, CDR & Cell ID is furnished to the Law
Enforcement Agencies.
649. Further cross examination discloses that, the
information of the Caller or the received call is first
recorded in the server and after a period of one year,
it is stored in backup system. Incoming and outgoing
calls are recorded in a chronological order. If it is
not recorded due to some technical fault then it would
remain blank, but such things never happen. The fifth
row on page no.2 from bottom is blank. Overleaf of page
no.3, row no.8 from top is blank. Page no.5, row no.8
from bottom is blank. Page no.7, row no.4 from bottom
and overleaf of page no.7, row nos.12,13 and 14 from
bottom; page no.8, row no.5 from top; page no.9, row
no.3 from bottom; page no.10 overleaf, row no.12 from
top and row nos.3 and 7 from bottom; page no.11, row
nos.7 and 8 from top and overleaf of page no.11, row
nos.5 and 6 from top and row nos.1,2,3 and 4 from
bottom and page no.12, row no.8 from top are blank. The
witness deposed on his own that, all blanks mentioned
above are to the extent of SMS only. The particulars of
the SMS are blank. ESN Number, IMSI Number and Cell ID/
location remain blank. Location of Cell ID is not
...681/-
Exh.1124 681 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded.
650. Further cross examination discloses that,
addresses of Cell IDs and Site IDs do not change. There
are two different Cell IDs mentioned in Exh.607 at page
no.19. These are having same address. There are three
Cell IDs 16,17 and 18 under one tower. There is one
address of two different Cell IDs. The witness denied
that, Cell ID would be different and that it is not
concerned with Alpha, Beta and Gama. Page no.20, Cell
ID Nos.3601 and 9857, these are from different towers.
The witness denied that, addresses are same and that
it cannot be Alpha, Beta and Gama.
651. It has come in evidence of Mr. Manoj Bhagwan
Kamble (PW-70), Exh.608, that, he knew Dhabbu i.e.
accused no.5, as accused no.5 used to organize cricket
matches. He had given his photographs, xerox copy of
Election Card and driving license to accused no.5 for
getting a job, but after some days, when he asked
accused no.5 about the job, the accused told him that
on the basis of those documents he obtained one mobile
SIM Card bearing No. 9930754949.
652. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he and his family resided at the house of his
friend and were dependent on him, in the year 2009. he
...682/-
Exh.1124 682 (J-SC 317/10)
could write alphabets- 'M,A,N,O,J'. He knew that, these
alphabets were there in his name. He could write his
name as M,A,N,O,J. He could write it but it would not
look as proper wording(Tute-phute). Further cross
examination discloses that, he never handed over any
original documents to Dhabbu. He wrote words 'M A N O
J' in distracted manner on those documents. He had
written the words M A N O J. He did not put those
words on his photograph at Exh.453. He did not write
at the bottom of document words M A N O J. It bears
his signature only. All the three writings on the said
documents were not his writings. The mode of writing
was as that of his writing. There can be difference in
his own mode of writings.
653. Further cross examination discloses that, he
was having his own mobile number 9969778459. Prior to
handing over the documents to Dhabbu, he was using the
said mobile for a period of 5 years prior to that. It
was of MTNL Dolphin Company. For getting that mobile,
he might have filled in the form and also produced
documents. The said mobile stood in the name of his
friend and not in his name. There was one free SIM
Card on another. The said phone number did not stand
in his name even while deposing before the Court. He
did not remember phone number of his friend. It was
lost. His number was issued free on the phone number
...683/-
Exh.1124 683 (J-SC 317/10)
of his friend. At the relevant time, his friend was
having a mobile phone. He did not know its number.
Name of his friend was Kumar Swami Gauda, His address
was Haribhau Patil Chawl, New Agripada Santacruz(E)
Mumbai 55. He was residing in his neighborhood. They
had been good friends till date. There had been a
quarrel with his friend prior to two to three months
and prior to that, they were good friends and they used
to talk on mobile. He knew that after a call is made,
the number appears in another mobile. To get a mobile
one has to fill in the form along-with original
documents, such as address proof etc., then inquiry is
made by the Company concerned by verifying address
etc., and then the mobile is activated. Then
representative of the Company visits the given address
and only after verification the mobile is activated,
which takes a weeks time.
654. Further cross examination discloses that, he
went to the S.I.T. They asked his name, address and
mobile number and some oral inquiry was made with him
and then he was asked to go away. After 20.10.2010, he
had no occasion to visit office of the S.I.T. Police
did not ask him about his signatures or writings.
Police did not ask him about the documents that were
given for obtaining his mobile number i.e. 9969778489.
Police did not make inquiry in respect of any person or
...684/-
Exh.1124 684 (J-SC 317/10)
any document. He left office of the S.I.T. after 10 to
15 minutes. Before leaving the office and after making
inquiry, he did not know as to what did the police
officer do. He saw document Exh.453 for the first time
in the court after the document was handed over to the
person. He did not have an occasion to see Exh.453 in
the office of the S.I.T. He did not know difference
between SIM number and Mobile number. The S.I.T asked
him as regards to mobile number 9930754949 and told him
that the said number was in operation. He did not know
as to when was the said number activated and
deactivated or reactivated. Police told him about
mobile number and not of SIM card number. He did not
know whether police reduced into writing his statement
or not and he was not aware about the same and also
about the contents of the statement. Document Exh.453
does not contain his Driving License. He had been a
good driver for the last 10 years. He drove different
vehicles in intervals at different time. I was getting
Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day on daily wages if he drove
a vehicle. He maintained his family on the basis of
his wages.
655. Further cross examination discloses that, he
knows that unless a person produces original, a mobile
is not activated by any Company. Dhabbu did not ask
him to hand over to him his original documents. He did
...685/-
Exh.1124 685 (J-SC 317/10)
not receive a call on his phone from the person by name
'Dhabbu'. He had handed over the documents for a job
because he did not have a permanent Job. He was fade up
with the temporary jobs. Even for getting a temporary
job, one has to show Identity Card, Driving License
etc. The witness denied that, he deposed false that
Dhabbu made demand of documents to him and that he did
not hand over documents to Dhabbu for obtaining
permanent Job. The witness further denied that, Dhabbu
did not tell him to produce the documents for obtaining
job and that he did not tell the witness that the
documents were used by him for obtaining a SIM card.
The witness further denied that, he was deposing false
and that he was having jobs and that he did not go to
Dhabbu at any point of time for job. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false, fabricated or concocted
story before the Court at the say of the SIT due to
fear of his life.
656. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dattatray
Bhagwan Koyte (PW-71) Exh.609 that, on 12.11.2006, at
the request of police officer Mr.Sankhe, he acted as a
panch on panchanama Exh.286. In the police station
there were police officers Mr.Palande and Mr.Saravankar
(Accused nos.15 and 22). Under the said panchanama,
accused Mr.Palande and Mr.Sarvankar handed over empty
cartridges to Mr. Sankhe. Article No.60 and Article No.
...686/-
Exh.1124 686 (J-SC 317/10)
63 empty cartridges before the Court were the same.
657. During cross examination, the witness denied
that, accused no.9 was not present in Versova police
station and that, he did not produce any empty
cartridge.
658. It has come in evidence of Mr.Manohar Gangaram
Desai (PW-72), Exh.610, retired PSI, Exh.610 that, as
per entry dated 18.10.2006 in station diary (Exhs.611
and 611A), police constable Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai
(accused no.2), buckle No.31241 and police constable
Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde (accused no.7), buckle No.
31343 were transferred from Crime Branch Unit XI to
Versova police station. Vide entry no.31 dated
18.10.2006 made by him (Exh.612 and 612A) above
mentioned constables (the accused) were transferred
from Versova police station to D.N.Nagar police
station. The defence has declined to cross examine the
witness.
659. It has come in evidence of Mr.Vilas Parmanand
Kandalgaonkar(PW-73), Exh.614 that, since the year 2001
to the year 2007, he was attached to Versova Police
station as a Constable. On 11.11.2006, when he was
attached to Versova police station, he reduced into
writing spot panchanama(Exh.283) as dictated by
...687/-
Exh.1124 687 (J-SC 317/10)
officers from Detection Branch. The panchanama was in
respect of exchange of firing that took place on
11.11.2006 at Saat Bungalow, Nana Nani Park. He met
with an accident in 1997 and had undergone operations
on two occasions. There was slip disc, due to which he
could not stand and walk properly. Therefore, he was
on leave.
660. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, he did not state before the SIT that, P.I. Sankhe
told him to go to the Detection Branch and that, P.I.
Sankhe told him to do as per the orders of the officers
in the detection room. Omissions as regards to, 'then
he went to the Detection Branch' has been brought on
record. The witness denied that, he was deposing false
at the say of the SIT that he would be arrayed as an
accused and also that, he had knowledge that panchanama
Exh.283 was recorded at Nana Nani Park, i.e. at the
place of incident. The witness denied that, he gave
statement dated 28.08.2010 to the SIT under pressure
and to support the prosecution case. Till 28.08.2010,
he did not tell anyone that the spot panchanama was
prepared in detection room of Versova police station.
After 2007, he was transferred to LA-IV. After joining
LA-IV, he was on leave for a major period. The witness
denied that, on 28.08.2010, he was on leave. In the
year 2009, he did not resume duties for a period of
...688/-
Exh.1124 688 (J-SC 317/10)
nine months. In the year 2010, he was on leave for a
period of six months. He did not remember whether he
was on leave for 160 days in the year 2008. He
proceeded on leave in the year 2008 without getting
prior sanction. The witness denied that, in the year
2011, he proceeded on leave without prior sanction for
about 4 to 5 months. There is no entry as regards to
the N.C., in which Mr.Gujjar asked him to accompany the
party. N.C. cannot be investigated into by police
without the sanction by a Magistrate. He made entry in
his diary of the said N.C., but it was not with him
that day. He did not produce the said diary before the
SIT. He did not tell the SIT about the said diary.
661. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, distance between Versova police station
and Saat Bungalow Police Chowki can be crossed by walk
in half an hour and by a vehicle within 15 minutes.
The distance might be of 3 kms. He did not tell the SIT
that, he accompanied the party in the N.C to a place
behind Saat Bungalow Police Chowki. At the time of
recording his statement, he did not remember name of
the complainant in the N.C., therefore, he did not
state his name before the SIT. Omission as regards to
I returned to the police station at 11 pm, has been
brought on record through cross examination. Except the
panchanama, SIT did not show him any other document.
...689/-
Exh.1124 689 (J-SC 317/10)
H.C. 22308 is Mr. Revankar. Whenever a police officer/
personnel proceeds for inquiry/ investigation entry in
the station diary has to be made accordingly. The said
entry is made by the SHO or by the officer concerned
proceeding for inquiry/ investigation. On 11.11.2006,
Mr. Sankhe and Mr. Revandkar were on night duty. On
11.11.2006, a crime bearing No.302/06 u/s. 307 IPC etc.
was registered in Versova police station.
662. Further cross examination discloses that,
always panchanamas are recorded in the police station
and not at the spot. Spot panchanama is recorded at
the place where the incident has occurred. He does not
know whether seizure panchanamas, memorandum
panchanamas, discovery panchanamas are recorded in the
police stations. He has never seen such false
panchanamas recorded in the police station and not on
the spot. He did not ask the officers as to why the
panchanama was not recorded on the spot. The panchanama
was dictated by the officer and he reduced it into
writing. He did not see any rough panchanama with the
officer. The police officer brought in writing the
particulars as regards to the electricity pole number
and measurements. He never made complaint at any time
to anyone that, without visiting the spot, the
panchanama was recorded in the police station. He
mentioned his buckle number in the panchanama stating
...690/-
Exh.1124 690 (J-SC 317/10)
his presence at the spot of recording the panchanama.
It was the first time when he recorded the panchanama.
He was not on the staff of Mr.Sankhe. The witness
denied that, he wrote the panchanama at the say of Mr.
Sankhe. Mr.Sankhe did not dictate contents of the
panchanama. The witness stated name of the officer to
the SIT, who dictated the contents of panchanama to
him. He had read his statement, which was true and
correct. Name of the officer, who dictated him contents
does not appear in his statement before SIT. He had
stated before SIT that, tyanni sangitlyapramane mee
panchanama kagdavar lihun kadhla. PI Mr. Suryawanshi
dictated panchanama to him. He has not stated that, Mr.
Suryawanshi dictated panchanama to him, till date, to
anyone and has deposed this for the first time before
the Court. He did not depose this fact in his
Examination-in-Chief. He did not remember it at that
time. Station Diary Entry No.42 dated 11.11.2006 at
22.45 hours of Versova police station in respect of
C.R.No.302/2006 u/s.307 IPC etc., mentions his buckle
no.27503, stating that he, along with other police
personnel, proceeded for investigation of the said
crime of Versova police station. The entry is marked
Exh.617. Its xerox copy is marked Exh.617A.
663. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, a preliminary inquiry was going on
...691/-
Exh.1124 691 (J-SC 317/10)
against him for his proceeding on leave without getting
prior sanction, but denied that he was charged with
always being absent from duty and always consuming
liquor and also that, he was deposing false so that the
SIT might help to save me. The witness denied that, at
10.45 pm, he, along with Mr.Sankhe and Mr.Revandkar,
went to the spot and that, the panchanama was recorded
on the spot. The witness denied that, the station diary
entry was made in his presence and that he was deposing
false that, he along with the complainant went to Saat
Bungalow Chowki and that he returned to the police
station at 11 pm. The witness could identify
handwriting of SHO PSI Mr.Jadhav, but the handwriting
was not of Mr.Jadhav. Mr.Gujjar was the first reliever
as SHO. He had undergone an operation on 20.10.2010,
but did not undergo any operation in 2008 and 2009. He
was hospitalized for 16 days in 2010. Prior to the
operation, he was on leave for one month. Since
27.10.2010 to 13.2.2011, he was on leave. The witness
denied that, he deposed false that on 20.10.2010, he
had undergone an operation.
664. It has come in evidence of Mr.Ashok Gajanan
Sawant (PW-74), Exh.616 that, his friend Santosh Shinde
took him to accused no.14 Bhanage (i.e. Sheth). In the
year 2007, accused no.14 gave him Rs.4,000/- for
purchasing a mobile for his use. Accused no.14
...692/-
Exh.1124 692 (J-SC 317/10)
purchased a mobile by giving a copy of his ration card
with application form Exh.453. The accused used the
said mobile. He used to talk with the accused on mobile
no.9833886791. The accused purchased one Caliber Bike
for his son Chiku on installments. The bike was
purchased in the name of the witness. Accused no.14
used to give installment amount to him for paying the
same.
665. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he met Mr. Bhange for the first time in the year
2007. He did not remember the date and the month. At
that time Mr. Bhange was paralyzed and bedridden. His
arms and legs did not work. The witness purchased
mobile for Sheth, four to five months after his first
meeting with Sheth. At present, he was having three
mobiles. Those were with him for the last 5 to 6 years.
When he met Bhange Sheth for the first time, he had
those three mobiles bearing nos. 1) 9920455471, 2)
9819201194, 3) 9892605000. He did not personally use
all those three mobiles. He personally used mobile no.
9920455471. Remaining two mobiles were used by his
wife and son for the last 5 to 6 years. Whenever he
was outside for work, he contacted his wife and son on
those two mobiles, which were prepaid and one was
billing system mobile. Billing mobile was 9920455471.
Further he had those three mobiles for a period of one
...693/-
Exh.1124 693 (J-SC 317/10)
year prior to purchasing mobile for Bhanage Sheth. He
has purchased those three mobiles from the shop Rhythm
House. Owners name of 'Rhythm House' was Badresh. He
could not tell the date and the month of purchase of
those three mobiles. He purchased the mobile for Sheth
in the month of February, but he could not tell the
date. He knew what documents were necessary and
required for purchase of a mobile, when he purchased
the mobile for Janya Sheth. Before he purchased the
mobile for Janya Sheth, his three sons did not have
mobiles with them. Janya Sheth also did not have a
mobile with him before he purchased the mobile for him.
666. Further cross examination discloses that,
before he purchased the mobile for Janya Sheth, no one
from his family had any mobile phone. Mr.Santosh Shinde
resided in Panvel. He is no more. He died prior to two
months. He was not a relative of the witness. He was
not a relative of Janya Sheth. Three sons of Janya
Sheth were major and they did not do any work. They
remained at home. Economic condition of Janya Sheth was
good. The witness purchased SIM Card from Rhythm
House. Mobile handset was in the house of Janya Sheth.
He was given Rs.4000/- for purchasing the SIM Card.
The contents in the prepaid application form were
filled in by the owner of the Shop. He did not ask the
said shopkeeper as to SIM Cards of which and how many
...694/-
Exh.1124 694 (J-SC 317/10)
Companies were for sale in the shop. He could not tell
as to when was the said mobile activated by the
Company. The mobile continued to work for a period of
three to four years. He could not tell up-to which year
the mobile continued to work.
667. Further cross examination discloses that, Exh.
453 was filled in the handwriting of Badresh. The date
21.08.2007 was correct. There was no date mentioned in
its annexure papers. The mobile was purchased on
21.08.2007 as the said date was mentioned on
subscribers form. He did not know as to after how many
days of purchase of the mobile, it was activated.
There was no rubber stamp and no name of 'Rhythm House'
written on the said papers. He could not tell as to
whose rubber stamp appeared on the said papers. Police
had shown him all those papers while recording his
statement. He did not know where was HUTCH shop
situated. He did not know from where did the police
bring those papers and who handed over those papers to
the police.
668. Further cross examination discloses that, he
always received phones on this mobile, which were made
by the family members of Mr.Bhanage. Mr.Bhanage, his
wife and Chiku made phone calls to him from his mobile.
Mr.Bhanage did not make any call on the said mobile in
...695/-
Exh.1124 695 (J-SC 317/10)
his presence. He had seen Sheth and his wife using the
said mobile. The house in which Mr.Bhanage resided was
owned by him. He did not know whether Mr.Bhanage had
his own ration card. He never made inquiry with
Mr.Bhanage or anybody else as to whether Mr.Bhanage had
his ration card and driving license. He never made
demand to Mr.Bhanage of proof of his identification,
residence, driving license, PAN Card, ration card etc.
669. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he paid Rs.4000/- for SIM Card and
handset in 'Rhythm House'. He could not tell as to how
much money was paid separately for the SIM Card. The
handset was of Vodafone. SIM Card was also of Vodafone.
He did not know whether the handset was of Vodafone. He
did not know whether there was no handset of Vodafone
Company. He did not obtain bill of the SIM Card and
that of the handset. He was alone while going to the
shop and returning back. The shopkeeper did not issue
the bill. The shopkeeper did not issue bills of the
three mobiles that he had purchased on earlier
occasions. He did not ask the shopkeeper to issue bill
so as to hand over it to Janya Sheth. He did not have
mobile number 9819021194. The SIT had wrongly mentioned
the said mobile number in his statement. The witness
could not assign any reason as to why portion marked
A was so written by the SIT. Police did not ask him
...696/-
Exh.1124 696 (J-SC 317/10)
to produce any document so far as his mobile numbers
were concerned. The bike was purchased in the year 2008
for Rs.45,000/-. He deposited monthly installment of
Rs.1200/- in Goregaon Co-operative Bank, Panvel. About
12 installments were paid. After one year, the
installments were not deposited. He could not tell the
date and the month when the depositing of installments
stopped. The bank officers came to his house for
recovery in 2010. He did not remember the month. The
bank officers came to his house two months after the
default which was due to non-payment by Janya Sheth to
him, as Janya Sheth was not at home. He did not show
any proof to the police that the bike was purchased in
his name for the son of Sheth and that Sheth used to
give money to him for depositing installments.
Registration of the bike and the loan stood in his
name. The witness put signature for transferring the
bike in another's name. It was in the name of Chiku. It
was after a period of six months after bank officers
came to the witness. Police did not show him any paper
while recording his statement. The witness denied that,
he deposed false that he purchased mobile number
9833886791 and the bike for Janya Sheth at the say of
Janya Sheth and also that, it was his mobile and that
he was deposing false at the say of the police. At that
time, the said mobile was not in operation. He stopped
going to Janya Sheth for the last two years. Since then
...697/-
Exh.1124 697 (J-SC 317/10)
he stopped calling him on phone. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false out of fear that police
might involve him in this case.
670. It has come in evidence of Mr.Vishwanath
Jagannath Shetty (PW-75) Exh.618, that, he has been
residing at Chandai Building, Room No.11, 2
nd
floor,
Shantilal Modi Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67 for the
last six years and was engaged in the business named
and styled as Sai Estate Consultant & Amibika General
Stores. He was also engaged in social work and was
vice-president of Akhil Bharatiya Manav Adhikar
Sanghatan. He did not know any police officers. He was
having mobile number 9869054730 since the year 2001 and
was having another mobile number 9892247367. He did not
know Pradeep Sharma and Hitesh Solanki@ Dabhu. SIT
recorded his statement, but did not read over the said
statement to him. He was shown a mobile number
9821......... by the SIT. He did not remember further
digits. (As the witness resiled from his earlier
statement and declined to support the prosecution, the
Ld. SPP for the State put questions to the witness as
per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act).
671. During further evidence, the witness deposed
that, he studied upto Non-matric through Kannada
language. He could speak Marathi, but could not write.
...698/-
Exh.1124 698 (J-SC 317/10)
He knew a little bit Hindi. He could read Hindi, as it
was taught in his school. There was a little difference
between Hindi and Marathi script. He did not feel it
necessary to tell the SIT Officer to read over his
statement after it was reduced into writing. He
personally did not feel it necessary to read the
statement. The witness denied that, he ran a hotel
named and styled as Laxmi Plaza Hotel in Andheri (E).
He did not state in his statement before the SIT that,
he ran Laxmi Plaza Hotel in Andheri (E). He could not
assign any reason as to why the said portion appeared
in his statement. The witness was residing in Mumbai
since his birth and he had undergone education in
Mumbai. The witness denied that, Marathi subject was
compulsory in schools in Mumbai. It was not necessary
for him to go to the police in respect of his business
i.e. Sai Estate Consultant. He was not introduced to
Mr. Pradeep Sharma in the year 1990-91. It did not
happen that, Mr. Pradeep Sharma used to visit Hotel
Laxmi Plaza in Andheri (E). He did not state this to
the SIT. He did not know as to whom did mobile no.
9821552987 belong. He never had talks to that mobile
number from his mobile numbers 9869054730 and
9892247367. It did not happen that, sometimes, he had a
chit chat with Mr. Pradeep Sharma on phone. He did not
state this to the SIT. At the time of recording his
statement, the police did not give him call details of
...699/-
Exh.1124 699 (J-SC 317/10)
phone number 9821552987 dated 11.11.2006. The SIT did
not make enquiry about it with him and about call
details of phone number 9869054730. The SIT did show
him the said call details. The witness denied that, he
identified mobile no. 9821552987 to be of Mr. Pradeep
Sharma. The witness also denied to have stated this to
the SIT. It has further come in his evidence that, his
statement was recorded on paper and not on computer in
Marathi and it was explained to him in Hindi and and
that stated to be true and correct.
672. The witness further denied that, it was on
11.11.2006, he received two calls from mobile no.
9821552987 on his mobile no.9892247367 and that he made
two calls from his mobile no.9869054730 to mobile no.
9821552987. The witness further denied that, during
10.11.2006 to 19.11.2006, he received or made 16 calls
on this mobile no.9821552987 and that during 10.11.2006
to 19.11.2006 he received seven calls on his mobile no.
9892247367 from mobile no. 9821552987. The witness
expressed his ignorance as to why these call details
were reflected in CDR, page nos.13,14,15,17,18,19,21,
23,25 of Exh.543 (CDR). It has further come in his
evidence that, he did not state in his statement before
SIT that, he knew the persons who were along with
Pradeep Sharma by their faces, but he did not have
their mobile numbers, and as to why the said portion
...700/-
Exh.1124 700 (J-SC 317/10)
was mentioned in his statement before the SIT. The
witness further denied that, he and Pradeep Sharma were
having close relations with each other for many years
and that, Pradeep Sharma helped him in his business of
Sai Estate Consultant and Laxmi Plaza Hotel and he
knew his mobile number by heart. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false to help Pradeep Sharma and
therefore, he denied that he knew Pradeep Sharma and
his associates. He was called on phone to attend the
Court on that day. He received summons prior to one
year. It did not mention date of that day. Before
coming to the Court, he was with officers of the SIT
for 30 to 45 minutes. The officers discussed with him
about the statement during the said period. The witness
further deposed that, he went to the SIT and there was
discussion for about 10 to 15 minutes and then he left
the office. On that day, no document was shown to him.
He had no enmity with anybody in Mumbai or anywhere
else. There was no case against him for extortion,
picking up quarrels etc., but once he was attacked.
673. It has come in evidence of Mr.Ravsaheb Narayan
Ikke (PW-76), P.N., Exh.619 that, when he was attached
to Versova police station, on 28.09.2010, he made an
entry (Exhs. 620 and 620A) in station diary in respect
of taking specimen handwriting of accused Hitesh
Solanki @ Dabhu. The accused was produced before Mr.
...701/-
Exh.1124 701 (J-SC 317/10)
R. Chavan from Thane Central Prison, but at that time
the accused declined to give his specimen signature and
handwriting. Then API Ghorpade went to take the
specimen signature on 28.09.2010 in pursuance to the
order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Principal
Judge, Sessions Court.
674. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, except talks on telephone with Sahab, he did not
know anything more. He did not have talks with the said
officer after the said telephonic talk. He was the
S.H.O. on the day on which I received the telephone
from Mr. Ghorpade. He wrote down name as Ghorpade as
he was told name Ghorpade on telephone. He knew that,
S.I.T. was investigating in respect of the said station
diary entry. The S.I.T. never called him during the
investigation in respect of the said entry and never
recorded his statement. He did not make report in
writing to Sr. P.I., ACP, DCP but he made report to
Sr. P.I. He did not write this in his personal diary
and did not show it to the Senior P.I. He had seen this
entry for the first time after the year 2010. he did
not know who was Chavan Saheb.
675. It has come in evidence of Mr.Mahendra Govind
Tatkare(PW-77), P.N., Exh.622 that, on 11.11.2006, when
he was attached to Mobile-II of Versova police station,
...702/-
Exh.1124 702 (J-SC 317/10)
he received a message that one injured person was
lying near Nana Nani Park. Accordingly, he went to the
spot. There were officers PI Sankhe, PSI Harpude
(accused no.17), District Hawaldar Nandivadekar. So
also, More and Imde from Detection branch were present
there. At the spot, he saw police personnel Mr. More
and driver Daddikar of Peter Mobile collecting samples
of blood from a pool of blood and a revolver from the
spot, which was kept in a plastic bag. One empty
cartridge of a pistol was lying there. Accused Harpude
collected plain earth (soil) from the spot. The witness
further deposed that, representatives from T.V.
Channels were shooting there. Pradeep Suryawanshi
(accused no.9) from DN Nagar police station was giving
interviews. The witness further deposed that, his
statement dated 16.09.2010 (Exh.623) was recorded by a
Judge in Bandra Court.
676. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, ASI Mr.Shinde was the In-Charge of Versova
Mobile-II. A staff of four personnel, including the
driver, was at service on Mobile-II. The Mobile-II
could go anywhere within the jurisdiction of Versova
police station. Every Mobile Van has a wireless set on
it. If any offence or incident takes place within the
jurisdiction of the police station, a message is passed
to the Mobile Van. The message is displayed from the
...703/-
Exh.1124 703 (J-SC 317/10)
Control Room. Their control room is the Western Control
Room. A log book is kept with the Mobile, wherein
entries as regards to movements are entered into. The
entries as regards to leaving a particular spot and
reaching a particular spot are made in it. The officer
maintains the log book. The witness denied that, a
separate diary was maintained in the Mobile Van and
each and every entry was entered in the said diary.
First message came to their Mobile Van at about 8.35 to
8.40 pm. He did not remember as to who among them
received the said message. When they received the said
message, their Mobile Van was in Versova police
station. They did not make entry in Versova police
station when they left the police station, as it was
not necessary to take such an entry in the police
station. Their Mobile Van was in the control of West
Control Room and not in the control of Versova police
station. Police officers from Versova police station
could direct them to go at any place within the
jurisdiction of Versova police station. Officers and
police personnel from Versova police station could also
go through the said Mobile - II.
677. Further cross examination discloses that, when
Mobile-II was in the police station, Mobile-I was also
in the police station. Mobile-II did not receive
message stating that, an injured person was lying in
...704/-
Exh.1124 704 (J-SC 317/10)
Nana Nani Park. As per his say, Mobile-I received the
message stating that, an injured person was lying in
Nana Nani Park. After receiving the message, Mobile-I
left for the spot. Till then, their Mobile -II was
within the compound of Versova police station. Their
police station had got one more vehicle called 'Peter
Mobile'. Peter Mobile also received message stating
that, it should move for the spot. One book was
maintained in the vehicle. Everything was entered into
it. It was called a Diary. If there was a call, it was
entered into the book as to where was the vehicle and
where did it go. Peter Mobile left the police station
ten minutes after Mobile-I left the police station.
Peter Mobile went to the spot in Nana Nani Park. Their
Mobile Van received call ten minutes after Peter Mobile
had received the call. Immediately after receiving the
call, they left the police station and went to the
spot. He did not remember whether they effected any
entry in the diary before leaving the police station.
The officer makes the entry in the diary. It is his
responsibility. He did not remember whether he had seen
the officer making entry in the diary. Since then, he
had never seen the said diary entry. Every police
constable maintains a small personal diary. Only the
nature of duty was entered into the said diary. Their
roll call was taken in the police station. At the time
of roll call, they were assigned the duties. Its entry
...705/-
Exh.1124 705 (J-SC 317/10)
was taken in the police station. He did not write in
his personal diary as to when did Mobile-II receive
the message and when did he leave the police station
for the spot. He did not tell his officer to write
down in the diary the time of receipt of the message
and the time of leaving the police station for the
spot. He did not have any proof, except his bare
verbatim to show the time at which he left the police
station and reached the spot in Nana Nani Park.
678. Further cross examination discloses that,
when they reached to the spot, he did not come to know
as to whether the injured was alive or dead. After
reaching the spot, they came to know that, there was an
exchange of fire between the police and a Gunda. At
that time, he did not come to know as to who was the
Gunda. Many officers from Versova and DN Nagar police
stations were present at the spot, when they reached
the spot. There was a big crowd at the spot, when they
reached there. There were about 50 persons in the
crowd. The crowd contained the police officers and
people from outside. The vehicles used to pass from
the said spot from both sides. There were some
vehicles parked at a long distance from the spot. There
was traffic jam. There were many vehicles. Some people
from the vehicles tried to stop their vehicles at the
spot so as to see as to what had happed. The witness
...706/-
Exh.1124 706 (J-SC 317/10)
was trying to disperse the crowd and to clear the
traffic. The officers from Mobile-II were also with
him. The main work that he did was to disperse the
crowd and to clear the traffic. He helped to collect
the bloodstained soil, simple soil, cartridge and a
revolver. He personally did not collect the soil/ earth
mixed with blood. He did not collect it in a bottle and
also did not pack it. The park is extended up-to 300
meters. He did not remember whether there was a lamp
post at the spot. He did not handle the revolver. There
were no people standing-by, when the revolver was taken
from the spot. Only media persons were standing by the
side of the said spot. Except them, no other persons
were present there. The media persons were shooting
close to the spot. There were various reporters from
various channels. He knew difference between a revolver
and a pistol. He came to know that it was an empty
cartridge of a pistol. Only an empty cartridge of a
pistol is ejected. Omission as regards to, empty
cartridge of a pistol, has been brought on record
through cross examination. The empty cartridge was of
a pistol has been brought on record as an omission from
the statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C of the witness. The
media persons interviewed persons in plainclothes.
There were many persons present at the spot in
plainclothes. There was a small pool of blood. It was
at one spot only. He did not personally take
...707/-
Exh.1124 707 (J-SC 317/10)
measurements of the distance between pool of blood and
the empty cartridge. He stated it approximately. He
could not tell as to at which direction from the pool
of blood did the empty cartridge lie. He could not
tell as to whether media persons from 8 to 10 channels
were at the spot. They might be 3 to 4. Two persons
from each of the channels were present. He did not see
the van of a T.V. Channel. The witness denied that, he
was at the spot for three to four hours after he
reached at the spot. Except his bare Verbatim, there
was no other proof in writing to state that he left the
police station for the spot at a particular time,
reached the spot at a particular time and then left the
spot at a particular time.
679. Further cross examination discloses that, the
officers left the spot approximately at 9.30 p.m. He
did not write down anywhere that, the officers left the
spot approximately at 9.30 p.m. He had not seen an
entry to that effect in the diary of mobile II. He did
not remember as to what did he do during his duties on
10.11.2006 and on 12.11.2006. He could not tell the
important incidents that took place within the
jurisdiction of Versova police station since 2006 to
2010. When he reached the spot, he realized that an
encounter had really taken place. The witness denied
that, the only duty assigned to him was to clear the
...708/-
Exh.1124 708 (J-SC 317/10)
traffic and to disperse the crowd and that he deposed
false that, he helped to collect the earth mixed with
blood and to collect the revolver in a plastic bag. The
witness denied that, he deposed false that, the
officers left the spot approximately at 9.30 p.m. and
even after he left the spot, the officers from D.N.
Nagar Police station and Versova Police station were at
the spot.
680. Further cross examination discloses that, DCP
Mr.Prasnna recorded his statement in his office at
Bandra. He received a message to that effect one day
prior to recording his statement. The witness denied
that, DCP Mr.Prasnna called him for recording his
statement in his office at Pawai and that his statement
was recorded in the S.I.T. office at Pawai and not at
Bandra. He went to Pawai and from there he went to
Bandra, but this fact did not appear in his statement.
The witness admitted that, the fact that he was at the
spot for 30-45 minutes did not appear in his statement
u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.(Exh.623). He came to know one day
prior to the day on which he gave the statement that,
he was to give statement before the Magistrate. The SIT
informed him about it. A.P.I. Mr.Ghorpade informed this
to him. Prior to that, he never told Mr. Ghorpade that,
he wanted to give statement before a Magistrate.
Mr.Ghorpade did not call him in his office on the
...709/-
Exh.1124 709 (J-SC 317/10)
previous day of recording his statement. He received
the message from the Head Quarters and he was informed
that he was to give statement before a particular Court
i.e. 58
th
Court, at Bandra. He went to the Court at
02.30 p.m. The message also stated the crime bearing
no.246/09 in which he was to give statement. He did
not file an application before the Magistrate stating
that, the H.Q. sent him for statement and that he
wanted to give statement. Pattewala called him. Mr.
Ghorpade introduced him to Pattewala and told him that
he had come to give statement. His statement was
recorded at 03.00 p.m. There was no one else present in
the Court hall. He did not remember the floor at which
Court number 58
th
was situated. The typist recorded his
statement. The witness denied that, he only put
signature on the statement which was already
typewritten and that the S.I.T. forced him to put
signature on the statement before Magistrate. Mr.Chalke
typed his statement before the S.I.T. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the instance of
the S.I.T. After leaving the spot, he was within the
jurisdiction of Versova Police station during the whole
night. Thereafter, during the said night, he had no
occasion to visit the spot of the incident. He did not
know as to what had happened on the spot and who were
present at the spot after he left the spot.
...710/-
Exh.1124 710 (J-SC 317/10)
681. Further cross examination discloses that,
there were two Beats, Saat Bungalow and Yari Road of
Versova police station. Station Diary entries are
effected if the officers leave the police station for a
particular work and return back to the police station
after the work is over. A diary is also maintained at
Beat Chawki. API or PSI is In-Charge of a Beat Chawki.
The witness could not tell the distance of Yari Road
Beat Chawki from Versova Police station. He did not
remember as to whether Mr.Harpude was the In-Charge of
Yari Road Beat Chawki. Order book is maintained in
respect of distribution of business of the officers.
The order book is in custody of the In-Charge.
Mr.Harpude was also helping as he did. He did not feel
that, Mr.Harpude was doing something odd. He did not
know as to when did Mr. Harpude reach the spot. The
witness denied that, he did not know anything about the
incident.
682. It has come in evidence of Mr.Bipin
Mangalaprasad Singh Bihari (PW-78), Exh.624, DIG (East
Region), Nagpur, that, he was Addl. Commissioner of
Police, Western Region since 2003 to 2007. Accused
Pradeep Sharma and accused Pradeep Suryawanshi were
attached to Crime Branch. During the above period, DN
Nagar police Station, Versova police station and
Oshiwara police station were within his jurisdiction.
...711/-
Exh.1124 711 (J-SC 317/10)
He was having mobile no. 9892753333, which was in the
name of one Ketan Kanakiya. On 11.11.2006, he was on
duty. In the evening, he was in Andheri Sports Complex
which was situated within the jurisdiction of D.N.
Nagar Police station. A programme named 'Umang' was to
be held on 12.11.2006. For the purpose of rehearsal and
security arrangements, he had been there as he was the
In-charge of total activities of the said programme.
On that day i.e. on 11.11.2006 he came to know about
one incident of firing between police and a criminal
and one person was injured in the said firing. Entries
made in Exh.543 show that, there were incoming and
outgoing calls to his mobile from mobile nos.9821552987
and 9867156442. In Exh.581, internal page no.2, there
is an entry in CDR showing that there was an incoming
call on his mobile no.9892753333 from mobile no.
9867156442 at 8.26:28 p.m. He did not recollect as to
whom did mobile no. 9867156442 belong.
683. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, at the relevant time, he was supposed to be on
duty for 24 hours. His official vehicle had a wireless
set. There was wireless operator in his vehicle who
worked in two capacities i.e. as the wireless operator
and the security personnel. The wireless operator
maintained record of important messages. Police firing
and police encounter are the important matters. He was
...712/-
Exh.1124 712 (J-SC 317/10)
not supposed to check the record maintained by the
wireless operator. Nobody checked the said record. He
did not remember as to who was the wireless operator on
11.11.2006. Mr. Vinay Chaube was the DCP Zone-IX
Mumbai. He also had a wireless set in his vehicle.
RTPC of the witness informed him about the incident at
about 08.39 p.m. at the venue for the first time. He
shared the said information with then Commissioner of
Police Mr. Anami Roy. He did not ask any of his
officers to visit the spot. DCP is required to visit
the spot in case of a police firing. The witness has
denied that, DCP is required to submit a report of
such an incident. The witness was aware of the fact
that a Senior Police officer was required to visit the
spot and to prepare a report and to submit report to
the various officers. The DCP or SP are supposed to
submit the report. He did not recollect as to whether
he had an occasion to see such a report in respect of
incident dated 11.11.2006. Reports submitted by DCP are
routed through his office. He did not recollect as to
whether Mr.Chaube had submitted his report in respect
of incident dated 11.11.2006. He did not ask Mr.Chaube
to submit his report in respect of incident dated
11.11.2006. He did not recollect as to whether at any
point of time Mr.Chaube submitted his report in respect
of incident dated 11.11.2006. He did not recollect as
to whether he received any communication from the State
...713/-
Exh.1124 713 (J-SC 317/10)
Government, the Commissioner of Police or any other
authority stating that report in respect of incident
dated 11.11.2006 was not received from Mr. Chaube.
684. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he came to know that, a crime bearing
no. 302/06 was registered in Versova Police station in
respect of firing dated 11.11.2006. He received a
report, in routine, on the next day. The witness denied
that, Senior Inspector of Versova Police station
informed him about the incident dated 11.11.2006
regarding joint action taken by D.N.Nagar Police
station and Versova Police station, during which one
Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in the said joint
operation. Portion marked A in his statement was
correctly recorded. He stated so as it must have
happened. On 12.11.2006, he was totally busy in Umang
Programme. He received a special report in respect of
incident dated 11.11.2006. He did not take stock of
situation personally as to the event that led to the
police encounter. He learnt through media that there
was a Writ Petition filed as regards to the encounter.
Thereafter, he did not make inquiry as to whether the
encounter was true or false. This was not the first
encounter under him in the capacity of DCP or
Additional C.P. In the capacity of DCP, he had
occasions, either one or two, to send such reports of
...714/-
Exh.1124 714 (J-SC 317/10)
encounter. The reports were submitted to the
Commissioner of Police, the Directer General of Police
and Human Rights Commission. Its copies were sent to
the Home department.
685. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know whether on 14.11.2006
there was a press interview by the then Commissioner of
Police Mr.A.N. Roy and Home Minister Mr.R.R.Patil. It
was the prime responsibility of the DCP to inform such
an incident to the Commissioner of Police. He used to
send report directly to the Commissioner of Police,
DGP, Home Department and Additional Chief Secretary
Home. Copies were marked to the immediate superiors.
The DCP might have marked a copy to him, but he did
not recollect. He did not make any effort to know about
the encounter after he came to know in respect of the
Writ Petition. He came to know through media that the
Hon'ble High Court ordered to initiate an inquiry
through a Magistrate. During the Magisterial inquiry
his superiors, sub-ordinates or any other officers did
not try to contact him. The witness also did not
contact them. On 16.03.2010, i.e. the date of recording
his statement by the S.I.T, nobody asked him about the
incident. He was the Additional Commissioner of Police,
Western Region since January 2006 to June 2007. During
January 2006 to June 2007, he did not have any occasion
...715/-
Exh.1124 715 (J-SC 317/10)
to form any special squad. The witness, on his own,
deposed that, rather it was banned by the previous
Commissioner of Police. No special squad under then
Police Inspector Mr.Pradeep Sharma was formed by his
oral orders. No police officers/ staff from various
police stations were deputed to D.N. Nagar Police
station in the special squad under the then Police
inspector Mr. Pradeep Sharma.
686. Further cross examination discloses that, the
witness denied that, in the year 2006, he had two
mobile phone numbers i.e. 9867156442 and 9892753333. He
had only one number i.e. 9892753333. Everybody knew his
mobile no. 9892753333. When he was busy and unable to
personally receive the call, his RTPC received the
call. He would answer the call. He could not tell as to
who received the 9 calls at page nos. 14 and 15 in Exh.
543. On 16.03.2010, the S.I.T. did not show him Exh.
453, page nos. 14 and 15. He stated before SIT that,
'he did not have any information regarding the incident
dated 11.11.2006 prior to actual taking place of the
incident', which has been brought on record as an
omission from the statement dated 16.03.2010 of the
witness. Again, one more omission i.e. My RTPC
informed me about the incident dtd. 11/11/2006, has
been brought on record. The witness has further
deposed that, no police officers/ staff can be
...716/-
Exh.1124 716 (J-SC 317/10)
transferred from one police station to another police
station by oral orders and unless there are orders in
writing. He never issued oral orders of such transfers
of police officers/ staff from one police station to
another police station. In the capacity of then
Additional Commissioner of Police, Western Region, he
did not have occasion at any point of time to peruse
the FIR in CR No. 302 of 06 of Versova Police station.
Nobody complained directly to him, at any point of
time, stating that CR No. 302/06 of Versova Police
station was false. He did not recollect as to whether
he came across any document, any complaint as regards
to CR No. 302/06 of Versova Police station. SIM Cards
or mobiles are not issued by police department to any
police officers or police personnel. The witness denied
that, he never used mobile no. 9892753333.
687. It has come in evidence of Mr.Prataprao
Baburao Kharate (PW-79) Exh.625 that, on 18.10.2006,
when he was attached to DN Nagar police station, at
about 7 pm, Police Constable Shinde, buckle no. 31743,
and police constable Desai, buckle no.31241, came to
him along with a memo (Exh.613) from Versova police
station stating that, they were deputed to DN Nagar
police station. Accordingly, he produced them before PI
Mr. Thakur of DN Nagar police station by effecting
entry in station diary (Exh.626).
...717/-
Exh.1124 717 (J-SC 317/10)
688. It has come during cross examination that,
Versova police station, DN Nagar police station or the
S.I.T did not record his statement in relation to diary
entry Exh.626. The witness denied that, he did not see
diary entry since 18.10.2006 till date. He had seen
the diary entry in the month of December, 2011. He saw
the said entry when he received a summons from the
Sessions Court, Mumbai in the month of December 2011.
It was not mentioned in the summons that he should
carry with him the said diary entry to the court. In
pursuance to the summons, he did not go to the Court.
He went to the SIT office. He did not take diary with
him to the office of the SIT. The S.I.T. did not show
him the diary in their office. The S.I.T. officers told
him that one entry related to him was in the diary. He
did not see the said entry in the diary in the office
of the S.I.T. The SIT also did not show him the said
entry in their office. Thereafter, I, along-with diary,
never went to the S.I.T. office. He had seen the diary
in DN Nagar police station. He had not brought the said
diary to the Court. Prior to coming into the court that
day, he had seen the diary. The diary entry was shown
to him by the officers from the S.I.T. The SIT officers
told him that, he was to depose before the court in
respect of the said diary entry.
...718/-
Exh.1124 718 (J-SC 317/10)
689. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, there was no mention of Memo issued by
Senior Inspector of Versova Police Station in diary
entry no. 33 dated 18.10.2006. He was never in receipt
of a letter from the Additional Commissioner of Police,
Western Region, addressed to D.N. Nagar Police station.
He did not inquire about it with the office of the
Additional Commissioner of Police, Western Region. It
was not mentioned in the entry that, Tanaji Desai and
Vinayak Shinde brought the Memo to him in D.N. Nagar
Police Station. He could have written the said entry.
There were instructions to him to get some work done by
the probationer P.S.I. Therefore, he instructed the
probationer P.S.I. to write down the entry. The said
instruction to him was not given in writing but it was
orally given in a meeting. He did not make entry in
respect of those oral instructions in the station
diary. He did not ask on phone about it to the Senior
P.I. of Versova Police station. Exh.613, memo from
Versova Police station, did not bear his signature and
inward number of D.N.Nagar Police Station. There was
no mention at serial number 33 that Tanaji Desai and
Vinayak Shinde were produced before Senior P.I. of D.N.
Nagar Police station. The witness denied that, he never
saw memo Exh,. 613 and that, diary entry Exh. 626 was
made by him at the say of SIT and that he was deposing
...719/-
Exh.1124 719 (J-SC 317/10)
false.
690. It has come in evidence of Mr.Pravin Baliram
Bhosale (PW-80), PN, Exh.627, that, he was attached to
Magazine Section Armoury, Naigaon. As per the entry
(Exh.513), he allotted one 9 mm pistol no. 786 and 30
rounds to Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai, PC, attached to Crime
Branch Special Unit XI, Kandivali(W). There was also
mention of permanent address of Tanaji Desai and mobile
no. as 9870341323. Accordingly, he obtained signature
of Tanaji Desai for receipt of the said arm/s and
ammunitions. As per letter dated 03.09.2004 (Exh.628
colly.),the arm/s and ammunitions were alloted to P. N.
No.22875 - Mohan Dhondiba Bhise and P.C.31241 - Tanaji
Bhauso Desai. There is also an entry as regards to
allotment of Pistol butt no.786, manufacturing no.
15179446 along-with 30 rounds which were alloted to
Tanaji Desai, which bears signature of Tanaji Desai.
I-card of Tanaji Desai was also sent to him. The
witness deposed that, Article 23 i.e. 9 mm pistol butt
no.786, manufacturing no.15179446 was the same which
was allotted to accused Tanaji Desai.
691. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, the weapon allotted to Tanaji was alloted as a
service weapon. He knew difference between a revolver
and a pistol. The weapon was alloted by the order of
...720/-
Exh.1124 720 (J-SC 317/10)
Senior P.I., Armory. The Senior P.I., Armory, receives
the said order form A.C.P./D.C.P., Armory. Accordingly,
Senior P.I. instructs the police station to allot a
specific weapon either a revolver or a pistol. A.C.P.,
Armory recommended service revolver in Exh.628. There
was no mention to allot a pistol. There was no mention
of manufacture year of the rounds in the entry overleaf
Exh. 628. Therefore, the witness could not tell as to
the rounds of which year were alloted to Tanaji Desai
(Entry at Exh.513). Entry below Exh.513 stated that,
Tanaji Desai deposited one pistol and 30 rounds. It was
the same pistol and those were the same rounds issued
to him. If the ammunitions were issued prior to 10
years, those could be deposited after the said period
of 10 years was over. The rounds supplied to the police
station were deposited in the Armory. There was no
practice of writing manufacturing details of rounds
while issuing the rounds. There was no mention of
issuing fresh rounds in the said entry. He did not
state before the S.I.T. that, fresh rounds were issued
in the year 2004. The witness denied that, he had
deposed false at the say of SIT that fresh rounds were
issued. He also admitted that, he had no proof to show
that, fresh rounds were issued in the year 2004.
692. It has come in evidence of Mr.Pramod Shreedhar
Sawant (PW-81)(P.N.), Exh.630, that, during 2006 to
...721/-
Exh.1124 721 (J-SC 317/10)
2007, he worked as a Wireless Operator to Peter Mobile
of Versova police station. On 11.11.2006, he resumed
his night duty. Mr.Daddikar was along with him on Peter
Mobile as a driver. At about 08.18 pm, Versova-I Mobile
received a message from West Control Room stating that,
one injured person was lying near Nana Nani Park and
that, Sr. PI of Versova police station be taken to the
spot. As per order of Sr. PI, he, along with PI Sankhe
and driver Daddikar went through Peter Mobile to Nana
Nani Park, at the first corner of Link Road. There was
a crowd of people. He saw a pool of blood by the side
of the road. He also saw a revolver and one empty
cartridge there. At the above spot, accused No.9
Pradeep Suryawanshi (then PI from DN Nagar police
station) was also present. The accused informed PI
Sankhe that, there was exchange of fire by police and
the injured was by name Ramnarayan Gupta@ Lakhan
Bhayya, who was taken to Cooper Hospital by Versova-I
Mobile. The witness again went to Police Station and
he, Sr.PI, PSI Jadhav, Ammaldar Chavan and the driver
again went to the spot. There he saw police personnel
Tatkare, Nandiwadekar(Ammaldar), More and Imade from
Detection Staff and PSI Harpude (accused No.17).
693. The witness further deposed that, under the
guidance of PI Sankhe, the revolver and the blood were
seized. Reporters from News Channels had also come
...722/-
Exh.1124 722 (J-SC 317/10)
there, who were shooting at the spot. Accordingly, the
revolver, the blood and blood mixed earth came to be
seized. Accused Suryawanshi gave bytes to the media.
The witness received a message that the injured was
declared dead by the doctor. He and PI Sonawane went to
Cooper Hospital. The witness further deposed that, on
20.09.2010, his statement u/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C. was
recorded in Court No.44, Andheri vide Exh.631.
694. During cross examination the witness has
deposed that, distance between Versova Police station
and Nana-Nani park can be crossed within 10 minutes
through Peter Mobile. His first statement in relation
to this incident was recorded on 17.08.2010. He made an
entry anywhere as regards to the duty that he
discharged on 11.11.2006. While he went to give his
statement to the SIT on 17.08.2010, he did not carry
any documents with him to office of the S.I.T. He did
not see any entry, anywhere, in respect of the message
relayed at 20:18 hours by West Control Room. The
witness denied that, he stated the time 20:18 hours
approximately and it was correctly recorded in his
statement. When he went to the spot for the first time,
he stayed there for 5 minutes and then came back to the
police station. Again along-with P.I. Sonawane, P.S.I.
Jadhav and Ammaldar Chavan, he went to the spot. He
did not state in his statement before the Magistrate
...723/-
Exh.1124 723 (J-SC 317/10)
as to for how much time he stayed at the spot after he
returned along-with P.I. Sonawane to the spot and prior
to going to Cooper Hospital. He did not state in his
statement before the Magistrate that, the work of
collecting revolver, blood, blood mixed soil was over
before they left for Cooper Hospital. He also did not
state before the Magistrate that, after they returned
to Police station from Cooper Hospital, he along-with
P.I. Sonawane went to his residence.
695. It has further come during cross examination
of the witness that, when he visited the spot for
second time there was a crowd of people. The peter
Mobile was stopped at a distance of 5 to 10 ft. from
the spot. As there was a crowd, he was directed to
control the traffic. He was controlling the traffic
till Mr.Sonawane left for Cooper Hospital. On
17.08.2010, when he went to office of the SIT for
giving his statement, the SIT asked him as to whether
he would give statement before the Magistrate. He was
ready to give statement for telling the truth. When he
went to the Magistrate, the Magistrate asked his name
and proof of his identity. The Magistrate told him
that, he was going to record his statement. The
Magistrate told him that, he should state about the
incident that he knew and that was to be recorded. It
did happen that, he went narrating and the Magistrate
...724/-
Exh.1124 724 (J-SC 317/10)
went on recording the narration. He was before the
Magistrate for about 45 minutes to 60 minutes. He read
his statement, which was correctly recorded as per his
say. At that time, he did not feel that he should add
something to his statement. The Magistrate asked him in
brief and he stated in brief. The Magistrate reduced
his statement into writing in his own hand. It did not
happen that, the Magistrate did not record something
that he stated. The witness denied that, he deposed
false that, when they left the spot for Cooper
Hospital, work of collection of articles from the spot
was over and that, he deposed this fact falsely at the
instance of the SIT. He could not tell as to what duty
he had on 11.10.2006, 11.11.2007, 11.11.2008 and
11.11.2009. He was discharging his duties in the
capacity of the Wireless Operator of Peter Mobile on
the said dates. He could not tell whether he was on
day duties or night duties on those dates. He could
not tell what messages did he receive and where did he
go on those dates. Distance between Yari Road Beat and
Versova Police station is of 5 kilometers. Distance
between these two spots via Link Road is 4 kilometers
and via J.P. Road is 5 kilometers. J.P. Road is more
crowded than Link Road. Link Road is also a crowded
road. He did not have personal knowledge as to at what
time did Mr. Harpude reach the spot and as to what work
did he do at the spot.
...725/-
Exh.1124 725 (J-SC 317/10)
696. It has come in evidence of Mr.Samir Allabaksha
Faniband (PW-82), API, Exh.632 that, in the year 2006,
he was attached to DN Nagar police station as a
Probationer PSI. On 18.10.2006, he was on duty. At that
time, PSI Kharade was the S.H.O. Two Ammaldars from
Versova police station resumed their duties in D.N.
Nagar police station, who were sent on deputation to DN
Nagar Police Station by orders of the Addl.
Commissioner of Police(Western Region). Accordingly, he
made entry in the diary (Exh.626). Those two Ammaldars
were Shinde and Desai.
697. It has come during cross examination that, the
SIT did not record his statement. The deputation was
by the orders of the Additional Commissioner of Police,
Western Region. The witness denied that, he did not
know anything about the said order. The witness further
deposed that, there was no mention of date and outward
number of the said letter in entry Exh.626. He
personally did not feel it necessary to mention outward
number and date in the entry. He personally saw the
said order. The order was of the Additional
Commissioner of Police, Western Region. The letter was
issued by Senior P.I. of Versova Police station wherein
it was mentioned that, there was order of the
Additional Commissioner of Police, Western Region. He
...726/-
Exh.1124 726 (J-SC 317/10)
was a probationer PSI at the relevant time therefore,
he effected the entry as per the instructions of then
S.H.O. He personally did not see the order of the
Additional Commissioner of Police, Western Region. The
entry did not mention the letter by the Senior
Inspector of Police Versova Police station. Except his
bare verbatim, there was no other proof with him to
show that, there was a letter from the Senior P.I,
Versova Police station. Even while deposing before the
Court, he did not feel that, entry Exh. 626 was wrongly
effected. The entry was made as dictated by Mr.
Kharade. The witness denied that, he made the entry
without perusing the letter issued by the Senior P.I.
of Versova Police station.
698. It has come in evidence of Mr.Umesh Yashwant
Revandkar (PW-83), ASI, Exh.633, that, since 2004 to
2007, he was attached to Detection Branch, Versova
police station as Police Head Constable. Accused No.11
Sartape was In-charge of Detection Branch. On
11.11.2006, when he was on night duty, he came to know
that there was an encounter at Nana Nani Park.
Accordingly, he, along with PC Mr. Imade went there.
PI Mr. Sankhe, PSI Mr. Harpude (accused no.17) and PC
Mr. More from Detection Staff were present there. News
representatives were also present there. There, he
came to know that, accused Pradeep Sharma made
...727/-
Exh.1124 727 (J-SC 317/10)
encounter of a gangster by name Gupta. There was a pool
of blood, a revolver near the pool of blood and one
cartridge at the spot. Spot panchanama came to be
recorded in presence of panchas. Samples of blood were
collected from the spot. Accused Harpude collected
samples of earth. All the articles were handed over to
accused no.17 Harpude. The witness further deposed
that, on 24.08.2010 the SIT recorded his statement. On
18.09.2012, his statement was recorded in Bandra Court
no.58 vide Exh.636.
699. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, for the first time the S.I.T. recorded his
statement on 24.08.2010. Prior to 24.08.2010, he did
not state to any one that, he took Mr. Kandalgaonkar,
P.C. 27503 to P.I. Mr. Sankhe at the police station as
P.I. Mr.Sankhe told him to bring a police constable who
was having a good handwriting. Prior to 24.08.2010, he
did not state to anyone that, P. I. Mr.Sankhe handed
over papers to P.C. Mr.Kandalgaonkar and then P.C.
Mr.Kandalgaonkar went to Detection Room for writing a
panchanama. He was not present when Mr. Kandalgaonkar
was writing panchanama. He did not know what contents
did he write in the panchanama. He did not see the
panchanama after it was written. He left the police
station between 12.30 a.m. to 01.00 a.m. for night
patrolling. He did not remember whether he made station
...728/-
Exh.1124 728 (J-SC 317/10)
diary entry before proceeding for night patrolling.
Station diary entry has to be made before going for a
duty or for going for patrolling. He did not know as to
whether Mr.Kandalgaonkar was writing the panchanama or
it was completed when he left the police station for
patrolling. Prior to 11.11.2006, no help for recording
panchanama was taken from Mr.Kandalgaonkar. He knew Mr.
Kandalgaonkar for a period of 4 years prior to
11.11.2006. On 11.11.2006, he was the Police Head
Constable, bearing buckle no.22308. Mr.Kandalgaonkar
was the District Hawaldar. The witness denied that, the
District Hawaldar was supposed to assist the night P.I.
and duty officers. Mr.Kandalgaonkar was the District
Constable. The District Constable assists SHO and duty
officer. District staff during day time is different
than the staff during night time. If the duty officer
is required to go outside for some work, the District
staff goes along-with the duty officer.
700. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Exh.617 bears his buckle no. i.e.
22308. P.C.Buckle No.27503 written in Exh.617 is of
Mr.Kandalgaonkar. There is only one entry of buckle no.
22308 (i.e. of the witness) on 11.11.2006, during night
time. There is entry in a diary maintained in Detection
Room as regards to the duty that he discharged on
11.11.2006. It did not have specific name. A.S.I. or
...729/-
Exh.1124 729 (J-SC 317/10)
Hawaldar maintains the said diary. He did not maintain
the said diary. Entries as regards to assignment of
duties are made in the said diary. Entries as regards
to nature of work done by the police officers/ staff,
time of leaving the police station and time of
returning to the police station are made in the said
diary. He did not remember name of the A.S.I, who
maintained the said diary in Detection Room on
11.11.2006. Senior P.I. or Detection officer did not
put their signatures on the said diary. He did not know
as to under which Law the said diary was maintained.
He did not see the entry dated 11.11.2006 made in the
said diary. He did not see as to whether A.S.I.
recorded entry of the information, which he gave to
him. He did not know as to whether, the things that
he deposed before the Court were entered into the said
diary or not. He did not state anything to the S.I.T.
and to the Magistrate as regards to the said diary. He
did not depose as regards to the diary maintained in
Detection Room, during his examination in chief.
701. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know in whose handwriting
entry Exh.617 was made. He maintains a personal diary.
He made entry in his personal diary as regards to the
duty that he discharged on 11.11.2006. Each Constable
and Head Constable is required to maintain such
...730/-
Exh.1124 730 (J-SC 317/10)
personal diary. After entries are made in the diary,
it is placed before the superior officer for his
counter signature. He did no produce his personal
diary dated 11.11.2006 before the S.I.T. The S.I.T.
did not ask him to produce the said diary. While
deposing before the Court, he had not brought the said
personal diary with him in the Court and till date, he
had not shown the diary entry dated 11.11.2006 to
anyone. He did not know whether a programme Umang was
held on 12.11.2006 within the jurisdiction of Versova
Police station. Andheri Sports Complex is within the
jurisdiction of Oshiwara Police station. He did not
know whether any police personnel from Versova Police
station went for bandobast at Andheri Sports Complex.
He did not know whether Mr.Kandalgaonkar was attached
to Versova Police station till the year 2007. He met
him after 11.11.2006. He did not ask him as to which
panchanama did he reduce into writing. The witness
informed the A.S.I. that Mr. Kandalgaonkar reduced the
panchanama into writing. The A.S.I. was transferred
from Versova Police station prior to 2007. There was no
entry in the station diary stating that any of the
ASI's were on duty on 11.11.2006. Entry at 20:15 hours
on 11.11.2006 in the station Diary was of night roll
call. All those personnel mentioned therein were
present on duty at the relevant time. The entry did
not mention his buckle number 22308. His name did not
...731/-
Exh.1124 731 (J-SC 317/10)
appear there as he was late as he reached the police
station at 08.30 p.m. There was no mention of any ASI
in the said entry. The said entry was marked as Exh.637
and its xerox copy is at Exh.637A.
702. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, since, 2002 till 2007, he knew social
worker Sahebrao Fuke. He knew Bhanu Maqbool Haq for a
period of 3 to 4 years. Prior to 11.11.2006, they were
called to act as panchas by him. Persons other than
these two from the crowd were also known to him. He
approached them and asked them whether they were ready
to act as panchas and when they gave consent, the
witness took them to P.I. Mr.Sankhe. He personally did
not collect any article. He and Imade, on their own,
went to control the traffic. While they were
controlling the traffic, work of collecting articles
from the spot was going on. The witness denied that,
he was present at the spot while the injured person
was being taken to the Hospital and that the injured
was at the spot when he left the spot. The witness
further deposed that, except Mr.Sankhe he did not talk
to anyone on the spot. He could not tell that day as
from whom he came to know that there was an encounter
by the squad of Mr.Pradeep Sharma. He did not know who
were the members of the squad of Mr. Pradeep Sharma and
who did the encounter. When he was at the spot,
...732/-
Exh.1124 732 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Pradeep Sharma was not present at the spot. The
S.I.T. did not ask him at the time of recording his
statement dated 24.08.2010 as to whether he would give
statement before Magistrate. He, on his own, did not
tell the SIT that, he wanted to give statement u/s. 164
of the Cr.P.C. He received a message from the S.I.T.
one day prior to recording his statement by them. He
received the message one day prior to recording his
statement u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C. Till that time, he did
not know that his statement was to be recorded before
Magistrate. When he was taken before the Magistrate,
his name was asked by the Magistrate and he had shown
his Identity Card. Then the Magistrate told him to
state about the incident. He narrated the incident and
the Magistrate went on writing as per the narration.
He did not remember whether he stated before the
Magistrate that, the panchas called for the panchanama
were residents from the place nearby to the spot. He
stated this fact before the Magistrate. The panchas
resided at a place nearby to the spot.
703. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he had seen so many spot panchanamas
during his service. He knew how blood and other
articles were collected from the spot. Before he
started controlling the traffic the other ammaldars
were collecting the blood and other articles from the
...733/-
Exh.1124 733 (J-SC 317/10)
spot. Panchanama Exh.283 mentioned buckle number 22308,
which was buckle no. of the witness and buckle no.
27503 was of Mr.Kandalgaonkar. As per the said
panchanama, he was on the spot since 11.00 p.m. on
11.11.2006 till 1.35 a.m. on 12.11.2006. As per the
said Exh.617, he left the police station at 10.45 p.m.
on 11.11.2006. As per his say, contents in these
documents Exh 283 and Exh. 617 were wrong and the basis
of it was the diary maintained in Detection Room, which
was not produced before the Court. He also made entries
in the diary kept in the Detection Room. When A.S.I.
was on leave, he used to make entries in the said
diary. Lastly he saw the said diary in the month of
June 2007. Then he proceeded on leave. He did not know
as to whom the said diary was handed over thereafter.
He had no occasion to see the said diary. Every year a
separate diary is maintained. He did not see diary of
2006 in the year 2007. The diary of the year 2006 was
of 150 to 200 pages. Page numbers were mentioned
therein. The entries were made as per the sequence of
dates. He did not remember the date of the first
entry and the last entry of the year 2006 and of the
year 2007 in the said diary. He did not go to
Detection Room in Santacruz Police station therefore,
he did not know whether such diary was maintained there
or not. There was a station diary in Santacruz Police
station. He did not have personal diary of 2006 at
...734/-
Exh.1124 734 (J-SC 317/10)
home. While deposing before the Court, he had not
brought personal diary of Santacruz Police Station with
me. It is called a pocket diary.
704. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, there was no detection diary as such
and that it could not be maintained by Law. The
witness denied that, he left the police station at
10.45 p.m. on 11.11.2006 and stayed there till 01.35
a.m. On 12.11.2006. He was promoted as ASI on
09.05.2012. The witness denied that, he gave false
statement to the SIT therefore, he was promoted. The
witness deposed that, he deposed false that he came to
know that squad of Mr. Pradeep Sharma did the encounter
and that, he deposed this under pressure of the SIT.
The witness denied that, he deposed false that, he
called Mr.Kandalgaonkar at the say of P.I. Mr.Sankhe
and that P.I. Mr.Sankhe gave papers to Mr.Kandalgaonkar
and also that Mr. Kandalgonkar wrote panchanama in
Detection Room. The witness further deposed that, when
his statements were recorded by the SIT and by the
Magistrate in the year 2010, the DCP of Zone IX was Mr.
Prasnna and Santacruz Police station was under Zone IX,
wherein he was serving. Prior to 24.08.2010, he did not
tell anyone that the samples of earth (soil) were taken
by Mr.Harpude and that the plastic bags containing
articles were handed over to Mr.Harpude by Mr.More,
...735/-
Exh.1124 735 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Daddikar and Mr.Nandiwadekar. He did not have
personal knowledge of the time at which Mr. Harpude
reached the spot. After reaching the spot and on
perusal of the situation at the spot, he felt that it
was a genuine encounter. API Mr.Gosawi was attached to
Versova Police station. Many officers from Versova
Police station helped P.I. Mr.Sankhe (PW-39).
705. It has come in evidence of Mr.Satish Dinkar
Rane (PW-84), Ex.-Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Exh.
639, that, in January, 2010, on a request by the SIT,
he conducted Test Identification Parade in Jail in two
parts and he put five accused i.e. accused Akil,
Hitesh, Ratnakar, Shailendra and Tanaji in the Test
Identification Parade. He submitted report (Exh.346)
through Andheri Morning Court. During the said Test
Identification Parade, witness Anil Bheda identified
all the accused and witness Aruna Bheda identified
accused Ratnakar, Hitesh and Tanaji. In January,2010,
again, he conducted Test Identification Parade. Letter
dated 30.01.2010 (Exh.640) was issued by the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Thane. During the said
Test I.P., witness by name Anil Bheda identified
accused Vinayak Shinde. Again, on 23.03.2010 he
conducted test Identification Parade, in which witness
Anil Bheda identified accused (1) Manoj @ Mannu Mohan
Raj and (2) Sunil Ramesh Solanki vide Memorandum Exh.
...736/-
Exh.1124 736 (J-SC 317/10)
643. Again on 28.06.2012 he conducted test
Identification Parade in Arthur Road Jail, in which
witness Anil Bheda identified accused Devidas Gangaram
Sakpal and Mohd. Moiuddin Shaikh vide Memorandum Exh.
645. Again, on 17.08.2010, he conducted test
Identification Parade in Arthur Road Jail, in which
witness Anil Bheda identified accused Prakash Kadam
vide Memorandum Exh.647.
706. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he conducted test Identification Parades in the
capacity of Special Metropolitan Magistrate. He could
not tell as to how many test Identification Parades
were conducted by him including that in the year 2010
and 2011 till deposing before the Court. It was not
necessary to mention in the Memorandum as to what did
he do prior to actual conducting Test Identification
Parade. The selection of dummies, collection of panchas
and viewing the suspects were three important things
prior to conducting Test Identification Parade. All
these three facts were necessary to be mentioned in the
Memorandum as per the provisions of Criminal Manual. He
did not know as to how many suspects could be put in
one part of the Test Identification Parade. He followed
the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and that
mentioned in the provisions of Criminal Manual. On
20.01.2010, only two panch witnesses were produced
...737/-
Exh.1124 737 (J-SC 317/10)
before him. Therefore, he did not have choice to select
panchas. It was same on 30.01.2010 and 23.03.2010. The
panchas were brought by policemen on 20.01.2010 and he
accepted them to act as panchas. On 30.01.2010, there
might be four to five persons brought before him, who
were to act as panchas. He did not mention the fact of
selecting two panch witnesses in Memorandum of holding
the Test Identification Parade. Though it was an
important fact, he did not mention it in the
Memorandum. On 23.03.2010, he selected two panchas, out
of the persons produced before him, but he did not
mention this fact in Memorandum dated 23.03.2010. More
than 20 dummies were produced before him, out of which,
he selected 12 on 20.01.2010. Selection of 12 dummies
out of more than 20 dummies was an important fact, but
it was not mentioned in the panchanama. There were five
suspects, which were to be put up in Test
Identification Parade. All those five suspects were
brought before him after selection of dummies and
panchas. Before that, he did not have occasion to see
the suspects.
707. The witness further deposed that, he did not
have any record to show specific date on which he
received a letter from the SIT and specific date on
which he wrote a letter to the SIT in respect of giving
his appointment for Test Identification Parade to the
...738/-
Exh.1124 738 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT prior to 20.01.2010. He did not remember whether on
20.01.2010, he went directly to the Test Identification
Parade room and whether he was offered a table and a
chair to sit there. On 20.01.2010, 30.01.2010 and
23.03.2010, he did not come out of the Test
Identification Parade room before he completed the Test
Identification Parade and writing of the Memorandum
Panchanama. The witness, on his own, deposed that, he
got the Memorandum typewritten in a room adjacent to
the Test Identification Parade room. The jail
authorities brought the dummies, the panchas and the
suspects and that he did not have any occasion to go
outside of the T.I. Parade Room till completion of the
Test Identification Parade. When he went to the jail
for conducting Test Identification Parade, he showed
the letter to the authority concerned and he was taken
to the Test Identification parade room. Except the
said officer from the jail, he did not have talks with
any other person. He did not have any interaction with
any other person, except the jail authority. The
suspects, the panchas and the dummies were standing one
by one in the same room i.e. Test Identification Parade
room on 20.01.2010. He did not remember whether the
jail authority told him to select two or three suspects
at one time or he selected two or three suspects at one
time on his own. He asked names of the suspects in the
Test Identification Parade room. He could not tell as
...739/-
Exh.1124 739 (J-SC 317/10)
to whether he called one or two or three suspects for
the first time. After the dummies and the suspects
took their positions in the T.I. Parade room, he sent
the panch to call the identifying witnesses. The panch
brought the identifying witnesses from the office, as
the identifying witnesses were sitting in the office.
He did not have an occasion to introduce the two
panchas to anyone in the T.I. Parade room. He did not
remember whether the T.I. Parade room had a six to
seven feet high wall and above the wall, there was an
iron net. He could not tell whether T.I. Parades dated
20.01.2010, 30.01.2010 and 23.03.2010 were conducted in
one and the same jail or in different jails. There were
two identifying witnesses in the T.I. Parade dated
20.01.2010. He did not remember as to whether he sent
one and the same panch on two occasions to call the
identifying witnesses. There was same procedure
followed by him during the T.I. Parades dated
20.01.2010, 30.01.2010 and 23.03.2010, except that of
selection of panchas during the T.I. Parade dated
20.01.2010. On 20.01.2010, the identifying witnesses
came into the T.I. Parade room, touched the suspects
and said that, it was the suspect and that, except
this, there was no other talk between him and the
identifying witnesses. He followed provisions of
Criminal Manual/guidelines of the Hon'ble High Court,
while recording Memorandum panchanama and conducting
...740/-
Exh.1124 740 (J-SC 317/10)
the T.I. Parades. Exh.346, Memorandum Panchanama
started at 16.10 hours and was completed at 17.15
hours. He did not remember as to at what time after
17.15 hours, he left the T.I. Parade room. The witness
denied that, he recorded the Memorandum panchanama
after the suspects, the dummies, the panchas and the
identifying witnesses left the T.I. Parade Room. While
entering into a jail, one had to make an entry and sign
the register, so also while coming out of the jail. On
20.1.2010, he made an entry in the register at the time
of entering into the jail as well as at the time of
coming out of the jail. He did not remember as to at
what time, he started writing the panchanama after
entering into the jail. He did not remember as to
whether it required 30 minutes to 45 minutes to start
writing the memorandum after he entered into the jail.
He did not know whether the panchas entered into the
jail prior to his entering into the jail or after he
entered into the jail. He did not remember whether he
entered the time in the register while entering into
the jail. The witness was shown a document Exh.648. The
witness admitted that, the said document did not bear
timing of his entry in the jail. Left side column
mentioned timing but it did not bear in xerox copy
tendered during cross examination. He mentioned its
timing. He might have entered the timings in the
register while he came out of the jail on 20.01.2010.
...741/-
Exh.1124 741 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not remember as to on how many occasions, he
visited the jail for conducting T.I.Parades prior to
20.01.2010. Document Exh.648, page 59 mentioned timing
05.15 of his going out of the jail. The witness could
not tell as to whether the timing was 5.05 mentioned in
Exh.648 that the timing of leaving the jail by Dr.
Azhar R. Ansari and panch Sayyed Zubed Barkat was 5.05
mentioned in Exh.648.
708. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not remember as to whether the
panchas were present in the T.I. Parade room till the
panchanama was concluded. He obtained signatures of the
panchas after the panchanama was concluded. He did not
remember whether the panchas put dates below their
signatures on the panchanama and that, as to whether he
asked the panchas as regards to their antecedents and
as to whether any cases against them were pending in
any Courts. It was not mentioned in the Memorandum
that, he asked the witnesses about their antecedents
and as to whether any cases against them were pending
in any Courts. He did not remember whether he
mentioned in the Memorandum that he asked the panchas
about their antecedents. The witness admitted that
asking antecedents to the panchas was an important
thing. The witness could not say anything as to
whether, both the panchas were respectable or not and
...742/-
Exh.1124 742 (J-SC 317/10)
also as to whether cases were pending against them or
not. The witness denied that, he did not ask
antecedents to the panchas and that he accepted the
panchas at the say of police. He did not know whether
the pachas were accused in C.R.No. 58 of 2009 of
Kherwadi Police Station. He did not know whether the
panchas were on criminal record of Kherwadi police
station for a period since 2000 to 2010. Document Exh.
662 was tendered during cross examination by the
defence.
709. The witness further deposed that, during the
T.I.Parade dated 20.01.2010, he did not ask identifying
witnesses to produce their Identity Proof, when they
were brought to him. He did not remember as to whether
he personally verified the identity proof of the
identifying witnesses or not and that he relied on the
Jail Authorities. He mentioned age of the Identifying
witness Anil Bheda in Memorandum Panchanama dated
20.01.2010 (Exh. 346). His age was 50 years. Age of
another witness Aruna Bheda was 43 years. There was no
dummy of age of 50 years in 1
st
group of the T.I. Parade
dated 20.01.2010. The suspects in 1
st
group were Akhil
and Hitesh. Ages of Akhil and Hitesh were not mentioned
in the Memorandum. He could not tell as to what were
the ages of Akhil and Hitesh on the date of conducting
the T.I. Parade. He had not mentioned about their
...743/-
Exh.1124 743 (J-SC 317/10)
appearances, colours, complexions, heights, hair,
built, etc,. He could not tell as to whether both of
them were good looking persons or not. He did not
remember whether he asked the Identifying witnesses as
to whether they had any occasion to see the suspects in
police custody/ custody or their photographs prior to
seeing them in the T.I. Parade. He did not mention in
Memorandum Panchanama that, he asked the identifying
witnesses as to whether they had any occasion to see
the suspects in police custody/ custody or their
photographs prior to seeing them in the T.I. Parade.
710. The witness further deposed that, there were
one each identifying witnesses in second group
consisting 'C','D','E'. Shailendra, Ratnakar and Tanaji
were the suspects in 'C','D','E'. He did not mention
their ages in the Memorandum Panchanama. He did not
mention their complexions, heights, built, hair, etc.,
in the Memorandum Panchanama. Anil Jethalal Bheda was
the identifying witness in 'C', 'D','E'. There were
two identifying witnesses but they were called one by
one. Name of second identifying witness was written as
Smt. Aruna Anil Bheda. The identification parade of
first group and second group started at 16.10 hours and
was concluded at 17.15 hours. He obtained signatures
of the panchas after the panchanama was reduced into
witting. He did not remember as to when did the
...744/-
Exh.1124 744 (J-SC 317/10)
panchas and the identifying witnesses leave the Jail.
He did not remember as to whether the panchas left the
room prior to 17.15 hours or not. He did not remember
whether prior to conducting the T.I. Parade, he filled
in one form in the jail or not. He did not remember
whether as the S.M.M., he had to mention C.R.No.,
charge, sections, name of suspects, name of panchas,
name of identifying witnesses in the said form. The
witness was shown document Exh.663. The witness deposed
that, it appeared that, the document was in his
handwriting. Names of identifying witnesses were
mentioned as 1) Anil Jethalal Bheda second name was not
legible. There was another name but he could not tell
whether it was Aruna or somebody else's name. The
witness denied that, name Aruna was not written
therefore, he was deposing false that, he could not
tell whether name of Aruna was written or not. The
witness denied that, he had deposed false that, on
20.01.2010 he conducted the T.I. Parade and that he
went to the jail for T.I. Parade and that, he prepared
the Memorandum and filled in form Exh.663 at the say of
the S.I.T. The witness denied that, he prepared
Memorandum Panchanama in the office of the S.I.T. He
did not remember whether the Memorandum Panchnama of
the T.I. Parade conducted after 20.01.2010 were reduced
into writing in his hand or not. He carried a lap-top
and a printer at the subsequent T.I. Parades. He
...745/-
Exh.1124 745 (J-SC 317/10)
obtained written permission to carry the lap-top and
the printer in Jail. He was granted permission to carry
the lap-top and the printer. He did not have the
acknowledgment that day with him, but if traced he
would produce. The witness further deposed that,
besides the work of SMM, he used to do the duties
assigned to him by the CMM. He got Honorarium. He was
serving in the Hon'ble High Court as an Assistant
Superintendent.
711. The witness further deposed that, he issued a
letter Exh. 640 on 30.01.2010 to the Jail Authorities
because he knew that, a lap-top, a printer etc., could
not be taken along-with him in the jail without
permission of the Jail Authorities. He knew this fact
prior to 30.01.2010. He did not know that, he would be
permitted to carry with him the lap-top and the
printer. He did not issue a letter to the Jail
Authorities prior to 30.01.2010 though he knew that
such permission was required to carry lap-top and
printer with him. The Jail Authorities did not issue an
order in writing to him stating that he could carry the
lap-top and the printer with him in the Jail. He did
not remember as to with whom did he send the letter to
the Jail Authorities on 30.01.2010. Prior to going to
the Jail, he did not know whether the Jail Authorities
received the said letter or not. There was no
...746/-
Exh.1124 746 (J-SC 317/10)
endorsement on the letter stating that, he was
permitted to carry with him the lap-top and the
printer. He did not remember whether he made an entry
anywhere as regards to carrying the lap-top and the
printer with him while entering into the Jail. He
might have made an entry in the Jail Record while
entering into the Jail. He did not have any proof in
writing except his bare verbatim to show that he was
permitted by the Jail Authorities to carry the lap-top
and the printer along-with him in the Jail. There was
no endorsement in writing on Exh. 642, Exh. 644 and
Exh. 646 stating that, the Jail Authorities permitted
to carry with him the lap-top and the printer in the
Jail. He could not tell as to when did he send and with
whom did he send letters Exh.640, Exh.642, Exh.644 and
Exh.646. He did not remember as to whether the said
letters were received by the Jail Authorities or not.
He did not remember whether on 23.03.2010, 28.06.2010
and 17.07.2010 he made entries of the lap-top and the
printer while entering into the Jail. Letter Exh.646
did not bear signature of any jail authority. As there
was no endorsement on the said letter, he could not
say as to whether the said letter was received by the
Jail Authorities or not. The contents in letter Exh.
646 were true and correct. Contents in portion marked
'A' in letter Exh. 646 were wrong, which mentioned
that, he was going to conduct T.,I. Parade on
...747/-
Exh.1124 747 (J-SC 317/10)
16.08.2010. The witness denied that, what he stated
earlier that the contents in letter Exh.646 were true
and correct, was wrong. The witness could not assign
any reason as he did not remember as to why Portion
Marked 'A' was so wrongly mentioned in Exh. 646. He
could not tell as to whether the date 17
th
was added
later on in letter Exh. 646. His initials or signature
did not appear at the date 17
th
. Without perusing
letter, he could not say as to whether he was called
for conducting T.I. Parade of suspect Prakash Kadam.
Without perusing record, he could not tell as to on
which date he conducted his T.I. Parade. The witness on
his own deposed that, he might have been conducted in
the Month of August' 2010.
712. The witness further deposed that, without
perusing papers he could not tell whether T.I. Parade
of Prakash Ganpat Kadam was conducted in Thane Jail or
Aurthur Road Jail. He could not tell whether Prakash
Kadam was in Thane Central Prison at the time of
conducting the T.I. Parade. He used to receive
intimation from the Police Station concerned through
Court as to whether the T.I. Parade was to be conducted
in Thane Central Prison or in Aurthur Road Central
Prison, Mumbai. He did not remember as to whether the
said letter used to be addressed to him or not. The
letter was addressed to the Special M.M. therefore, he
...748/-
Exh.1124 748 (J-SC 317/10)
did not remember it. He did not remember whether
letters as regards to all T.I. Parades conducted by him
were addressed in similar fashion. He did not remember
as to how many letters did he receive from Police
Stations through Court for conducting T.I. Parades. He
could not tell whether he received one letter or ten
letters. He did not remember whether he had copies of
any of the letters that he received. He did not
remember as to whether officer Mr.Ghorpade or any other
officer from the S.I.T. approached him for conducting
T.I. Parades or not. Without cross verifying he could
not tell whether contents in Exh. 646, except portion
marked 'A' were true and correct. Only after perusal of
the Memorandum he could tell whether portion marked
B from letter Exh.646 was true and correct or not.
Portion Marked 'B' was type written under his
instructions. As per this letter, Prakash Ganpat Kadam
was placed in Thane Central Prison. Letter Exh.644 was
also type written as per his instructions. As per
contents of the said letter Mohammed Mohiuddin Khan@
Mohammed Takka and Devidas Gangaram Sakpal were placed
in Thane Central Prison. T.I. Parade of the suspects
was conducted in the prison, where the suspects were
placed. The witness denied that, letters Exh.640, Exh.
642, Exh.644 and Exh.646 were subsequently got prepared
by the S.I.T. from him. During 2010, he was the S.M.M.
at Andheri Court. He could not tell this conclusively
...749/-
Exh.1124 749 (J-SC 317/10)
without perusing the appointment letter. He was S.M.M.
on the dates on which he conducted the T.I. Parades. He
did not know D.C.P. Mr.Prasanna. He did not know
whether Mr. Prasanna was having jurisdiction over
Andheri area in the capacity of D.C.P. He used to sit
as S.M.M. in the Morning Court at Andheri. It was a
Judicial Post. The S.M.M. had power to convict accused
in petty cases. The punishment that could be awarded
was up-to 6 months. The sentence of fine could be
awarded up-to Rs.1200/-. He did not remember whether
DCP-SIT requested him to conduct T.I. Parade or not. In
this case, no officer from the S.I.T. requested him to
conduct T.I. Parade and that he conducted T.I. Parade
as per the letters that he received from police. He
could not tell as to from which police station did he
receive the said letter. He did not remember as to
whether DCP-SIT Zone requested him to conduct T.I.
Parade. He did not remember as to when did he come
to know that he was to go for conducting T.I. Parade.
No officer from the S.I.T. accompanied him when he
went for conducting T.I. Parade. Officers from the
S.I.T. met him along-with witnesses outside of the
Jail. After he entered the Jail he did not have
occasion to see whether the officers from the S.I.T.
also entered the Jail or not. The officers from the
S.I.T did not inform him at any point of time in
respect of facts of this case. The officers from the
...750/-
Exh.1124 750 (J-SC 317/10)
S.I.T. did not tell him as to what offences and charges
were there in this case and which and how many accused
were arrested in this case. For the first time, he saw
the identifying witnesses at the time of entering into
the Jail. He did not remember as to whether he asked
any questions to them at the time of entering into the
Jail. Police brought the panchas. Without perusing
Memorandum he could not tell whether he asked any
questions to the panchas.
713. The witness further deposed that, Exh.346
mentioned that, questions were put to the panchas. He
asked the panchas as to for how many times prior to the
said T.I. Parade they acted as panchas and also that,
whether they on their own were ready to act as the
panchas. Except this he did not ask any more questions
to them. The witness could not tell as to how many
T.I. Parades did he conduct in Aurthur Road Central
Prison, Mumbai in respect of this case. He could not
tell the length and width of the T.I. Parade room and
that, whether there was a wall 3 to 4 feet high to the
said T.I. Parade room. The room was totally packed. He
did not mention in the Memorandum Panchanama that, T.I.
Parade room was packed from all sides. He could not
tell whether there were nets from three sides and a
wall from one side to T.I. Parade room in Thane Central
Prison and that even approximately the length, width
...751/-
Exh.1124 751 (J-SC 317/10)
and height of the T.I. Parade room. He could not tell
as to whether the T.I. Parade room was situated at the
right side or the left side after entering into the
Jail premises. He could not tell distance between the
main gate of the prison and the T.I. Parade room. He
did not remember if there was another door after the
main gate while entering into the Jail. He could not
tell as to how many rooms were there around the T.I.
Parade room (Exh.346).
714. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he saw the suspect and the dummies
for the first time in the T.I. Parade room after he
called them. He could not tell that day the
descriptions, complexion, stature, ages, built etc., of
Tanaji and Ratnakar. The witness denied that, as per
the rules the Magistrate could not conduct T.I. Parade
of more than two suspects at one time. He did not
remember whether he read the directions of the Hon'ble
High Court as regards to conducting the T.I. Parade. He
did not know whether a thin and a fat, dark and fair
complexioned, short and tall i.e. persons having
distinguishing features could not be placed as suspects
at one and the same T.I. Parade. If a suspect was
having a beard then the dummies also must have beards
(Exh.346). The witness on his own deposed that, it
depended upon availability of dummies at the time of
...752/-
Exh.1124 752 (J-SC 317/10)
selection. He would not conduct T.I. Parade if dummies
of beards were not available. It was not mentioned in
the Memorandum as to whether the suspects and the
dummies had beards or that they were without beards. He
asked names of the suspects. It was not mentioned in
the Memorandum as to whether he asked any questions to
the suspects. He did not ask the suspects as to whether
they were shown to the identifying witnesses or that
whether the identifying witnesses had any occasion to
see them prior to the identification parade and after
the incident. He did not ask identifying witnesses Anil
Bheda and Aruna Bheda as to whether they had any
occasion to see the suspects prior to conducting T.I.
Parade and after the incident. He did not ask the
identifying witnesses as to whether the police had
shown the suspects to them prior to the T.I. Parade
(Exh.346).
715. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Aruna Bheda and Anil Bheda, on their
own, did not tell him that they had occasion to see the
suspects after the incident and prior to conducting
T.I. Parade. Aruna Bheda did not inform him while
identifying the second time that the said two persons
had taken them from Vashi Police station in a Qualis
vehicle on 12.11.2006. He did not remember whether
Aruna Bheda told him that accused no. 5 took them to
...753/-
Exh.1124 753 (J-SC 317/10)
Kolhapur and stayed with them for four days. It was not
mentioned in the Memorandum Panchanama (Exh.346). He
did not remember whether Aruna Bheda told him that,
accused nos. 2 and 3 took them in Qualis vehicle from
Vashi Police station to her house and from there to
Bhattwadi, Ghatkopar. This fact was not mentioned in
Memorandum Exh.346. On page no.5 of Exh. 346, it was
mentioned that Aruna Bheda said, I will try to
Identify. While identifying the suspect role of the
suspect had to be mentioned by the identifying witness.
He was aware that this fact was important at the time
of conducting the T.I.Parade.
716. The witness further deposed that, no
particular role of any of the suspects was mentioned in
Exh.346. He asked the identifying witnesses as to
whether they could identify the suspects. She told the
witness that, she would try to identify the suspect.
She identified the suspect. The witness denied that, he
did not prepare Exh.346 in Jail and that, he prepared
it in the office of S.I.T. as per say of the S.I.T.
The witness denied that, he knew Mr.Prasanna therefore,
he prepared false Memorandum Exh.346 at the say of Mr.
Prasnna and that, he was deposing false against Tanaji
and Ratnakar. If he came to know that the panchas had
already acted as panchas in a previous T.I. Parade then
he would not accept them as panchas for the Test
...754/-
Exh.1124 754 (J-SC 317/10)
Identification Parade. Memorandum Exh.643 dated
23.03.2010- Balkrushna Baban Manjare and Arun Vithal
Sakpal were the two panchas. He could not tell whether
he saw these two panchas for the first time on
23.03.2010. It was written in Exh. 643 that both the
panchas acted as panchas prior to the Test
Identification Parade dated 23
rd
March 2010. He did
not mention the reason as to why he accepted them as
panchas in Memorandum Exh.643. Police brought the said
panchas to him. He did not call those panchas. He did
not mention description of suspects i.e. Manoj Mannu
Mohan Raj and Sunil Ramesh Solanki in Exh.643. He did
not remember as to whether both of them appeared
similar to each other or contrast to each other. Age
group of dummies in group-B in Exh. 643 was between 23
years to 53 years. Ages of dummies in one and the same
group were different from each other. Appearance of
each of the dummies was different from other from one
group.
717. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the panch who went to call the
identifying witness, already knew positions of the
suspects and that of the dummies. He did not ask the
identifying witness as to whether the panch told him
anything as regards to the positions of the suspects
and the dummies. He also did not ask the panch as to
...755/-
Exh.1124 755 (J-SC 317/10)
whether he told anything about the positions of the
suspects and the dummies to the identifying witness.
He did not ask the identifying witness as regards to
the role of the suspects and that the identifying
witness also did not tell him the role of the suspects
and therefore, it was not mentioned in Memorandum Exh.
643. He did not know whether it was necessary to get
seal of the Thane Jail affixed on Exh.643 to show that
the T.I. Parade was conducted in Thane Jail. It did
not bear any stamp of Thane Jail. The Memorandum was
prepared on a computer as it was mentioned in Exh.643.
The witness, on his own, deposed that, it was prepared
on lap-top. It was not mentioned in Exh.643 that it was
prepared on lap-top. The witness denied that,
Memorandum Exh.643 was not prepared in Thane Jail and
that, Exh.643 was prepared in the S.I.T office with the
help of pancha which were already used. The witness
denied that, he did not conduct any T.I. Parade.
718. Further cross examination discloses that, Exh.
641 of T.I. Parade dated 30.01.2010 had the same
panchas as that in Exh.643. On 30.01.2010, police
brought the panchas. In Exh.641, he did not mention
description of suspect Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde. He did
not mention in Exh.641 that, the dummies matched
Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde. After the suspects and
dummies had taken their positions he sent the panchas
...756/-
Exh.1124 756 (J-SC 317/10)
to call the identifying witness. He did not ask the
identifying witness as to whether the panchas told him
about the positions taken by the suspects and the
dummies and vice verses. There was no mention in Exh.
641 of attributing any role to the suspects by the
identifying witness. It was not mentioned in Exh.643
and Exh.641 that, he asked the identifying witnesses as
to whether the suspects were shown to them after the
arrest of the suspects and prior to conducting the T.I.
Parade. It was mentioned in Exh.641 that it was
prepared on computer. The witness denied that, Exh.641
was not prepared in Jail and that it was prepared in
the office of the S.I.T. at the say of the S.I.T. The
witness did not know whether photographs of the
arrested accused from this crime were published in
Newspapers. The witness denied that, he scribed letter
Exh.644 at the say of the S.I.T. and that, he prepared
Memorandum Exh.645 at the say of the S.I.T. and in
office of the S.I.T. The witness denied that, he
scribed Exh.646 and Exh.647 in the SIT office at the
say of the S.I.T and that, he did not conduct T.I.
Parades in jail pertaining to Exh.645 and Exh.647.
719. It has come in evidence of Mr.Divakar Mohan
Rao (PW-85), Exh.649 that, since March 2004 to July
2008 he worked in Reliance Communication Ltd. as a
Legal Officer. In the year 2008, he was called by
...757/-
Exh.1124 757 (J-SC 317/10)
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai vide summons Exh.
650. He produced details of only two numbers i.e.
9323053863 & 9324378877. He submitted his affidavit
(Exh.651) along with call detail records of the above
two numbers vide CDR Exh.652 (paged 1 to 4 colly).
720. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he was not a Computer Engineer. He did not have
technical Knowledge of receiving calls by the server or
the complete System. He did not have knowledge as to
how calls were transferred or how did they reach to the
receiver. SIT did not call him prior to 02.08.2012 when
his statement was recoded by the SIT. He did not see
the High Court order. He had been to the High Court in
this matter. He was called there. He wanted to tender a
document i.e. same call details but he was not called
upon to produce the said call details. He further
deposed during cross examination that, he did not come
across the High Court Order, wherein it was directed to
preserve the call detail record of mobile nos.
9323053863 & 9324378877. At the time of recording his
statement as on that day by the S.I.T. He had an
occasion to peruse the High Court order. He put his
signature on his affidavit in Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri on 26.03.2008. It would be false to say that,
he signed and produced his affidavit two years prior to
26.03.2008.
...758/-
Exh.1124 758 (J-SC 317/10)
721. There was mention of 26.03.2006 below his
signature on the affidavit. The witness, on his own,
deposed that, it was a writing mistake. Omissions as
regards to the Hon'ble High Court issued the said
order in the year 2007 and it was within a period of
one year has been brought on record during cross
examination. The witness categorically deposed that,
the said portion was there in his statement before the
SIT. At the time of submitting his affidavit in Railway
Mobile Court, he was aware of the order of the Hon'ble
High Court and mobile nos. 9323053863 & 9324378877. He
did not mention this fact in his affidavit. He did not
feel that, the High Court order in respect of these two
mobiles was an important fact. Since, 2008 till that
day, he visited India four times. Prior to going to
Dubai and even at the relevant time, his address was
one and the same. He did not receive any information
from the persons residing adjacent to his flat as
regards to any contact by the S.I.T. The witness
further deposed that, the adjacent flats were vacant
and his flat was locked.
722. The adjacent flats were locked since he left
for Dubai. His letters were received in a post box at
his residence. There was only one watchman in the
building. The witness denied that, the SIT prepared his
...759/-
Exh.1124 759 (J-SC 317/10)
statement and he was directed by the SIT to depose as
per the statement. Till the day of his deposing before
the Court, he did not inform the SIT that, he arrived
from Dubai two weeks prior to the said day. The witness
denied that, the affidavit Exh.651 was already prepared
and that he just put signature on it in Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri. Advocate Shabnam Lathiwala prepared it
and identified it while executing the affidavit Exh.
651. He did not remember his name. He knew that, an
advocate identified him. At the time of signing the
affidavit by him, the advocate was present. The
witness denied that, he was deposing false at the say
of the SIT.
723. It has come in evidence of Mr. Gautam Natha
Ghadge, Ballistic Expert (PW-86), Exh.655, that, on
01.01.1986, he joined Forensic Science Laboratory,
Kalina, Mumbai, as Scientific Assistant. He had
undergone a training in January, 1986 for a period of
one month. Thereafter, he was posted at Ahmednagar on
the establishment of Forensic Science Laboratory at the
office of Superintendent of Police, in the capacity of
Investigators Car Unit, Ahmednagar since February, 1986
to December 1987. Since 1987 to 1989 he was attached to
Biology Division Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina,
Mumbai. Thereafter, he was transferred to Ballistic
Division in the year 1990. He was attached to the
...760/-
Exh.1124 760 (J-SC 317/10)
Biology Division up to 2002 as Scientific Assistant.
During 1991 to 2002, he was holding charge of Assistant
Chemical Analyzer and during that period, he submitted
Ballistic Reports in cases. In February, 2007, he was
again transferred to Ballistic Division, Kalina. Till
that date, he was attached to Ballistic Division. In
the year 2007, he was Scientific Assistant and was
holding additional charge of Assistant Chemical
Analyzer in the year 2007. In the year 2008, he was
promoted to the post of Asst. Chemical Analyzer. In
that capacity, he submitted Ballistic Reports and till
that time, he might have submitted about 1000 Reports.
He had submitted reports pertaining to C.R.No.302/2006
of Versova police station vide forwarding letter/
office copy dated 13.11.2006 (Exh.294). The forwarding
letter and sealed parcels were sent to his office by
the police station.
724. The witness further deposed that, initially
the same were placed before the receiving clerk, which
were brought by the policemen to his office. The
receiving clerk thereafter sent the letter and the
sealed parcels to different departments/ division.
Letter Exh.294 was received by Mr. Mahesh Khavanekar,
which was brought by ASI Mr. Patade from Versova police
station. There were 15 sealed parcels sent along with
the said letter in connection with CR No.302/06 u/s.
...761/-
Exh.1124 761 (J-SC 317/10)
307, 353 of IPC r/w. 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act of
Versova police station. Three bottles were received by
Ballistic Division, Kalina, along with forwarding
letters Exh.290A and 292A, which were brought by PC No.
960428 dated 13.11.2006. Fifteen (15) sealed parcels
were received by Dr.(Ms) Deshpande, then Asst. Chemical
Analyzer, Kalina. She received the sealed packets,
effected an entry in the entry register. The BL No.
938/06 was entered by Dr. (MS) Deshpande and before
keeping it in strong room, they were marked with
Exhibits. As per the register entry, the description of
the parcels were as follows:-
Parcel (1) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 1 -
One 6 chambered country made revolver having crude
markings made in Japan, wrapped in paper.
Parcel (2) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 2 -
Two .32 inch revolver cartridges having light
indentation on the caps and head stamp marking 'KF.32 S
& WL and RP.32 S & WL' wrapped in paper,
Parcel (3) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 3 -
Two KF.32 inch S & WL revolver empties having
indentation on the caps, wrapped in paper.
Parcel (4) Ex. (iznf'kZr)-4 -
One 9 mm pistol empty having indentation on the
cap and head stamp marking 'KF.9 mm 2z,94' wrapped in
paper.
Parcel (5A and 5B) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 8 -
...762/-
Exh.1124 762 (J-SC 317/10)
Two.38 inch revolver empties having indentation on
the caps and head stamp markings 'KF,380,2,90' wrapped
in paper.
Parcel (6) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 9 -
One . 38 inch revolver empty having indentation on
the cap and head stamp marking ; KF,380,2,01' wrapped
in paper.
Parcel (7) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- 10 -
One .38 inch revolver empty having indentation on
the cap and head stamp markings, KF,380,2,98' wrapped
in paper.
Parcel (8) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- v-
Reddish liquid in a phial, wrapped in paper.
Parcel (9) Ex. (iznf'kZr)- c-
Reddish liquid in phial, wrapped in paper.
Parcel (10A) - full bush shirt (Cut)
Parcel 10B - full pant
Parcel 10C- sando banian (cut)
Parcel 10 D- underwear (cut).
Exh.10A to 10D together wrapped in paper and
marked as iznf'kZr (Exh) - d.
Parcel 11A and 11B - A pair of shoes, wrapped in
paper, marked (iznf'kZr) (Ex.)- M.
Parcel 12 - Reddish liquid in a phial, wrapped in
paper marked iznf'kZr (Ex.) bZ.
Parcel 13- reddish liquid in a phial, wrapped in
paper marked Ex.5.
...763/-
Exh.1124 763 (J-SC 317/10)
Parcel 14 - Earth mixed with reddish liquid in a
phial, wrapped in paper marked (iznf'kZr) (Exh)6.
Parcel 15 - Earth in a phial, wrapped in paper and
marked (iznf'kZr) (Exh) 7.
Exhs.1 to 15 were also labelled as Versova police
station, C.R. No.302/06 u/s. 307, 353 of IPC and
Section 2,25,27 of the Indian Arms Act.
725. The witness further deposed that, the date of
analysis of all above exhibits was 28.05.2007. Vide
M.L. Case No. BL 939/06, his office received one sealed
bottle containing three bullets. The seal was intact
device, Police Surgeon, P.M Center, Mumbai and not as
per copy sent. Dr. (Ms.) Deshpande gave ML Case No. BL
939/06 after receipt of the sealed bottle. Dr.(Ms.)
Deshpande opened the sealed bottle. Description as per
register entry was as follows:-
Exhs.1A to 1C -
3 deformed copper jacketed bullets having
rifling marks, put in the bottle, labelled
FMT/GSC/22/06, Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta, Versova
police station, CR No.302/06, ADR No.55/06 (3) bullets
for B.E.
ML Case No. BL 940/06 was allotted by Dr. (Ms)
Deshpande from our office.
Descriptions - two sealed bottles, seal intact
device, Police Surgeon, P.M Center, Mumbai and not as
...764/-
Exh.1124 764 (J-SC 317/10)
per copy sent.
Bottle-1 contains (Ex.1) - turbid liquid in a
bottle labelled, hand wash (Rt) and for B.E.
Bottle-2 contains (Ex.2)- turbid liquid in a
bottle labelled, hand wash (Lt) and for B.E.
Exhs.1 and 2 also labelled FMT/GSC/22/06,
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta, Versova police station,
ADR No.55/06, CR 302/06.
726. The witness further deposed that, the words
inscribed on the seal Police Surgeon P.M. Center,
Mumbai were legible, but these words Police Surgeon
P.M Center, Mumbai mentioned in the seal on the
forwarding letters by Medical Officer, JJ P.M Center,
Byculla, Mumbai, were not legible. Therefore, words
not as per copy sent were referred to the seal in
their office endorsement in entry register made by Dr.
(Ms.) Deshpande. Marathi iznf'kZr - v] c] d] M and 1,2,3
etc. were written in Marathi on parcel. It was written
by police and Dr.(Ms.) Deshpande wrote it in the
register as it was on the parcel. All articles,
mentioned above, were sent to him and he had seen those
articles. Those were sent to him in the month of May
2007, by then H.O.D., Ballistic Section Incharge Mr.
J.P. Kulkarni. Article no.47 before the Court had his
signature, designation and stamp of the office. It had
seal of his office. Exh.1 was mentioned on it by him.
...765/-
Exh.1124 765 (J-SC 317/10)
BL No. is BL-938/06. All writings on Article no.47 was
in his handwriting. The seal was affixed by Lab
Attendant, Kalina. Article no.48 before the Court was
the same. BL 938/06 and Exh.1 was written on the label
by Dr.(Ms.) Deshpande. It had seal of the police
station. Article no.49 before the Court had his
signature, designation and stamp of his office. BL No.
938/06 and Exh.1 was written by Dr. (Ms.) Deshpande.
Writing on cello tape label was in his handwriting.
BL- 938/06 Exh.1, which was pasted on butt portion of
the revolver. Article no.53 before the Court had his
signature and writings and stamp of designation and
also seal of his office. Article no.54 (two cartridges)
before the Court were same. The label pasted on
cartridges bear BL - 938/06 Exh.2. It was in his
handwriting. Article no.55 before the Court bore label
of police station. BL 938/06 Exh.2 written on the label
was in the handwriting of Dr.(Ms.) Deshpande. Article
no.50 before the Court had his handwriting and
signature. BL-938/06 Exh.3 and Exh.3B was written on
it. It had seal of his office. It also bore designation
stamp of his office.
727. Article no.51 (two .32 inch revolver empties)
before the Court shown was to him. The writings on
cello tape affixed to the cartridges was in his
handwriting. It was written as BL 938/06 Exh.3A and
...766/-
Exh.1124 766 (J-SC 317/10)
Exh.3B. Article No.52 before the Court was shown to
him. There was a label of police station. iznf'kZr-3 was
written on the label. Dr. (Ms) Deshpande had written BL
938/06 Exh.3. Article no.56 before the Court was shown
to him. BL 938/06, BL 975/09 and Exh.14 was written in
his handwriting. The label had his signature,
designation stamp and seal of his office. Article No.
57 before the Court was shown to him. BL 975/09 Exh.14
was written on the cello tape affixed to one 9 mm
pistol empty cartridge. It was in his handwriting.
Article no.58 before the court was shown to him. It
was a letter by the police station. BL 938/06 Exh.4 on
it was written by Dr.(Ms) Deshpande. Police station
has written iznf'kZr 4 on it. Article no.44 before the
Court shown to him. BL-938/06 Exh.5A and 5B, BL 975/09
Exh.15A and 15B was written by him on it. It bore his
signature and designation stamp of his office. Article
no.45 before the Court was shown to him. BL 938/06
Exh.5 was in the handwriting of Dr. (Ms) Deshpande.
iznf'kZr 8 was also written on the label and on the packet.
Article no.46 before the court was shown to him. BL
975/09 Exh.15A and 15B was written in his handwriting
on the cello tape which was pasted on two empty
cartridges. BL 938/06 Exh.5A and 5B was also written
on the cello tape which was affixed on the two empty
cartridges. Article no.59 before the court was shown to
him. BL 938/06 Exh.6 was written on it in his
...767/-
Exh.1124 767 (J-SC 317/10)
handwriting. It bore his signature, designation stamp
and seal of his office. Article no.60 (.38 inch
revolver one empty cartridge) before the court was
shown to him. BL- 938/06 Exh.6 and BL 975/09 Exh.16
was written on it. Original label of the police station
(Article 61 before the court) was shown to him. iznf'kZr 9
BL -938/06 Exh.6 was written in handwriting of Dr.(Ms.)
Deshpande. Article no.62 before the court was shown to
him. BL 938/06 Exh.7 written on it was in his
handwriting. It bore his signature and designation
stamp of his office. It also bore his office seal.
Article No.63 (One .38 inch revolver empty cartridge),
was having cello tape label. BL 938/06 Exh.7 and BL
975/09 Exh.17 was written in his handwriting. Article
no.64 was the original label from the police station.
BL 938/06 Exh.7 was written by Dr.(Ms.) Deshpande. iznf'kZr
10 was written by the police station. Article 70 brown
paper shown to him was same. BL 938/06 Exh.10A to 10D
was written in his handwriting. It had his signature
and designation stamp of his office. Article 71 was
label of the police station. It was marked iznf'kZr&d, BL
938/06 written in handwriting of Dr.(Ms) Deshpande.
728. The witness further deposed that, tag label of
police station (Article 72) before the Court was the
same. Full shirt (Art.73) before the court was the
same. There were three yellow tag labels, in which
first one was BL - 938/06 Exh.10A and second was BL -
...768/-
Exh.1124 768 (J-SC 317/10)
975/09 Exh.19A and third one was Biology Division,
yellow tag label-B- 4464/06 Exh.10A. First yellow tag
was in the handwriting of Dr.(Ms) Deshpande. Second
yellow tag was in his handwriting. The shot holes on
the shirt were circled with red glass marking pencil.
Those hole marks were circled by Dr.(Ms) Deshpande. The
labels were at Article nos.74,75,76 respectively. Full
pant (Art.77) before the court was same. There were
three yellow tag labels. The first yellow tag label was
BL-938/06 Exh.10B, second was BL-975/09 Exh.19B and the
third was B-4464/06 Exh.10B. The first yellow tag was
in the handwriting of Dr.(Ms) Deshpande. The second
yellow tag was in his handwriting. The three yellow
tags were marked as Article nos.78,79 and 80
respectively. Sando banian (Art.81) before the court
was the same. There were three yellow tag labels. The
first yellow tag label was BL 938/06 Exh.10C. Second
was BL 975/09 Exh.19C and third was B-4464/06 Exh.10C.
The first yellow tag was in the handwriting of Dr.(Ms)
Deshpande. The second yellow tag was in his
handwriting. The three yellow tags were marked as
Article nos.82,83 and 84 respectively. The shot holes
on the sando banian were circled with red glass marking
pencil. Those hole marks were circled by Dr.(Ms)
Deshpande. There were three shot holes at the front
side of the shirt and three shot holes at the backside
of the shirt.
...769/-
Exh.1124 769 (J-SC 317/10)
729. The witness further deposed that, there were
three shot holes at the front side of the sando banian
and two shot holes at the backside of the sando banian.
Underwear (Art.85) before the court was the same. The
first yellow tag label was BL 938/06 Exh.10D. Second
was BL 975/09 Exh.19D and third was B-4464/06 Exh.10D.
The first yellow tag was in the handwriting of Dr.(Ms)
Deshpande. The second yellow tag was in his
handwriting. The three yellow tags were marked as
Article nos.86,87 and 88 respectively. Exh.11A and 11B-
a pair of shoes, Exh.12 reddish liquid, Exh.13 reddish
liquid was a phial, Exh.14 earth mixed with reddish
liquid in a phial and Exh.15 earth in a phial were
examined and returned to the police station. Those
articles were examined by Biology Department and they
submitted report to him and thereafter, those articles
along-with report were sent by them to the police
station. Exh.292-A was the original of the Annexure of
Exh.292. He produced a letter dated 12.12.2006 bearing
O/W No.6522/06 addressed to Director, Forensic Science
Laboratory, Mumbai-98, sent by Sr. PI, Versova police
station, Mumbai vide Exh.292B. Exh.290A was the
original of Annexure of Exh.290. He had produced a
letter dated 12.12.2006 bearing O/W No.6522/06,
addressed to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Mumbai-98, sent by Sr. PI, Versova police station,
...770/-
Exh.1124 770 (J-SC 317/10)
Mumbai vide 290B. Article-29 before the court was
forwarded by Medical Officer, JJ P.M. Center, Byculla,
Mumbai through PC No.960428, i.e. through Sr. PI,
Versova police station to their Forensic Laboratory,
Kalina. The letter had endorsement of Mahesh Khavanekar
for receipt of the letter. Exh.292 bore writing and
signature of Mahesh Khavanekar. Article 29 (one sealed
bottle with seal intact, device) sent by Medical
Officer, J.J. P.M Center, Byculla, Mumbai to Forensic
Laboratory, Kalina. The bottle bore label of Medical
Officer and BL-939/06, Exh.1A to 1C. The BL No. was in
the handwriting of Dr.(Ms) Deshpande. Description of
the Exhs. in Article no.29 (i.e. description of three
bullets in the bottle).
Exhs.1A to 1C-3 were deformed, copper jacketed
bullets having rifling marks, put in a bottle
(Article-29), labelled FMT/GSC/22/06, Ramanarayan
Vishwanath Gupta, Versova police station, CR No.302/06,
ADR No.55/06, three bullets for B.E. (Ballistic
Examination). It was the same bottle that their
Laboratory received.
730. The witness further deposed that, Articles
30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 deformed copper jacketed bullets
were having rifling marks. (Those were marked Exhs.
1/A, 1/B and 1/C by his Laboratory, Kalina). Those
deformed bullets were in the bottle Article 29 and were
...771/-
Exh.1124 771 (J-SC 317/10)
the same. The wrapper on the bottle with bullets (Art.
89) before the court was same. It bore his signature,
writing BL 939/06 and designation stamp of his office
and seal of the office. As per forwarding letter Exh.
290B sent by Versova police station his Laboratory
received two sealed bottles, along with forwarding
letter of Medical Officer, JJ PM Center, Byculla,
Mumbai Exh.290A. PC No.960428 brought the said
forwarding letter and bottles to his laboratory. Mahesh
Khavanekar received the letter and the bottles. Dr.(Ms)
Deshpande from Ballistic Division received the letter
and the bottles in Ballistic Division. The first bottle
contained turbid liquid, labelled, hand wash (Rt) hand
for B.E. Second bottle- turbid liquid in a bottle,
labelled, hand wash (Lt) hand for B.E. Exhs.1 and 2
also labelled FMT/GSC/22/06, Ramanarayan Vishwanath
Gupta, Versova police station, ADR No.55/06, CR No.
302/06. The description of the articles before the
court tallied with the description in the forwarding
letter and with the entries made by Dr. (Ms) Deshpande
in the relevant registers. He analyzed all articles
shown to him before the court under BL Nos.938/06,
939/06 and 940/06. Analysis of BL No.938/06 started on
28.05.2007. Analysis of BL No.939/06 started on
30.05.2007. Analysis of BL No.940/06 started on
30.05.2007. Exhs.251A, 253A and 254A were the originals
of office copies already produced on record at Exhs.
...772/-
Exh.1124 772 (J-SC 317/10)
251,253 and 254. He analyzed and examined the articles
and prepared reports. There were only two holes at the
backside of the 'sando banian' because it was a sando
banian. If there were folds on the shirt and sando
banian, the two holes of one bullet could be at a short
distance.
731. The witness further deposed that, he submitted
report Exhs.251(Exh.251A) BL 938/06 on 18.08.2007,
which was handed over to ASI Mr.Patade from Versova
police station on 18.8.2007. He also handed over
muddemal Exhs.1 to 15 to ASI Mr.Patade on the same
date. Those were sealed articles. He submitted his
report in a sealed packet. He also submitted a report
Exhs.254 (Exh.254A) BL 939/06 on 18.08.2007, which was
handed over to ASI Mr. Patade from Versova police
station on 18.08.2007. He also handed over one bottle
containing three bullets again wrapped in a paper, in a
sealed condition (Exhs.1A to 1C) to ASI Mr.Patade on
the same date. Those were sealed articles. The report
was submitted in a sealed packet. He also submitted a
report Exhs.253 (Exh.253A) BL 940/06 on 18.08.2007 and
handed over to ASI Mr. Patade from Versova police
station on 18.8.2007. The muddemal was turbid liquid
hand wash two bottles (Exhs.1 and 2). He submitted his
report in a sealed packet. Original letter dated
19.12.2009 bearing O.W no.157/09 and its office copy
...773/-
Exh.1124 773 (J-SC 317/10)
(Exh.656 and 656A respectively) was addressed to
Chemical Analyzer, Mumbai 98 sent by DCP, SIT, Mumbai.
The said letter was received by Mr. Mahesh Khavanekar.
There were 19 sealed parcels along with the said
forwarding letter of DCP, SIT bearing no.157/0 dated
19.12.2009, Per PSI Chalke of SIT.
732. The witness further deposed that, he received
those 19 parcels from Mr.Mahesh Khavanekar through PSI
Mr.Chalke. Condition of the parcels-13 sealed parcels,
seals perfect as per copy sent and six sealed parcels,
seals intact, device, Forensic Science Laboratory, LAB,
Bombay, BL. He noted down the seals and labels of the
parcels on forwarding letter and on the parcels. He
allotted a number BL-975/09 to the forwarding letter
and all Exhibits. He made an entry in the entry
register serially of the parcels that he received.
Before that, he opened the parcels one by one. It has
further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-1-office Exh.1-one six chambered .38
inch caliber revolver having body No...... 0539, butt
no.475 and markings RUGER POLICE SERVICE- SIX CAL .380
RIM, BEFORE USING GUN READ WARNING IN INSTRUCTION
MANUAL AVAILABLE FROM STRUM, RUGER & CO. INC. SOUTHPORT
CONN U.S.A. Wrapped in paper - iznf'kZr-A.
...774/-
Exh.1124 774 (J-SC 317/10)
733. The witness further deposed that, Article no.
15 revolver before the Court was the same. The butt of
the revolver bore cello tape label bearing no.
BL-975/09 Exh.1. It was in his handwriting. The yellow
tag label was in torn condition. Only word B is
visible. Words GN from his initials were visible and
from the stamp words Assistant Chemical Forensic were
visible. He had tied the said yellow tag. Article 25
was a original label of Versova police station, CR No.
246/09, u/s. 302, 364 of IPC and pradarshit-A. Only
BL-975/09 Exh.1 was in his handwriting on the label. A
big envelop (Art.90) before the Court bore his
handwriting, signature and designation stamp of his
office and case no. BL 975/09 Exh.1. The envelop was
prepared at the time of returning the muddemal. The
envelop bore seals of his forensic laboratory.
734. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-2 -their office Exh.2-One six chambered
.39 inch caliber revolver having body No.... 00532,
butt no.468 and markings RUGER POLICE SERVICE- SIX
CAL .380 RIM, BEFORE USING GUN READ WARNING IN
INSTRUCTION MANUAL AVAILABLE FROM STRUM, RUGER & CO.
INC. SOUTHPORT CONN U.S.A. Wrapped in paper - iznf'kZr-B.
Article no.16 before the Court was the same.
There was yellow tag label bearing BL - 975/09 Exh.2,
his signature and designation stamp of his office.
...775/-
Exh.1124 775 (J-SC 317/10)
735. The witness further deposed that, there was
cello tape label on the butt. It was in his
handwriting. It bore BL-975/09 Exh.2. The tag and the
cello tape was attached and affixed to the article at
the time of its analysis. The original wrapper and
label of police station bore his endorsement as BL
975/09 Exh.2 having police station seal. There was his
writing at the backside of the wrapper vide Article No.
26. Big envelop (Art.91) before the court was the same.
The words BL 975/09 Exh.2 were written in his
handwriting. It bore his signature and designation
stamp of his office. It also bore seal of his office.
He prepared the big envelop at the time of returning
the muddemal.
736. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-3-their office Exh.3-One six
chambered .38 inch caliber revolver having body No.
V-720936, butt no.294 and markings SMITH & WESSON .38 S
& W CTG MADE IN U.S.A. SMTI & WESSON SPRINGFIELD MASS
U.S.A. PATENTED FEB ....wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr-C.
Article-17 before the Court was the same. It
was having a cello tape, label wherein it was written
BL 975/09 Exh.3 and also yellow tag label BL-975/09
Exh.3. It bore his signature and designation stamp of
his office. The cello tape and yellow tag bore his
...776/-
Exh.1124 776 (J-SC 317/10)
writing.
737. The witness further deposed that, Article 27
wrapper before the court was the same. It bore label of
the police station. BL 975/09 Exh.3 was written on the
label in his handwriting. Backside of the wrapper bore
his writings as BL 975/09 Exh.3 and seal of the police
station. A brown envelop (Art.92) before the court was
the same. It bore case No.BL 975/09 Exh.3 in his
handwriting and also his signature and designation
stamp of his office. It also bore seal of his office.
It was prepared at the time of returning the muddemal
property.
738. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-4-his office Exh.4- One six chambered .
38 inch caliber revolver having body no. N-405648, butt
no.624 and markings TITAN TIGER CAL. 38 PL F.I.E. CORP
MIAMI FLA wrapped in paper marked (iznf'kZr)-D. Article
no.18 revolver before the Court was the same. It bore
cello tape label in his handwriting mentioning BL
975/09 Exh.4 and also yellow tag label bearing BL
975/09 Exh.4 in his handwriting. It bore his signature
and designation stamp of his office.
739. The witness further deposed that, Article 28
before the court bore label of the police station on
...777/-
Exh.1124 777 (J-SC 317/10)
the wrapper. He had written words BL 975/09 Exh.4 on
it. At the backside of the wrapper there was mention BL
975/09 Exh.4 in his handwriting. There was seal mark on
the wrapper. Envelop (Art.93) before the court was the
same. It was written BL 975/09 Exh.4 in his own
handwriting. It bore his signature and designation
stamp of his office and also seal of his office. The
envelop was prepared at the time of returning the
muddemal.
740. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-5- his office Exh.5- One 9 mm caliber
pistol having body No.16112478, butt no.2912 and
markings PISTOL AUTO 9 mm 1A RFI wrapped in a paper
marked iznf'kZr - E. Article 19 pistol before the Court
was the same. It bore cello tape label wherein it was
written BL 975/09 Exh.5 in his handwriting and also one
yellow tag label wherein it was written BL 975/09 Exh.
5.
741. The witness further deposed that, wrapper
Article 20 was the same. BL 975/09 Exh.5 was written
on the label in his handwriting. It was also written
on wrapper. Envelop (Art.94) wherein it was written BL
975/09 Exh.5 in his handwriting. It bore his signature
and designation stamp of his office. It also bore seal
of his office. The envelop was prepared at the time of
...778/-
Exh.1124 778 (J-SC 317/10)
returning the muddemal.
742. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-6-his office Exh.6- One 9 mm caliber
pistol having body No.16112481, butt no.2915 and
markings PISTOL AUTO 9 mm IA RFI wrapped in paper
marked iznf'kZr-F. Article 21 before the Court was the
same. It bore cello tape mentioning BL 975/09 Exh.6 and
also yellow tag label bearing BL 975/09 Exh.6. It was
in his handwriting.
743. The witness further deposed that, a wrapper
(Art.22) having label of the police station on it was
the same. He had written BL 975/09 Exh.6 in his
handwriting on it. It was also written on the wrapper
at two places. It bore seal impression of the seal of
police station. Envelop (Art.95) bore BL 975/09 Exh.6
in his handwriting, his signature and designation stamp
of his office. It was prepared at the time of
returning the muddemal.
744. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-7-his office Exh.7- One 9 mm caliber
pistol having body no.15179446, butt no.786 and
markings PISTOL AUTO 9 mm 1A RFI wrapped in paper
marked iznf'kZr-G. Pistol (Article 23) before the Court was
the same. BL 975/09 Exh.7 was written on the cello
...779/-
Exh.1124 779 (J-SC 317/10)
tape in his handwriting, which was affixed on the butt.
It also bore yellow tag label wherein it was written in
his handwriting BL 975/09 Exh.7. It bore his signature
and designation stamp of his office.
745. The witness further deposed that, Article 24
was wrapper along with label of the police station on
it. Words BL 975/09 Exh.7 on label were written in
his handwriting and it was also written by him on
wrapper. It bore seal of the police station. An envelop
(Art.96) on which it was written BL 975/09 Exh.7 in his
handwriting. It bore his signature and designation
stamp of his office. It also bore seal of his office.
It was prepared at the time of return of muddmeal
property.
746. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-8-his office Exh.8- One six chambered .
38 inch caliber revolver having body No.161-21934, butt
no. 347 and markings RUGER POLICE SERVICE SIX CAL .380
RIM, BEFORE USING GUN READ WARNING IN INSTRUCTION
MANUAL AVAILABLE FROM STRUM RUGER & CO INC SOUTHPORT
CONN. U.S.A. wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr - M. Article
69 revolver before the Court was the same. It bore
cello tape label wherein it was written BL 975/09 Exh.8
in his handwriting and also yellow tag label bears his
handwriting BL 975/09 Exh.8, his signature and
...780/-
Exh.1124 780 (J-SC 317/10)
designation stamp of his office.
747. The witness further deposed that, Article 44
was a wrapper with label of the police station. He had
written BL 975/09 Exh.8 on the label and also on the
wrapper in his handwriting. An envelop (Art.97) bore
writings BL 975/09 Exh.8 in his handwriting, his
signature and designation stamp of his office and also
seal of his office. It was prepared at the time of
returning the muddemal property. Article 43 was the
same wax seal, along with threads, of Versova police
station.
748. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel-9 his office Exh.9- Ten intact.38
revolver cartridges having head stamp markings KF .380
2 90 wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr- H.
Cartridges (Article 32/1) were the same. Those
are three live cartridges of .38 revolver cartridges.
It was written on the box BL 975/09 Exh.9 in his
handwriting. There was a cello tape label on the three
live cartridges. BL 975/09 Exh.9 was written on the
cello tape in his handwriting. KF .380 2 90 was
inscribed as head stamp mark on base portion.
749. The witness further deposed that, Article 32/2
were five test fired cartridges of .38 revolver
...781/-
Exh.1124 781 (J-SC 317/10)
cartridges. It bore cello tape label bearing words BL
975/09 Exh.9. It was written in his handwriting. There
was marking on base as KF .380 2 90. These were the
same test fired cartridges. These were the empties of
the intact cartridges, which were sent to his lab by
SIT. Article 32/3-two test fired cartridges of .38
revolver cartridges were the same. Those were the
empties of the intact cartridges which were sent to his
laboratory by SIT. It bore cello tape label bearing
words BL 975/09 Exh.9. It was in his handwriting.
Article 32/4- five test fired lead with copper jacketed
bullets having rifling marks were the same. These were
connected with Article 32/2. Article 32/5 were two
test fired bullets lead with copper jacketed having
rifling marks. Those were connected to Article 32/3.
Article 33 was the wrapper bearing original label of
Versova police station in CR 246/09. It bore BL 975/09
Exh.9 in his handwriting, seal impression of the police
station. It bore iznf'kZr-H. Small envelop (Art.98) before
the court was the same. Words 'BL 975/09 Exh.1 test
Exh.(9)' were written on it in his handwriting in red
and blue ink. At the time of returning test fired
cartridges, those were put in the envelop. Big envelop
(Art.99) was the same. Words BL 975/09 Exh.9 were
written in his handwriting on the envelop.
...782/-
Exh.1124 782 (J-SC 317/10)
750. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel -10- his office Exh.10 - Ten intact .38 inch
revolver cartridges having head stamp markings KF .380
2 90 wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZrI. Article 34/1 before
the court were the same. There was writing on box
Article 34/1 as BL 975/09 Exh.10. It contained five
intact .38 revolver cartridges having head stamp
marking KF .380 2 90. It bore a cello tape in his
handwriting and also words BL 975/09 Exh.10. Article
34/2- five test fired cartridges (empties) before the
court were the same. They had head stamp marking KF .
380 2 90. It also bore cello tape label. BL 975/09 Exh.
10 was written in his handwriting. White paper (Art.
100) was the same in which empties were wrapped. Words
BL 975/09 Exh.2 (test) were written in his handwriting
on the said paper. Article 34/3-five test fired bullets
lead with copper jacketed bullets having rifling marks,
were the same. His office received 10.38 revolver
cartridges from which five were intact and five were
test fired. Articles 34/2 and 34/3 were the same.
Wrapper with label of the police station bore BL 975/09
Exh.10 (Art.35) in his handwriting. There was a
impression of police station seal- iznf'kZr-. Big envelop
(Art.101) was prepared at the time of returning the
muddemal to the police station. It bore BL 975/09 Exh.
10 in his handwriting, his signature and designation
stamp of his office.
...783/-
Exh.1124 783 (J-SC 317/10)
751. It has further come in his evidence that,
parcel -11 -his office Exh.11- Ten intact .38 revolver
cartridges having head stamp markings KF .380 2 98
wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr J.
Article 36/1 the box, which bore writing BL
975/09 Exh.11 in his handwriting, wherein two intact .
38 revolver cartridges, having head stamp marking at
its base. KF .380 298 was written on it. It was
having cello tape label in his handwriting, BL 975/09
Exh.11. Those were the same intact cartridges.
752. The witness further deposed that, Article
36/2- three test fired cartridges (Empties) having head
stamp marking were the same with KF .380 2 98. It was
having cello tape label in his handwriting BL 975/09
Exh.11. Article 36/3-five test fired cartridges
(empties) having head stamp marking KF .380 2 98. It
was having cello tape label in his handwriting BL
975/09 Exh.11. Article 36/4- five test fired copper
jacketed bullets (lead with copper) having rifling
marks were the same. The five bullets were wrapped
separately in white papers. Article 36/5- three test
fired copper jacketed bullets (lead with copper) having
rifling marks and were wrapped in white papers
separately. Articles 36/4 and 36/5 were the test fired
cartridges of the eight empties of the eight bullets
...784/-
Exh.1124 784 (J-SC 317/10)
i.e. of Articles 36/2 and 36/3. They were the same.
Wrapper- Article 37- the label on the wrapper bore
words BL 975/09 Exh.11 in his handwriting and seal
impression of Versova police station. It was iznf'kZr- J.
Small envelop (Art.102) bore words Exh.11 T Ex 3. A
big envelop (Art.103) was prepared at the time of
returning muddemal property. It bore words BL 975/09
Exh.11, in his handwriting, his signature and
designation stamp of his office.
753. It has further come in his evidence that,
parcel -12his office Exh.12-were Ten intact .38 inch
revolver cartridges having head stamp markings KF .380
2 01 wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr-K.
Article 40/1- box contained three intact
cartridges .38 revolver cartridges having head stamp
markings KF .380 2 01 on it. The box bore words BL
975/09 Exh.12. There was cello tape affixed on the
cartridges. Words 'BL 975/09 Exh.12' were written on it
in his handwriting. These were the same three .38
revolver intact cartridges.
754. The witness further deposed that, Article 40/2
were seven test fired cartridges(empties) having head
stamp markings KF .380 2 01 on all empties. Words 'BL
975/09 Exh.12' were written on cello tape affixed to
the empties in his handwriting. The empties were
...785/-
Exh.1124 785 (J-SC 317/10)
wrapped in a white paper. Words T Ex 4 were written
on the said paper in his handwriting. Article 40/3 -
five test fired lead with copper jacketed bullets
having rifling marks are the same. Each of the bullets
was wrapped in a separate white paper by him. Article
40/4- two test fired lead with copper jacketed bullets
having rifling marks before the court were the same.
Those were wrapped by him in two separate white papers.
One paper bore 'Exh.4 T.F. single action'. Another
paper bore 'Exh.4 single action firing'. Article 41 was
a wrapper with label of the police station on it.
Words 'BL 975/09 Exh.12' were written by him on the
label. It was along with one broken seal piece. It
was iznf'kZr-K. One small brown envelop (Art.104) before
the court bore his writing 'T. Ex.4 Ex.12' in his
handwriting. It was used for keeping test fired
cartridges, bullets and intact cartridges. Big brown
envelop (Art.105) bore writing BL-975/09 Exh.12 in his
handwriting. The envelop was prepared at the time of
returning the muddemal articles to the police station.
755. It has further come in his evidence that,
Parcel -13-his office Exh.13 were ten intact 9
mm pistol cartridges having head stamp markings KF, 9
mm, 2 Z, 94 wrapped in paper marked iznf'kZr - L.
Article 38/1- box bearing words 'BL 975/09
Exh.13' was the same. There was one attempted to fire 9
...786/-
Exh.1124 786 (J-SC 317/10)
mm pistol cartridge having indentation on the cap and
head stamp markings KF 9 mm 2 Z 94.
756. The witness further deposed that, Article 38/2
were three test fired cartridges of 9 mm pistol
cartridges (Empties) having indentation on the cap and
head stamp markings KF 9 mm 2 Z 94 are the same. It
bore cello tape label- BL 975/09 Exh.13 (T Ex.5),
wrapped in a white paper, labelled empties, Ex.5 (T).
Article 38/3-three test fired 9 mm pistol cartridges
(empties), having head stamp marking, KF 9 mm 2 Z 94,
wrapped in white papers, affixed with cello tape label
- BL 975/09 Exh.13 (T Ex.6) were in his handwriting.
The white papers were labelled CC Ex.6 in his
handwriting. Those were the same cartridges. Article
38/4 were three test fired 9 mm pistol cartridges
(empties) having head stamp marking KF 9 mm 2 Z 94,
affixed with cello tape label, BL 975/09 Ex.13 (T Ex.7)
in his handwriting. It was wrapped in a white paper,
labelled CC Ex.7 in his handwriting. They were the
same cartridges. Article 38/5 three test fired lead
with copper jacketed bullets having rifling marks
before the court were the same. The wrapper (white
paper) was torn at one side. They were the same
bullets. Article 38/6 three test fired lead with
copper jacketed bullets having rifling marks, wrapped
in white paper, which was labelled as bullets Ex.6 in
...787/-
Exh.1124 787 (J-SC 317/10)
his handwriting were the same bullets. Article 38/7
were three test fired lead with copper jacketed
bullets, having rifling marks, wrapped in white paper,
which was labelled as bullets Ex.7 in his handwriting.
A brown paper wrapper was having a white paper label on
it of the police station. Words BL 975/09 Exh.13 were
written on the label in his handwriting (Article 39).
It was iznf'kZr- L. It was also having seal of the police
station with a thread. A big brown envelop (Art.106)
was the same. Words BL 975/09 Exh.13 were written on
it in his handwriting. It was prepared at the time
returning muddemal to the police station. All articles
- Exhs.1 to 13 as per his office were also labelled
Versova police station, CR 246/09 u/s.302,364,34 IPC
and having seal device- Versova police station, Mumbai,
before the Court were same.
757. It has further come in his evidence that, Exh.
14- one 9 mm pistol empty was having indentation on the
cap and head stamp marking KF 9 mm 2 Z 94 wrapped in a
paper, labelled by him as 'BL-938/06 Exh.4'. When Exh.
14 was received by him, it was in a sealed condition,
having seal device of Forensic Science LAB, Bombay, BL.
He had written words- Versova PSTN ADR 55/06, CR No.
302/06, BL-938/06, Ex.4 and BL-975/09 Ex.14 in his
handwriting on the wrapper i.e. on Article-56.
BL-938/06, Ex.4 and BL-975/09 Ex.14 were one and the
...788/-
Exh.1124 788 (J-SC 317/10)
same. The endorsements were written at the time
returning the muddemal to ASI Mr.Pattade of Versova
police station.
758. It has further come in his evidence that, BL
975/09 Exh.14 had the receipt date as 19.12.2009. Big
brown envelop (Art.107) bore words BL 975/09 Exh.14 in
his handwriting. It bore his signature and designation
stamp of his office. It was prepared at the time of
returning muddemal to the SIT. Article 57 before the
Court was one 9 mm pistol empty having indentation on
the cap and head stamp marking KF 9 mm 2 Z 94 affixed
cello tape label, BL - 938/06 Exh.4 and BL 975/09 Exh.
14. Article 57 before the Court was the same. Exh.15A
and 15B- two .38 revolver empties having indentation
on the caps and head stamp markings KF. 380 2 90
wrapped in paper were labelled BL 938/06 Exh.5A and 5B.
He received the empties in a sealed condition. It was
bearing his office seal, labelled Versova PSTN, ADR No.
55/06, CR No.302/06, BL -938/06 Exh.5A and 5B written
at the time of returning the muddemal to ASI Mr.
Pattade of Versova police station. It was labelled BL
975/09 Exh.15A and 15B written at the time of receiving
the Exhibits (Article 44). Article 46 colly. i.e. two .
38 revolver empties having indentation on the cap and
head stamp marking KF .380 2 90 were the same. It was
affixed with cello tape label. Words BL - 938/06 Exh.5
...789/-
Exh.1124 789 (J-SC 317/10)
and BL - 975/09 Exh.15A were written in his handwriting
and Second, BL 938/06 Exh.5A and BL 975/09 Exh.15B
respectively were written in his handwriting. They
were the same empties. Big brown envelop (Art.108)
bore words BL 975/09 Exh.15A and 15B were written in
his handwriting. It was prepared at the time of
returning the muddemal to the SIT. Exh.16 One .38
revolver empty was having indentation on the cap and
head stamp markings KF .380 2 01 wrapped in a paper
labelled BL 938/06 Exh.6. It was received in a sealed
condition having his office seal on it. The brown
wrapper (Article 59) before the court was the same. It
bore label- Versova PSTN ADR No.55/06, CR No.302/06, BL
- 938/06 Exh.6 written at the time of returning the
muddemal to Versova police station through ASI Mr.
Pattade. It was also labelled as BL 975/09 Exh.16
written at the time of receiving the parcel in his
handwriting.
759. The witness further deposed that, Article 60
was one .38 inch revolver empty having indentation on
the cap and head stamp marking KF .380 2 01 affixed
with cello tape label with his writing. Words BL 938/06
Exh.6 and BL 975/09 Exh.16 were in his handwriting. A
big brown envelop(Art.109) bore words BL 975/09 Exh.16
and were written in his handwriting. Exh.17 One .38
revolver empty was having indentation on the cap and
...790/-
Exh.1124 790 (J-SC 317/10)
head stamp markings KF .380 2 98 wrapped in a paper,
labeled BL 938/06 Exh.7. It was received in a sealed
condition in his office. Article 62 was the same brown
wrapper. Words 'Versova PSTN ADR 55/06, CR 302/06, BL
938/06, Ex.7' were written at the time of returning
muddemal to Versova police station through ASI Mr.
Pattade. It was in his handwriting. Words 'BL 975/09
Exh.17' were written by him in his handwriting at the
time of receiving the parcel. Article 63-was the same
article Exh.17. It bore cello tape label in his
handwriting. It bore words BL 938/06 Ex.7 and BL 975/09
Ex.17. BL 938/06 Ex.7 and BL 975/09 Ex.17 were one and
the same. Big brown envelop (Art.110) bore words BL
975/09 Exh.17 which were written in his handwriting. It
was prepared at the time of returning the muddemal to
the SIT.
760. The witness further deposed that, Exh.18A
was One deformed copper jacketed bullet having rifling
marks. Exh.18B- One deformed copper jacketed bullet
having rifling marks. Exh.18C is One deformed copper
jacketed bullet having rifling marks.
Exhs.18A to 18C were put in a bottle, labeled,
BL 939/06 Ex.1A to 1C again wrapped in paper labeled BL
939/06 Exh.1A to 1C. He received the packet in a sealed
condition.
...791/-
Exh.1124 791 (J-SC 317/10)
761. The witness further deposed that, Article 89
was the same wrapper. Muddemal articles were returned
to Mr. Pattade, ASI, through this wrapper and again
muddemal articles were received by his office through
the same wrapper. It bore words- Versova P.STN ADR No.
55/06, BL 939/06 Ex.1A to 1C, written at the time of
returning the muddemal to ASI Mr. Pattade from Versova
police station. These words were in his handwriting. It
was also written in his handwriting that, BL 975/09 Ex.
18A to 18C, at the time of receiving the parcel. It was
opened by his staff in his presence. When he opened the
wrapper, there were three bullets and one bottle in it.
The bottle was empty. Bullets and bottle were kept in a
brown envelop. Words 'BL-975/09 Ex.18A to 18C' were
written on the envelop by him in his handwriting on the
said envelop. Those words were written at the time of
receiving articles Ex.18A to 18C. The envelop was
marked Art.111. Article 30/1 was one deformed copper
jacketed bullet having rifling marks on it. Article
30/2 was one deformed copper jacketed bullet having
rifling marks on it. Article 30/3 was one deformed
copper jacketed bullet having rifling marks on it. All
these three bullets were wrapped in three white papers
by him. All three bullets were of BL 939/06 Ex.1A to
1C. Article 29 bottle and bullets Articles 30/1 to
30/3 before the Court were same.
...792/-
Exh.1124 792 (J-SC 317/10)
762. The witness further deposed that, a big brown
envelop (Art.112) bore words BL 975/09 Ex.18A to 18C.
It was in his handwriting. The envelop was prepared at
the time of returning muddemal articles to the SIT. Ex.
19A was full bush shirt (cut), labeled BL 938/06 Ex.
10A.
Ex.19B was full pant, labeled BL 938/06 Ex.10B.
Ex.19C was Sando banian (cut), labeled BL 938/06
Ex.10C.
Ex.19D was underwear (cut), labeled BL 938/06,
Ex.10D.
Ex.19A to 19D together wrapped in a paper labeled
BL 938/06 Ex.10A to 10D.
He received Ex.19A to 19D in a sealed condition. It
was the seal of his office. The muddemal articles were
sealed by his office at the time of returning the said
muddemal to ASI Mr. Pattade of Versova police station.
Article 17 was a brown wrapper. He had written words on
the wrapper as - Versova PSTN ADR No.55/06, BL 938/06,
Ex.10A to 10D. It was in his handwriting. It was
sealed and handed over to ASI Mr. Pattade of Versova
police station. Article 73 bush shirt (cut), Article
77 full pant, Article 81 sando baniyan and Article 85
underwear (cut) before the court were the same. A big
brown envelop (Art.113) bore words BL -975/09 Ex.19A to
19B were written on it in his handwriting. It was
prepared at the time of returning muddemal property to
...793/-
Exh.1124 793 (J-SC 317/10)
the SIT. Articles 14 to 19 were returned by him to
Versova police station through ASI Mr. Pattade. The
analysis of BL-975/09 (Articles 1 to 19) was started by
him on 22.12.2009. He received the articles on
19.12.2009.
763. The witness further deposed that, as per his
analysis and report of Ex.1(of his office), he observed
physical parameters, barrel washing, test firing and
proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.2 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.3 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.4 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.5 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.6 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.7 (of his
office), he observed physical parameters, barrel
...794/-
Exh.1124 794 (J-SC 317/10)
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.8 (of his
office),he observed physical parameters, barrel
washing, test firing and proof marks.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.9 (of his
office), he observed diagram physical parameters total
weight and test firing. Randomly selected seven one .38
inch revolver cartridges were found to be live on test
firing through . 38 inch revolver Ex.1 and Ex.8.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.10 (of
his office), he observed randomly selected five .38
inch revolver cartridges were found to be live on test
firing through the revolver Ex.2.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.11 (of
his office), he observed randomly selected eight .38
inch revolver cartridges were found to be live on test
firing through the revolver Ex.3& 8.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.12 (of
his office), he observed randomly selected seven .38
inch revolver cartridges were found to be live on test
firing through the revolver Ex.4 and 8.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.13 (of
his office), he observed 9(nine) mm pistol cartridges
were found to be live three each from 9 mm pistols Ex.
5,6 and 7. The remaining one 9 mm pistol cartridge was
found to be not live on test firing from 9 mm caliber
pistol Ex.7.
...795/-
Exh.1124 795 (J-SC 317/10)
As per his analysis and report of Ex.14 (of
his office), he observed physical parameters and
weight only and indentation mark on primer cap. He had
given microscopic comparison of empty Ex.14 and test of
Ex.7. Test Ex.7 tallied with Ex.14.
As per his analysis and report of Ex.15A and
15B (of his office), he observed the description of
Ex.-Two .38 inch revolver empties having indentation on
the caps and head stamp marking KF 380 2 90, weight of
both empties.
764. The witness further deposed that, as per his
analysis and report of Ex.16 (of his office), he
observed description of one .38 inch revolver empty
having indentation on the cap and head stamp mark KF .
380 2 01, physical parameters, weight of empty, head
stamp diagram. As per his analysis and report of Ex.
17 (of his office), he observed description one .38
inch revolver empty having indentation camp of head
Stamp marking KF .380 2 98, physical parameters, weight
of empty and head stamp of empty. As per his analysis
and report of Ex.18A (of his office), he observed
description one deformed copper jacketed bullet having
rifling marks, physical parameters, weight of bullet
and caliber-.38 inch caliber revolver bullet, number of
available lands and grooves, 5L/5G. Width of land and
grooves-LW/GW. Angle of twist-R.H.T. The backside of
...796/-
Exh.1124 796 (J-SC 317/10)
the page was the microscopic comparison between T Ex.1
with Ex.18A shows that, T Ex.1 tallied with Ex.18A. As
per his analysis and report of Ex.18B (of his office),
he observed description one deformed copper jacketed
bullet having rifling marks, physical parameters,
weight and caliber-. 38 inch caliber revolver bullet,
number of available lands and grooves, 5L/5G. Width of
land and grooves-LW/ GW. Angle of twist- R.H.T. The
backside of the page was the microscopic comparison
between T Ex.1 with Ex.18B shows that, T Ex.8 tallies
with Ex.18B. As per his analysis and report of Ex.18C
(of his office), he observed description one deformed
copper jacketed bullet having rifling marks, physical
parameters, caliber -.38 inch caliber revolver bullet,
number of available lands and grooves, 8L/8G. Width of
land and grooves- LW/ GW. Angle of twist- R.H.T. The
backside of the page was the microscopic comparison
between T Ex.4 with Ex.18C shows that, T Ex.4 tallies
with Ex.18C.
765. The witness further deposed that, he prepared
notes for the purpose of analysis in his own hand vide
Exh.657 (colly. Page (sheet) nos.1 to 20). The
contents were written by him simultaneously at the time
of analysis. The result of analysis was, Ex.1, Ex.2,
Ex.3, Ex.4 and Ex.8 were the six chambered. 38 inch
caliber revolvers in working condition. Randomly
...797/-
Exh.1124 797 (J-SC 317/10)
selected five .38 inch revolver cartridges from Ex.9
were successfully test fired from the .38 inch caliber
revolver Ex.1. Randomly selected five .38 inch
revolver cartridges from Ex.10 were successfully test
fired from the .38 inch revolver Ex.2. Randomly
selected five .38 inch revolver cartridges from Ex.11
were successfully test fired from the .38 inch caliber
revolver Ex.3. Randomly selected six .38 inch revolver
cartridges from Ex.12 were successfully test fired from
the .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.4. Randomly selected
six .38 inch revolver cartridges two from Ex.9, three
from Ex.11, one from Ex.12 were successfully test
fired from the .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.8. Ex.5,
Ex.6 and 7 were the 9 mm caliber pistols in working
condition. Randomly selected three 9 mm pistol
cartridges from Ex.13 were successfully test fired from
the 9 mm caliber pistol Ex.5. Randomly selected three
9 mm pistol cartridges from Ex.13 were successfully
test fired from the 9 mm caliber pistol Ex.6. Randomly
selected three 9 mm pistol cartridges from Ex.13 were
successfully test fired from the 9 mm caliber pistol
Ex.7. Remaining one 9 mm pistol cartridge in Ex.13 was
found to be not live on test firing from 9 mm caliber
pistol Ex.7. Empty in Ex.14 was a fired 9 mm pistol
cartridge case. The characteristic features of the
firing pin impression (examined under microscopic
comparison) found the empty Ex.14 tallied with those on
...798/-
Exh.1124 798 (J-SC 317/10)
the cartridges fired from 9 mm caliber pistol Ex.7,
showing the empty had been fired from 9 mm caliber
pistol Ex.7. The empties in Ex.15A and 15B were the
fired .38 inch revolver cartridge cases. The
characteristic features of the firing pin impression in
addition to breech face marks (examined under
microscopic comparison) on the empties Ex.15A and 15B
tallied among themselves and with those on .38 inch
revolver cartridges fired from .38 inch caliber
revolver Ex.1, showing these empties had been fired
from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.1.
766. The witness further deposed that, the empty
in Ex.16 was a fired .38 inch revolver cartridge case.
The characteristic features of the firing pin
impression (examined under microscopic comparison) on
the empty Ex.16 tallied with those on the cartridges
fired from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.4, showing the
empty had been fired from the .38 inch caliber revolver
Ex.4. The empty in Ex.17 was fired .38 inch revolver
cartridge case. The characteristic features of the
firing pin impression, in addition to breech face marks
(examined under microscopic comparison) tallied with
those on the .38 inch revolver cartridges fired from .
38 inch caliber caliber revolver Ex.8, showing the
empty had been fired from the .38 inch caliber revolver
Ex.8. Deformed copper jacketed bullet in Ex.18A was a
...799/-
Exh.1124 799 (J-SC 317/10)
fired . 38 inch caliber revolver bullet. This bullet
(examined under microscopic comparison) tallied with
test fired bullets from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.1,
in respect of the number and widths of the lands and
grooves, direction and extent of twist of rifling and
characteristic striations on the lands and grooves
impression on the bullet Ex.18A, showing the bullet had
been fired from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.1. The
deformed copper jacketed bullet in Ex.18C was a fired .
38 inch caliber revolver bullet. This bullet (examined
under microscopic comparison) tallied with test fired
bullets from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.4, in respect
of the number and widths of the lands and grooves,
direction and extent of twist of rifling and
characteristic striations on the lands and grooves
impression on the bullet in Ex.18C, showing the bullet
had been fired from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.4.
767. The witness further deposed that, the deformed
copper jacketed bullet in Ex.18B was a fired .38 inch
caliber revolver bullet. This bullet (examined under
microscopic comparison) tallied with test fired bullets
from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.8, in respect of the
number and widths of the lands and grooves, direction
and extent of twist of rifling and characteristic
striations on the lands and grooves impression on the
bullet in Ex.18B, showing the bullet had been fired
...800/-
Exh.1124 800 (J-SC 317/10)
from .38 inch caliber revolver Ex.8. Test firing in the
laboratory was done on cloth targets, kept at a
distance (touch firing, 6 inch, 2 feet, 1 meter and 2
meters) from muzzle end of revolver and pistols Ex.1 to
8. The nature of shot holes on cloth targets and the
shot holes front side of full bush shirt Ex.19A and
corresponding on sando banian Ex.19C were consistent
with the distance of firing was about 2 meters from
revolver or pistol. Analysis started on 22.12.2009 and
was completed on 01.02.2010. He prepared the said
report. Page no.7 of the report were the photographs.
It was Ex.7 Test-Ex.14(empty), matching photographs.
Left half photograph was of Ex.7 Test and right half
was of Ex.14 (empty). The two photographs were placed
in juxtaposition for comparison.
768. The witness further deposed that, Ex.1 Test-
Ex.15A and 15B (empties) were separate photographs. Ex.
1 Test was matching with Ex.15A and 15B empties. Page
no.8 of the report- Ex.4 Test and Ex.16 (empty) were in
matching position under microscopic photo. Left half
photograph was of Ex.4 Test and right half was of Ex.16
(empty). The two photographs were placed in
juxtaposition for comparison. Ex.8 Test and Ex.17
(empty) were in matching position under microscopic
photo. Left half photograph was of Ex.8 Test and right
...801/-
Exh.1124 801 (J-SC 317/10)
half was of Ex.17 (empty). The two photographs were
placed in juxtaposition for comparison. Page no.9 of
the report. Ex.1 Test and Ex.18A (bullet) were in
matching position under microscopic photo. Left half
photograph was of Ex.1 Test and right half was of Ex.
18A (bullet). The two photographs were placed in
juxtaposition for comparison. Ex.4 Test and Ex.18C
(bullet) were in matching position under microscopic
photo. Left half photograph was of Ex.4 Test and right
half was of Ex.18C (bullet). The two photographs were
placed in juxtaposition for comparison. Page no.10 of
the report. Ex.8 Test and Ex.18B(bullet) were in
matching position under microscopic photo. Left half
photograph was of Ex.8 Test and right half was of Ex.
18A(bullet). The two photographs were placed in
juxtaposition for comparison. Photographs on pages 7
and 8 were the photographs of test cartridge case and
empty for comparison of firing pin impression.
Photographs on pages 9 and 10 were the photographs of
test fired bullets and exhibit bullet for comparison of
lands and grooves and striations marks.
769. The witness further deposed that, photographs
on the next page after page no.10 were part of the
Report. The photograph at upper top side of the page
was a photograph of shirt Ex.19A (of his office) i.e.
Article 73 before the Court. Right side of the cloth
...802/-
Exh.1124 802 (J-SC 317/10)
target was prepared in the laboratory. Right and left
sides i.e. both sides were showing shot holes.
Photograph at the lower side of the page was the
photograph of shirt Ex.19A (of his office). Right side
was the shirt Ex.19 A. Left side was the cloth target
of test firing. The photograph bore his signature and
stamp of his office. Ex.2 in the photograph referred to
the revolver. First photograph at upper side at the
next page - left side was the cloth Ex.19A shirt. Right
side was the cloth target of test firing. The second
photograph on the same page mentioned right side as Ex.
19 A shirt. Left side was the cloth target of test
firing.
770. The witness further deposed that, the shirt
in four coloured photographs was encircled by glass
marking red pencil. The cloth target of test firing
shown in the photograph was also encircled by glass
marking red pencil. These four photographs were taken
by a photographer by means of a digital camera. The
four photographs were taken for the purpose of distance
of firing. The Report, along with photographs and
negatives (three roles) were marked Exh.658 (colly.
Page (sheets) nos.1 to 9). He handed over the report,
along with the muddemal, to API Mr. Ghorpade from the
S.I.T. on 02.02.2010. Letter (Exh.659) dated
02.02.2010 addressed to the Director, Forensic Science
...803/-
Exh.1124 803 (J-SC 317/10)
Laboratory, Mumbai, was sent by D.C.P., SIT. The letter
bore endorsement of API Mr.Ghorpade from SIT for
receipt of the report and the articles mentioned
therein. He also returned the articles in a sealed
condition in 19 envelops. Exh.657 was in his
handwriting. It bore his signature. The document was
written on 30.05.2007. On 30.05.2007, he did analysis.
771. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, his subsidiary subjects in S.Y.B.Sc were,
Chemistry, Bio-chemistry and Zoology. He was having
special subject i.e. Chemistry for the third year B.Sc.
In B.Sc., he did not have any subject relating to
Ballistic Expert. In the year 1986, he had nothing to
do with the Ballistic Expert. During 1986-1987, he was
at Ahmednagar as Scientific Assistant in the office of
Superintendent of Police Investigators Car Unit. He did
not have any certificate to show that, he had undergone
a training in January 1986. In this case, police
recorded his only one statement on 22.03.2010 as per
his say. That statement was not handed over to him for
reading. It was read over to him. He was remembering
the Ballistic Expert training at the time of giving
statement before the police. He did not state this fact
to the police while his statement was being recorded.
Undergoing a ballistic training was an important fact.
The witness denied that, he did not undergo training in
...804/-
Exh.1124 804 (J-SC 317/10)
Ballistic Expert, therefore, he did not state it before
the police. For the first time, he was transferred to
Ballistic Division in 1990. Till then, except taking
training in January 1986, he had nothing to do with the
Ballistic Expert. Since 1990 to 2002, he was attached
as the Scientific Assistant to Ballistic Department.
As the Scientific Assistant, he was not allowed to sign
the Reports or prepare the Reports. Witness on his own
deposed that, he was having additional charge of Asst.
Chemical Analyzer in the year 1991. The department of
Asst. Chemical Analyzer was different than the
Ballistic Department. Till recording his statement by
the SIT, he did not submit any reports. The witness
denied that, he was not a Ballistic Expert. There were
near about 100 books on Ballistic Expert. Some of them
were standard books on Ballistic Expert. He was aware
of the fact that, the most standard book on
identification of firearms and forensic ballistics was
by Burrard. He had read that book. He agreed with it.
772. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he agreed that, breech faces of all
firearms are machine cut in the first place. He agreed
that, in the higher grade weapons they were finished of
by hand finishing or grinding. He agreed that, strikers
of all weapons were cut and shaped, receiving different
degrees of fine finishing according to the grade of
...805/-
Exh.1124 805 (J-SC 317/10)
weapon in which they were to be used. He agreed that,
it would be realized that the breech face and the
striker of every single firearm had microscopical
individualities of their own. Sometimes, indeed these
individualities were so pronounced that they were
visible even to the naked eye while they could be
usually seen with the good pocket lens. He agreed that,
in addition to the actual tool-markings on a breech
face there might be other peculiarities. It might
easily become indented by some knock or accidental
touch with a tool even before the weapon ever leaves
the factory, while such accidental markings commonly
occur during use, especially if the weapon was not
looked after very carefully. He agreed that, when a
cartridge was fired the pressure was generated, which
might be anything from 2 to over 20 tons per square
inch and forced the case back against the breech face;
and since brass was softer than steel the individuality
of the breech face was imprinted on the base of the
cartridge. This imprint was received most clearly by
the central cap, as the cap was always made of softer
metal than the actual cartridge case. In other words,
the firearm left its finger print or thumb-mark on
every cartridge, which it fired. The distinctness with
which this thumb mark was imprinted naturally varied
with the pressure; but its image would always be
present even though it was sometime difficult to
...806/-
Exh.1124 806 (J-SC 317/10)
detect. He agreed that, if there was any pronounced
peculiarity in any particular breech face, this
peculiarity must leave its imprint on the base of every
cartridge fired from that weapon. He agreed that, in
fact, the whole principle of identification was based
on the fact that since the breech face of every weapon
must be individually distinct, the cartridge cases
which it fired were imprinted with this individuality.
The imprints on all cartridges fired from the same
weapon were the same, and those on cartridges fired
from different weapons must always be different.
773. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he had not heard terminology- 'ex-
centricity'. He knew the principle that, when a
striker- pin hit the bullet, its variation at the point
at which it hit from the center was important. He
agreed that, the center of the striker was seldom
absolutely concentric with the breech face and so in
actual practice it would be found that in the great
majority of fired cases the striker indentation was
usually ex-centric. This fact could, at times, have
an important bearing on the identification of an
individual arm, and so its existence should be noted
carefully. He agreed that, in case of revolvers the
direction of the ex-centricity was always constant
for any individual weapon, and the amount of ex-
...807/-
Exh.1124 807 (J-SC 317/10)
centricity fairly constant. The depth of striker
indentation was one of the methods of determining
whether two fired cartridges had both been fired by
same weapon. It was correct to say that, when a striker
hit the bullet, the indentation was required to be
minutely examined in order to find out whether the two
bullets bore the same impression or not.
774. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he was aware that, the Judge was to
decide as to whether a particular bullet or an empty
was fired from a particular weapon and that, he was
supposed to assist the Court. In order that, he had
taken photographs of test bullets, test empties and
fired bullets and fired empties in question. The
witness was shown Report Exh.658 (colly' pages 1 to 9).
In order to find out, Ex.17 i.e. revolver empty was
fired from Ex.8, revolver (Ruger Police Service
Revolver), he fired various test bullets from this
revolver. In order to test, he fired six test bullets
from Ruger Police Service Revolver. Those were two from
Ex.9, three from Ex.11 and one from Ex.12. He did not
take photographs of the six test fired bullets from
Ruger Police Service Revolver which were at Ex.9, Ex.11
and Ex.12 of their office. He had taken photograph of
one test fired bullet from Ex.9. He had tested with
Ex.8. He had not mentioned in test Ex.8 in photographs
...808/-
Exh.1124 808 (J-SC 317/10)
(Exh.658/5 colly.) as to which of these six empties was
test fired through Ex.8 Ruger Police Service Revolver.
This was the only photograph available for the Court,
the prosecution and to the defence(at Exh.658/5) to
show that, one of the empties, out of six, was test
fired through Ex.8 so as to compare with Ex.17. The
witness was shown Exh.658/3. Only portion marked A
and nothing else was mentioned in the Report as regards
to Ex.8 vis-a-vis Ex.17. The witness denied that, in
portion marked A of the Report, characteristic
features of firing pin impression or breech face marks
were not mentioned because in fact, there were no such
characteristic features which were tallying with each
other. The witness also denied that, he did not
mention in the photographs of Ex.8 vis-a-viz Ex.17 as
to which characteristic features tallied with each
other. The witness was shown point-1 (marked by the
Court) in Ex.Test 8 at page-5 in Ex.658/5. It was a
black spot at point-1 near the circle. He was also
shown point-2 (marked by the Court). Point-2 was a
circle. Diameter of point-2 was nearly about 2 cms. He
was also shown point-3(marked by the Court). There was
a black line. He was shown point-4 (marked by the
Court). There was a small inner circle. Diameter was
nearly about one cm. He was shown point-5 (marked by
the Court). It was a white spot below black circle.
Point-1 did not appear in Ex.17. The witness on his own
...809/-
Exh.1124 809 (J-SC 317/10)
deposed that, due to overlapping, it was not visible.
He did not mention that, due to overlapping, point-1
was not visible in Ex.17, in his Report. He did not
agree that, point-2 mentioned in Ex.8 was not same as
that in Ex.17. Point-3 line in Ex.8 did not appear in
Ex.17. The witness denied that, point-4 circle in Ex.8
was different than that in Ex.17. Point-5 in Ex.8 was
not clear in Ex.17 and that, there was no such dot in
Ex.17 as that in Ex.8 test.
775. The witness was shown point-6/A. It was a line
in white on the rim going downwards. There was a white
spot in Ex.17 at point-6. The witness on his own
deposed that, it was a printing of year 98. There were
8 to 10 white lines at point-7 in Ex.17. At point-8 in
Ex.17 there were crescent shaped formations. There were
three to four white lines (irregular shapes in Ex.17
at point-9. Line at point-6/A in Ex.17 was not to be
found in Ex.8. Line at point 6 in Ex.17 was not to be
found in Ex.8. 10-12 lines appearing in Ex.17 were not
to be found in Ex.8. The witness on his own deposed
that, the circle was impression of firing pin /
striker. Other marked marks were on the primer cap were
breech face marks. 3-4 lines in Ex.17 were not to be
found in Ex.8 test. Two indentation marks in Ex.8 and
Ex.17 were totally different from each other. The
witness on his own deposed that, the first circle meant
...810/-
Exh.1124 810 (J-SC 317/10)
the indentation of firing pin and also tip of
impression of firing pin.
776. The witness denied that, his say that, test
Ex.8 tallied with only one empty in Ex.17 was false and
that, he had given opinion mechanically and without
understanding Ballistic Science. In each revolver it
was having rifling marks i.e lands and grooves.
Different manufacturing persons decided as to how many
lands and grooves should be there in the barrel of a
weapon. While finishing the barrel, the articles/ tools
which were used leave certain cutting marks in the
barrel of the weapon. They were treated as individual
characteristic marks.
777. The witness agreed that, no two barrels are
microscopically identical, as the surfaces of their
bores all possess individual characteristic and
markings. In fact every barrel has its thumb mark in
exactly the same way that every breech face has its
thumb marks and that, so the task of identification
depends on matching the engraving on two, or more,
fired bullets in exactly the same way as it also
depends on matching the imprints on the bases of two,
or more, fired cartridge cases.
778. The witness did not understand terminology-
...811/-
Exh.1124 811 (J-SC 317/10)
furrows. In both cases the engraving consisted of
deep major furrows with fine striations in between
these major furrows. He agreed that, it will be noted
that only the lower portion of each fired bullet is
engraved. This is only to be expected, as the parallel
part of the bullet is the only part which takes the
rifling, the tapered nose being of too small a
diameter. But it will be seen that upper portion of the
land furrow in the lead bullet has the appearance of
being doubled, this doubling deceasing as it
approaches the base. This is very common feature in
fired bullets and is caused by the bullet failing to
enter the bore absolutely nose on. The result is that
the forward part of the parallel portion of the bullet
takes the rifling, and is engraved accordingly. But as
the bullet travels farther into the bore, and the whole
of the parallel portion enters the bore, any tendency
to oblique movement is checked, and the bullet is
forced into the rifling with its longitudinal axis
coincident with the axis of the bore. When the bullet
is so forced to assume true nose on movement it skids
from its initial slanting direction and takes the
rifling correctly in a manner similar to that in which
wheel of a car which is travelling just off the
direction of a tram-line will skid into that tram-line
and travel along it. But the mark of the first impact
with the rifling remains, and constitutes what can best
...812/-
Exh.1124 812 (J-SC 317/10)
be described as a Skid Mark at the front end of the
land furrow.
779. The witness admitted that, there are class
characteristics of a particular type of weapon for
example-revolvers of a particular type. It is correct
to say that, an individual weapon in a particular type
of weapons, may have individual characteristic due to
hitting, pressure or improper use of tools etc. at the
time of manufacturing that particular weapon. He
agreed that, these secondary markings consist of a
number of parallel striations in the furrows cut by the
lands, and also in between these land furrows. These
striations are all caused by minute tool, or other
marks on the surface of the bore which scratch the
outside surface of the bullet as it passes along the
bore. This striation is also known as thumb mark of
barrel.
780. The witness agreed that, the thumb mark of a
barrel is, except in one particular, far more difficult
to read than the thumb mark of a breech face. To begin
with the striations which make it up are altogether
finer th an any markings impressed on the base of a
cartridge, and this means that a microscope is
essential from the very start and that a somewhat
higher power is required than is necessary for a
...813/-
Exh.1124 813 (J-SC 317/10)
cartridge case. Then the imprint of a barrel on a
bullet is a sliding imprint, and is consequently far
more subject to variations than a static imprint such
as is obtained on the base of a cartridge and that,
these differences are due to the sliding imprint, but
with practice it is possible to detect the difference
between variations resulting from the sliding imprint
and variation due to different barrels. The striations
between the furrows in test fired bullet and the crime
bullet must match with each other.
781. The witness was shown Report Exh.658 colly.,
Ex.18B (of our office). Ex.18B was the crime bullet. He
test fired six bullets i.e. two from Ex.9, three from
Ex.11 and one from Ex.12, that was total six bullets
were fired. Photograph of only one bullet, out of six,
was taken. The photograph of the said bullet was at
Exh.658 page 7 at left side, BL-975/09. He did not
mention as to which of the bullets from Ex.9,11 and 12
was taken for taking the said photograph. The witness
was shown marking (striations)-1 and 2 (marked by the
Court) in the photograph BL-975/09 at page-7 in Exh.
658/7. Markings (striations)-1 and 2 in the said
photograph were due to the grooves. The witness was
shown Ex.8 at page no.7, BL 975/9 at Exh.658 colly. At
point-3 there was white line in Ex.8. There were two
white lines at point-4 in Ex.8. There was a black line
...814/-
Exh.1124 814 (J-SC 317/10)
at point-5 in Ex.8. There was a white line at point-6
in Ex.8. The witness was shown Ex.18/B at page-7 BL
975/09 at Exh.658 colly. There was a white line at
page 7 above the edge groove, which was shown at
point-2. The witness on his own deposed that, it was
near the groove. He agreed that, it was above the
edge the groove. At point-8 in Ex.18/B, there was a
black line. Just above that, there was a white line at
point-9. At point 10, there was a black line. There
was no corresponding line in Ex.18/B like point-3 in
Ex.8. There were no similar two lines in Ex.18/B as
they were in point-4 in Ex.8. There no black line in
Ex.18/B as it appeared at point-5 in Ex.8. Similarly,
there was no corresponding line Ex.18/B as it appeared
at point-6 in Ex.8.
782. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, there was no corresponding line in
Ex.8 test like the one that appeared in Ex.18/B at
point-7. There was no corresponding line in Ex.8 test
like the one that appeared in Ex.18/B at point-8.
There was no corresponding line in Ex.8 test like the
one that appeared in Ex.18/B at point-9. There was no
corresponding line in Ex.8 test like the one that
appeared in Ex.18/B at point-10. The witness on his
own deposed that, marked-2 left side of the photograph,
...815/-
Exh.1124 815 (J-SC 317/10)
test of Ex.8 and marked-7 at the end of photograph
right side, the white line completely matched. Point-5
in Ex.8, point 8 in Ex.8, these lines completely
matched with right side photograph. Point-2 and point-5
left side matched with right side point-7 and 8. It was
the groove of bullet completely matched.
783. The witness was shown Exh.658/7. There was
another line below point-7 in Ex.18/B at Exh.658/7. It
was hardly a millimeter or so. It was marked as
point-7/A. Line-7/A in Ex.18/B bullet photograph was
corresponding to point-2 with photograph Ex.8 of test
bullet. When any particular striation was to be matched
from 2 photographs, the distance from a striation
produced by a groove was to be measured and it must be
same in both the cases. The witness denied that,
distance between 7/A and 8 in Ex.18/B was smaller than
distance between 2 to 5 in Ex.8 test. Grooves must
match if the revolver was of the same type. The witness
on his own deposed that, first match groove to groove
or land to land, then minor characteristics were found
on the both bullets, test and crime bullet. If the land
and grooves matched, the first hurdle was over and he
could say that, the revolver was of the same type. He
agreed that, unless the minor characteristics matched,
he could not say that, the bullet was fired from one
and the same revolver. He had taken the empties and
...816/-
Exh.1124 816 (J-SC 317/10)
test fired cartridges from Ex.9,11 and 12 from
BL-975/09. The bullet that he test fired from Ex.9,11
and 12, he saw those bullets for the first time on
19.12.2009, however those bullets were received by the
Laboratory on 19.12.2009. Empty Ex.17 was received by
the Laboratory on 13.11.2006. On 13.11.2006, he
personally did not see Ex.17 in the Laboratory. For
the first time, he saw Ex.17 empty of BL 975/09
(corresponding Ex.7 of BL 938/06). Seal of the said
empty was removed on 13.11.2006. He received the said
empty on 28.05.2007. When he received the said empty,
it was not in a sealed condition. The witness on his
own deposed that, it was kept in strong room in
Ballistic Department. He did not state in his statement
before SIT that, the said empty was kept in strong room
of our Ballistic Department. He personally did not see
the said empty in the strong room in Ballistic
Department. The witness on his own deposed that, Ex.1
to 7 were tied in one parcel and were kept in the
strong room and were taken for analysis from the strong
room. He did not state this fact in his statement
before the SIT.
784. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, this revolver (Ex.8) was not sent to
their Laboratory in the year 2006. When he received the
said revolver along with other articles, he removed the
...817/-
Exh.1124 817 (J-SC 317/10)
seal of the revolver on 19.12.2009. At the time of
starting analysis of Ex.8, there was no seal on it. The
witness denied that, at the time of preparation of
report BL- 975/09 he deliberately did not collect
proper evidence to be produced before the Court and
that, as there was no proof available with him, he
vaguely prepared the report. Ex.17 was the fired .38
inch revolver empty cartridge. On seeing the fired .38
inch revolver empty cartridge, one can say that, it was
fired from .38 inch revolver. Ex.1,2,3 and 4
(corresponding to Articles 15,16,17 and 18 of the
Court) were all .38 inch revolvers. He tried to see
as to whether Ex.17 matched with any of the bullets
fired from Ex.1,2,3 and 4 or with their test fired
bullets. He did not submit its report to the police.
The witness on his own deposed that, Ex.1,2 and 3 were
microscopically compared with Ex.17 and he gave opinion
about the revolver with which they tallied. He did not
prepare any report of the remaining revolvers Ex.1,2,3
and 4. He did not have any document to show that, he
tallied the test fired empty Ex.17 with Ex.1,2,3 and 4.
The witness denied that, he did not try to match test
fired bullets from Ex.1 to 4 with Ex.17 as he was told
by the SIT that, he had to show Ex.17 matches with test
fired bullet from Ex.8. He was supposed to exactly
state the nature of deformity in bullets in his Notes.
...818/-
Exh.1124 818 (J-SC 317/10)
785. The witness was shown page 19 of his Notes of
Exh.657. He did not state in writing in his notes the
nature of deformity of the bullet (Ex.18/B). The
witness on his own deposed that, he had shown the said
deformity at the tip of the bullet in the sketch at
page no.19 . The witness was shown page 18 of his notes
Exh.657. It was shown on page 18 that, arrow with L
indicating land at the tip of the bullet. Similar was
the case as regards to Ex.18/B and 18C, where L was
for land. It was at the tip of the bullet.
786. On being asked, there was a tip deform in Ex.
18/B and 18/C and there was a base deform in Ex.18/A,
the witness answered that, as per his say, the base
deform was shown in the diagram at page no.18. The
witness denied that, he did not show any base deform
bullet. The base was the cartridge case. The striking
pin hit on primer cap, then the bullet travelled from
out of the barrel, and that from barrel it proceeded
further. He could not tell whether unless there was an
obstruction, the tip would go first to the target and
not the base. The witness denied that, he was
deliberately avoiding to answer this question. In para
no.204 in his evidence, he had deposed five different
distances, out of which, in case of first three all the
three would be within the powder range and it would be
touch firing, 6 inch, 2 feet. After one meter, it would
...819/-
Exh.1124 819 (J-SC 317/10)
be out of powder range. He was deposing on the basis of
only the measurement of the hole to decide or to fix
the distance of two meters from revolver or pistol, as
mentioned in para no.204 in his Examination in chief.
He did not have any authority or book to state that, on
the basis of shot holes a distance of 1 meter, 2 meters
etc., could be determined. The witness was shown the
book on Ballistic Expert by Burrard. There was no
specific target firing which could show the distance on
the basis of the hole mark.
787. The witness denied that, officers from the SIT
asked him to fix the distance, therefore, he had
falsely given the distance in his Report. The witness
on his own deposed that, he fixed the distance
according to police query i.e forwarding letter
question no.4 in Exh.656. It was highly impossible for
the expert to state the distance once it was out of the
powder range. The witness on his own deposed that, he
personally did the experiment of the test firing, as
there was a query by the SIT. He had no literature to
show in support of his evidence. He would try to
produce the literature on the next fixed date. The
witness was called upon by the defence to produce the
literature.
...820/-
Exh.1124 820 (J-SC 317/10)
788. The witness was shown Exh.253. In his report,
there was no mention as to what did he find on the
turbid liquid of hand wash. The witness denied that, he
did not deliberately prepare correct report. The
witness on his own deposed that, he had mentioned it in
his handwritten notes on test. Those notes were not
placed on record before the Court. On chemical
analysis, the hand wash might show barium (BA),
antimony(SB) and lead. They did not need independent
controlled samples. The witness denied that, he
deliberately prepared the report to suit the
prosecution and that, he deliberately destroyed those
articles so that there should not be further
investigation and that, he was not a Ballistic Expert
and also that he had submitted a false Report.
789. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, article 57(9 mm pistol empty) was
received by his office on 13.11.2006 for the first
time. It was not received by him. He did not have an
occasion to carry out test of this empty after it was
received by his office. The witness denied that, he did
not take photographs of this empty showing indentation
marks and breech face marks. He did not take
photographs of this empty at the time after receiving
the empty for the first time and after examining it.
The witness on his own deposed that, he had not taken
...821/-
Exh.1124 821 (J-SC 317/10)
photographs but noting of indentation marks on primer
cap taken at the time of analysis by him. Dr.(Ms)
Deshpande received the said article and at that time he
was not present.
790. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, when he received Article 57 for the
first time, he did not take photographs of the entry
showing breech space and indentation marks. On being
asked whether he stated in his statement before the SIT
that, he took a noting of indentation marks, the
witness replied that, he stated this fact of taking
noting in his statement before the SIT. The witness
denied that, he did not state this fact in his
statement before SIT. Indentation marks and head stamp
markings KF-9-mm-2-Z-94 was noting of empty.
Description of exhibits itself was a noting. The
witness denied that, there was no separate noting in
report Exh.251 as regards to indentation marks. Page
no.1 and some portion of page no.2 of Exh.251 before
result of analysis was mentioned as the description of
articles contained in the parcel. Thereafter, result of
analysis was mentioned. On being asked, in the result
of analysis in Exh.251 where he had referred empty in
Ex.4, he had not specifically mentioned about the same
empty having indentation marks, the witness answered
that, he did not specifically mention words
...822/-
Exh.1124 822 (J-SC 317/10)
indentation marks. He received Ex.4 for analysis
from the strong room in an unsealed condition. The
witness was shown Article 57 before the Court. The
witness denied that, it was not mentioned on Article 57
words BL 938/06. The witness on his own deposed that,
words 'BL-975/09' were also written on it. The witness
denied that, the words 'BL-936/06' appeared on the said
empty and that, it was 6 and not 8 in 938/06 and
that, he was deposing false that it was BL 938/06. The
witness also denied that, the words were not clearly
visible as the ink has spread. It might be that, the
firing pin could be separated. The witness on his own
deposed that, the expert was not allowed to separate
the firing pin. On being asked, whether Article 23
(Ex.7 in BL 975/09) was fully automatic or semi-
automatic, the witness answered it was automatic.
There might be semi-automatic or fully-automatic
pistols. If a fully-automatic pistol is kept on
automatic mode then all rounds would be fired
automatically. He had seen a pistol having automatic
mode, during his tenure as the Ballistic Expert. 9 mm
pistol was an automatic pistol, therefore it was having
an automatic mode.
791. The witness was shown Article 23. It was
having automatic mode, therefore, it could be
automatically fired. If the trigger was pressed at one
...823/-
Exh.1124 823 (J-SC 317/10)
time, all rounds in the pistol would be fired. He had
heard word semi-automatic. He knew difference between
semi-automatic and automatic pistol. He could not say
as to what were the distinguishing features between
the two. At first, the hammer hit the firing pin and
the firing pin hit the primer of loaded cartridge. It
ignited primer material. On being asked, whether it
ignited against the breech face of the cartridge, the
witness replied, breech face mark on primer cap was due
to glow back due to breech face of pistol. Due to glow
back action, breech face mark was on primer cap as well
as base of the cartridge. It was an important aspect
for giving opinion as regards to particular bullet was
fired from a particular pistol. In an automatic pistol,
when one bullet was fired, its empty would come out and
another bullet would take place of the first one. He
knew what was an extractor. The function of extractor
was to extract the fired cartridge. Sometimes marks of
extractor might appear on the empty and sometimes it
might not appear. Every pistol gave extractor marks at
the rim of fired cartridge case (empty). It was an
important matter to mention as to whether a particular
empty was fired from a particular pistol.
792. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, ejector was an important part of the
pistol, which extracts the fired cartridges. Ejector
...824/-
Exh.1124 824 (J-SC 317/10)
might give marks on the rim of the empty cartridge. The
witness denied that, ejector was triangular in shape.
He could not tell definite shape of the ejector.
Ejector might be in any type of shape, including
triangular,spot,lines etc. Ejector might leave some
marks on the empty cartridge. For the purpose of
examination and comparison under microscope, ejector
mark was an important mark. It was also an important to
examine for the purpose of finding out whether a
particular empty was fired from a particular pistol.
Firing pin, breech face mark, marks of extractor and
marks of ejector were important aspects for examination
and comparison. This was also important for identifying
as to whether a particular bullet was fired from a
particular pistol. The witness was shown Exh.658/2
(overleaf), last para. He had mentioned in this para,
only features of firing pin impression. He did not
mention therein, ejector marks, breech face marks and
extractor marks. The witness on his own deposed that,
those factors were not visible under microscopic
examination. He had test fired this particular bullet.
He had test fired total four bullets; one was attempted
to fire from the pistol Ex.7 (Article 23). It was found
to be not live. He had taken photograph of one of the
three test fired bullets. He could not tell which
specific bullet, out of the three, was test fired,
which appeared in photograph Exh.658 page no.4. The
...825/-
Exh.1124 825 (J-SC 317/10)
photograph was taken of one empty, out of three. These
were not the photographs of two different empties. The
four bullets were test fired so as to compare them with
the empty of the crime.
793. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, BL - 975/09- four bullets for test
fire were received by him from strong room in unsealed
condition. He did not take complete photograph of crime
empty. He did not take complete photograph of pin mark,
percussion cap and base marking of the cartridge (head
stamp marking). He did not take complete photograph of
pin mark, percussion cap, base marking of the test
fired cartridge. Breech space marks were the best
identification marks for the purpose of comparison
between test fired and crime empty. He did not find
scraping marks of the firing pin on the crime empty and
test fired empty. The witness on his own deposed that,
the characteristic features of the firing pin
impression on the empty Ex.4 were only observed. The
witness denied that, pin marks also created striations
and that, the pin marks also created the marks like
striation marks. Two different photographs were taken
for matching these striation marks, on the primer and
base of breech face comparison.
...826/-
Exh.1124 826 (J-SC 317/10)
794. The witness did not observe any striation
marks in comparison between test Ex.7 with Ex.14. The
witness on his own deposed that, he examined test Ex.7
under comparison microscope only indicate that,
impression of firing pin. The witness denied that, he
did not compare any other test fired empties with Ex.7.
He did not mention this fact in Report Exh.658/4. The
witness was shown first photograph on Ex.658/4. There
was a vertical dividing line. There was a white spot
(at point no.1) shown in the photograph, appearing to
be approximately square shape, in Ex.14. There was no
squarish white spot in Ex.7 in page Ex.658/4. The
witness on his own deposed that, it was due to
overlapping. The witness was shown point no.12 in Ex.
7 page Exh.658/4. This was of the test fired cartridge.
It was a black patch. Such black patch did not appear
in Ex.14. The witness was shown point no.5 in Ex.7
page Exh.658/4. It was half curved white patch. Such
white patch did not appear in Ex.14. The witness was
shown point no.2 in Ex.14 page Exh.658/4. It was a
lunar shaped black patch. It was not there in Ex.7.
The witness on his own deposed that, it did not appear
there due to overlapping. The two photographs were
matched with each other, therefore there was
overlapping and for that reason, it did not appear in
the said photograph. There was nothing on record to
show that, it was due to overlapping. The witness was
...827/-
Exh.1124 827 (J-SC 317/10)
shown point no.3 in Ex.14 page Exh.658/4. There was
curve line white big patch. Similar patch was there in
Ex.7 test fired empty photograph. Point no.3 in Ex.14
Exh.658/4 did not appear like a pyramid. The witness
denied that, the shape appearing in Ex.14 at point no.3
did not appear in Ex.7.
795. The witness was shown point no.7 on Ex.14 at
Exh.658/4. There was a white curve. There was no such
white curve in similar size in Ex.7, but it was in a
small white size spot. The witness denied that, it was
a curve white patch at Ex.14 at point no.7. He could
not give measurement of thickness of the said curve,
from the said photograph. Diameter of the curve was
nearly about .2 cm. There was no curve of this size in
Ex.7. The witness on his own deposed that, it was due
to overlapping of both empties. There was nothing on
record to show that it was due to overlapping of two
empties. The witness was shown point no.11 on Ex.14 at
Exh.658/4. There was a big white curve at this point
no.11. Similar curve was not appearing in Ex.7. The
witness on his own deposed that, he was referring to a
book Identification of Firearms and Forensic
Ballistic by Major Sir Jerald Burrard, 3
rd
Revised
Edition 1956, page 177 In view of the fact that
photography must always play a most important role in
the evidence of identification of firearms certain
...828/-
Exh.1124 828 (J-SC 317/10)
limitations which it possess should be understood. The
most important of these is Distortion. Probably every
amateur has at some time or another taken a photograph
of some relative or friend in a more or less recumbent
position with the feet much nearer the camera than the
head. The result is not usually flattering since in the
photograph the feet may quite likely seem to be
unnecessarily large even for a real son of Anak, let
alone an ordinary human. This exaggeration of the size
of objects which are relatively near to the camera is
the commonest form of photographic distortion, and the
shorter the focal length of the lens used the greater
the exaggeration. For this reason it is impossible to
obtain any accurate comparison of the size or position
of two objects by means of photographs. But this point
is best illustrated by an actual example.
796. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, these observations were of the year
1956. He did not know whether photography in 2010 was
more advanced than that in the year 1956. They used old
microscope for comparison. He could not tell whether
there could be any difference if he used a new
microscope. He did not take the photographs. It was the
work of photography section. He did not ask the
photography section to again take photographs after
these 3 to 4 photographs were taken. He could not tell
...829/-
Exh.1124 829 (J-SC 317/10)
as to when were these photographs taken. The witness
was shown point no.6 in Ex.7 of Exh.658/4. There was a
white curve at point-6 in Ex.7. The witness denied
that, this curve at point-6 appears in Ex.14. The
witness was shown point no.8 in Ex.7 of Exh.658/4.
There were no white dots or spots at point-8. The
witness denied that, there were white dots or spots in
Ex.7 and that these were not in Ex.14 and that, he was
deposing false that, the white dots or spots were not
present in Ex.14. The witness was shown point no.9 in
Ex.14 of Exh.658/4. There was no impression in Ex.7 as
it appeared at point no.9 in Ex.14. The witness on his
own deposed that, it was due to overlapping. There was
nothing to show that, it was due to overlapping. The
witness denied that, two photographs were cut and then
brought together. The witness on his own deposed that,
under microscope overlapping both empties photographs
were taken. Ex. Test empty and Ex.14 empty were put
under microscope overlap half half each and then
photographs were taken. He was present while those
photographs were taken. Those photographs were taken by
the photographer. He had seen the photographs after
those were taken. The witness on his own deposed that,
he had seen the actual exhibits under microscope and
then photographs were taken by the photographer.
...830/-
Exh.1124 830 (J-SC 317/10)
797. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, there was no difference between these
two photographs. He could not tell as to whether there
was distortion in the photographs. The witness was
shown point no.13 in Ex.7 of Exh.658/4. There was a
white line. The witness denied that, similar white line
did not appear in Ex.14. The witness on his own deposed
that, right side of Ex.14 and left side of Ex. Test 7
was overlapping and these two marks were different,
one was right side and other is left side). Right side
of Ex.7 was overlapping on left side of Ex.14. Right
side of Ex.7 would match to right side of Ex.14 and
left side of Ex.7 would match to left side of Ex.14.
There was a dividing line of two lens. It was visible.
The witness denied that, the firing pin impressions
shown in Ex.7 did not match to that of the photograph
Ex.14. The witness was shown Exh.657/7. The contents
therein were true and correct. It bore his signature
above designation as 'Signature of Reporting Officer'.
798. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not agree with the proposition
that, micro stamping technique had developed. He did
not know this technique. He did not know meaning of
words micro stamping. The witness on his own deposed
that, this work was not done by them in their
laboratory. He had read about micro stamping technique.
...831/-
Exh.1124 831 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not know whether the said technique was more
accurate and more advanced. The witness denied that, he
had not properly examined Ex.7 and Ex.14. He did not
measure the depth of indentation, either on test fired
empty or on the crime empty. The witness denied that,
Ex.7 and Ex.14 were not matching and that, he had given
opinion mechanically and without understanding
Ballistic Science, at the instance of SIT. The witness
denied that, his report was incorrect and the
conclusion arrived at were also incorrect and given to
support the case of SIT. The witness denied that, he
was not qualified as a Ballistic Expert to give
scientific opinion in the capacity of Ballistic Expert
and that, he had deliberately not taken full
photographs of test Ex.7 and Ex.14 empty and that, he
was deliberately giving evidence test Ex.7 and Ex.14
empty to please his bosses for the purpose of
promotion. The witness denied that, his report was
without data and without full illustrations. The
witness denied that, there were not other continuing
lines across the dividing vertical line in test Ex.7
and Ex.14 empty.
799. The witness produced xerox copies of page nos.
293, 294,295,297 of Book Physical Evidence in Criminal
Investigation and Trials (The Silent Witness) by Dr.
B.P. Maithil and Xerox copies of page nos.2,3,5 and 2,3
...832/-
Exh.1124 832 (J-SC 317/10)
6 of books Forensic Ballistic in Criminal Justice by
author Kaushalendra Kumar, as called upon to the
witness by Ld. Advocate Mr. H.H. Ponda.
800. It has come in evidence of Mr. Ajendrasingh
Sadansingh Thakur (PW-87), Sr.PI, Exh.664 that, during
the period from January 2006 to May 2009 when he was
attached to DN Nagar police station as Sr. PI, accused
no.1 Pradeep Sharma(Community) and accused no.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi(Investigation) were attached to DN Nagar
police station. He used to allot duties to them by
making entries in the Order Book maintained by him. As
per entries in the book dated 10.11.2006, accused no.18
Patade was Relief Officer, accused Suryawanshi and
accused no.22 Sarvankar were day P.Is., whereas,
accused Pradeep Sharma was Reserved officer. The entry
is at Exh.665 (colly). As per entry in the book dated
11.11.2006, accused no.15 Palande was day duty PI and
accused Sarvankar was night PI duty. As per the entry,
there was mention of duties allotted to the accused.
The entry dated 11.11.2006 was at Exh.666 (colly.). The
witness had also effected an entry in the book dated
12.11.2006 (Exh.667) with regards to the duties
allotted to the accused. There was a squad of the Add.
CP (West Region) in DN Nagar police station. The squad
included accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma, API Palande,
accused no.2 Desai, accused no.3 Kamble and accused no.
...833/-
Exh.1124 833 (J-SC 317/10)
7 Shinde. There was an office order/ letter dated
21.8.2006(Exh.668), which bore signature of accused no.
9 Suryawanshi, stating that, w.e.f. 21.8.2006 PC
Devidas Sakpal (accused no.13) was working with accused
no.1 Pradeep Sharma and accused Pradeep Suryawanshi.
The witness further deposed that, two civilians
(accused nos. 5 and 6) i.e. Dhabbu and Bobby also
used to come to meet accused Pradeep Sharma. As per
diary entry (Exh.669) at the relevant time, the
officers and staff who left the police station for
wanted accused in a serious crime were PI Suryawanshi,
API Palande, API Sarvankar, PSI Pattade and Ammaldars
and API Sartape, PSI Harpude and PN 26645. Entry dated
12.11.2006 (Exh.670) was in respect of exchange of fire
related to one Ramnarayan Gupta within the jurisdiction
of Versova police station. It was in respect of accused
PI Suryawanshi, API Palande, PSI Pattade, API Sarvankar
and staff.
801. He further deposed that, on 11.11.2006, he was
on day duty in the police station. He resumed duty at
9.00 a.m. On that day in the afternoon there was
rehearsal of 'Umang Programme' which was to be held on
12.11.2006 at Andheri Sports Complex. It was also known
as 'Shahaji Raje Krida Sankul'. He went to the said
Andheri Sports Complex through Peter-I. There was a
relay at 8.00 p.m.-8.30 p.m. on Wire-less Channel of
...834/-
Exh.1124 834 (J-SC 317/10)
Peter-I that there was an exchange of fire between the
police and a 'Gunda'. Name of the 'Gunda' was not
relayed. The squad of P.I. Mr.Pradeep Sharma used to
do Special Operations under directions of The
Additional C.P., West Region. The local work of the
police station was done by P.I. Mr. Pradeep Sharma
under his supervision. As the work of the squad was
confidential, he did not make inquiry about their work.
Letter Exh.190, Exh.191 and Exh.192 were addressed to
then CMM. The letters were sent through the Senior
Police Inspector, D.N.Nagar Police station. It bore
signature of P.I. Mr.Avadhoot Chavan. Those were
prepared at the say of ACP Mr. Suryawanshi.
802. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, P.I. Mr. Pradeep Suryawanshi was senior to him.
Mr.Pradeep Sharma was his batch-mate. He was
transferred to D.N. Nagar Police station in the year
2006. There were four Police Inspectors to assist him
in D.N.Nagar Police station. They were Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi, Mr.Pradeep Shrama, Mr.Taware and
Mr.Avadhoot Chavan. All the four P.I.'s were having
separate and different designations. Mr.Pradeep Sharma
was P.I.(Prevention). Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi was P.I.
(Crime). Mr.Avadhoot Chavan was P.I.(Community). The
witness used to assign duties to all the four P.I.'s.
All the four P.I,'s were also assigned night duties on
...835/-
Exh.1124 835 (J-SC 317/10)
rotation basis. All the four P.I.s were to discharge
duties as directed by him besides the duties alloted to
them as mentioned in Order Book. Kalachauki Police
station was not within the jurisdiction of West Region.
Mr.Palande was deputed to D.N. Nagar Police station
from Kalachauki Police station by the orders of the
Additional C.P., West Region. The Additional C.P., West
Region, did not have jurisdiction over Kalachauki
Police station. He did not see any order in writing in
respect of transfer of API Palande from Kalachauki
Police station to D.N. Nagar Police station. He had
seen entry in the Station Diary stating that,
Mr.Palande was transfered by oral orders of the
Additional C.P., West Region. He had talks in respect
of the transfer order with Mr. Palande at the time when
Mr. Palande reported to D.N. Nagar Police station.
Initially Mr. Palande reported to the witness and the
witness directed him to make an entry in the Station
Diary. He did not insist upon written order of Mr.
Palande's transfer. At the time of recording his
statement by the SIT, he had in his memory the fact of
making an entry in the Station Diary as regards to
transfer of Mr. Palande. He stated in his statement
before the S.I.T. that, transfer of Mr.Palande was
effected by the order of the Superior. Mr.Avadhoot
Chavan joined D.N Nagar Police station after he joined
the said Police station. The witness had seen his
...836/-
Exh.1124 836 (J-SC 317/10)
order in Police Notice. Separate orders were not issued
therefore, he did not see a separate transfer order of
Mr.Avadhoot Chavan. He did not remember whether,
Mr.Sharad Patil joined D.N.Nagar Police station prior
to him or after he joined the police station. Mr.Vinay
Chaube was then DCP of Zone-IX.
803. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the senior P.I. recommended names of
the officers under him for rewards and certificates.
ACP and DCP recommended names of the Senior P.I. for
rewards and certificates. On 27.03.2007, he had an
occasion to work along-with P.I.Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi,
API Mr. Dilip Palande, API. Mr.Sharad Patil, P.H.C.
Mr.Prakash Kadam, P.C.Mr.Ratnkar Kamble, P.C.Mr.Tanaji
Desai and P.C.Mr.Vinayak Shinde. On that day, two
persons were arrested and a large number of arm/s and
ammunitions were recovered from those two persons. The
Joint C.P. awarded a certificate to him and
certificates and cash prizes to others. Except
Mr.Sharad Patil, other officers/ staff were present
before the Court. A crime bearing no. 13/07 u/s.3,25
of Arms Act was registered in D.N.Nagar Police station.
He headed the raiding party.
804. The witness further deposed that, a crime
bearing no.18/07 u/s.3, 5, 25 of the Arms act was
...837/-
Exh.1124 837 (J-SC 317/10)
registered against the person by name Kamata Prasad
Gupta and Arms & Ammunitions in a large quantity were
recovered from him. He recommended names of the members
of the raiding party for certificates and cash awards.
They were Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi. Mr.Avadhoot Chavan,
Mr.Sarvankar, Mr.Rajane, Mr.Kamble, Mr.Desai and
Mr.Shinde. Except Mr.Rajane and Mr. Avadhoot Chavan,
others were present before the court. The witness
recommended names of the team who investigated crime
bearing no. 545/2006 u/s. 302, 120 IPC etc., to the
then Joint C.P. Mr. Arup Mohan Patnaik for cash rewards
and certificates. It was the case of double murder
known as Kala-Ghoda murder case. The investigating
team included Mr.Pradeep Sharma, Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi, Mr.Avadhoot Chavan, Mr.Dilip Palande,
Mr.Sharad Patil, Mr.Arvind Sarvankar, Mr.Anant Pattade,
Mr.Prakash Kadam, Mr.Ratnakar Kamble, Mr.Tanaji Desai
and Mr.Vinayak Shinde. Except Mr.Avadhoot Chavan and
Mr.Sharad Patil, all other officers were present before
the court. The officers joined Special Operations by
his orders or by orders of the Police Inspector. The
P.I. next to him would give the order only to the
officers below his rank. Even the P.I. could issue
order to the P.I. of his equal rank. If there was any
information as regards to need of special operation,
the reaction would be with the available staff. At that
time, one would not see as to whether the staff
...838/-
Exh.1124 838 (J-SC 317/10)
belonged to the Special Operation group or to the
Police Station. He did not receive any specific
information personally during his tenure in the
capacity of Senior P.I., D.N. Nagar Police station. He
did not receive any specific information personally
during his tenure as a Senior P.I. in Vileparle and
Kherwadi Police Stations. During 2009 to 2010, he was
in training center therefore, there was no question of
receiving specific information. During the last 10
months he was at Tardeo Police Station. He had not
received any specific information personally. He
received specific information from the Superior
officers during his tenure as a Senior P.I. He
personally did not act upon the said information but
ordered it to the other P.I.'s. He did not receive any
specific information as regards to any big operation
from his Superior officer during 2006 to 2009 when he
was Senior P.I. of D.N. Nagar Police station. He could
not tell even approximately as to how many certificates
and awards he received during 2006 to 2009 when he was
Senior P.I. of D.N. Nagar Police station. Mr.Pradeep
Shrama was having his own good network. He received
maximum informations during the said period. About 67
weapons were recovered during one year in the crimes
pertaining to D.N. Nagar Police Station. During
remaining two years there was no detection in large
quantity as compared to that of the previous year. He
...839/-
Exh.1124 839 (J-SC 317/10)
was taken into confidence as regards to these cases.
The Senior P.I. had to give information to the ACP, the
DCP, the Additional C.P.
805. The witness further deposed that, 'Umang' was
a function. It was 'Diwali Melawa'. It was held within
the jurisdiction of Oshiwara Police station. The order
of bandobast was issued by the Regional office. The
Additional C.P. decided as to how much staff and from
which police station was to be deputed for bandobast at
'Umang Programme'. The Senior P.I. deputed the staff
as per the order of the Additional C.P. Besides this,
no additional staff was deployed for bandobast from the
Police Station. The Station Diary entry was the only
document showing that a police personnel had been to a
particular spot for bandobast. If a staff went for the
'Umang Programme' diary entry was must. The Senior P.I.
need not make a diary entry in respect of his own
duties. There was no entry and any record except his
bare verbatim showing that at a particular time he went
to the venue of 'Umang Programme' and for how much time
he remained at the said place. The witness, on his own,
deposed that, there was an entry in the Log-Book of
Peter-I. Driver or operator of Peter-I Mobile made
entry in the said Log-Book. He did not see entry dated
11.11.2006 in the said Log-Book. He daily perused the
said Log-Book. Timing was recorded in the said Log-
...840/-
Exh.1124 840 (J-SC 317/10)
Book. The entry dated 11.11.2006 might have been taken
in the Log-Book but he did not remember. Peter-I mobile
also took him to his residence. He on his own did not
ask the night P.I. or duty P.I. as regards to
developments in the Police Station before he retired
from the days work. The witness on his own deposed
that, if there was any specific incident, the night
P.I. or the duty P.I. Informed him.
806. The witness further deposed that, ACP visited
the Police Station every day. DCP visited the police
station after 15 days in a month. He had holidays on
Sundays. It was Sunday on 12.11.2006 therefore, he did
not go to the police station. On 12.11.2006, there was
'Umang Programme.' On 13.11.2006, there was visit of
D.C.P. to D.N. Nagar Police Station. He did not
remember whether D.C.P. Mr. Chaube visited D.N. Nagar
Police station on 13.11.2006 or not. If visit of the
DCP to the police station was cancelled then the DCP
did es not visit the police station within following
one or two days. The visit of D.C.P. was entered in the
Order Book. As per Exh.666, DCP was to visit D.N.
Nagar Police station on 13.11.2006. There was an entry
of visit of DCP on 13.11.2006 to D.N. Nagar Police
station. Entry dated 13.11.2006 in Order Book did not
bear any signature. He did not remember even after
seeing the order book entry dated 13.11.2006 as to
...841/-
Exh.1124 841 (J-SC 317/10)
whether he was present in the police station during the
visit of DCP. The entry was marked as Exh.671. When
he resumed his duty after 13.11.2006, he received
information from the officers and from the record as
regards to the exchange of fire at Nana-Nani Park. He
came to know that, it was a joint operation of Versova
Police station and D.N. Nagar Police station. The D.C.P
did not inquire with him as regards to the incident
dated 11.11.2006. He came to know about the questions
raised as regards to the exchange of fire for the first
time when a Writ Petition was filed. He discussed about
the Writ Petition with the officers from his Police
station. No one asked him to submit a report in respect
of the said Writ Petition. No one consulted him for
filing a report in the Hon'ble High Court. When he
discussed the matter with his officers he did not feel
that there was any problem.
807. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, during the relevant period, D.N. Nagar
Police station was a busy Police Station. A large
number of people used to visit the Police Station. The
public used to come to visit different police officers.
There was no entry made anywhere in the Police Station
in respect of the visits of the public to the Police
Station. He personally did not know each and every
...842/-
Exh.1124 842 (J-SC 317/10)
person from the public. It was difficult to know as to
which person had come to visit a particular police
officer or a staff. For the first time the S.I.T. made
inquiry with him as regards to the incident dated
11.11.2006, on 20.03.2010 and prior to that no one made
inquiry about the incident. He was informed one to two
days earlier by the S.I.T. for recording his statement
on 20.03.2010. He knew D.C.P. Mr.Prasnna since
beginning for the reason that he made departmental
inquiry of the witness. The departmental inquiry was in
respect of a case of dispossession. The witness denied
that, Mr.Prasnna held him guilty and recommended to
stop his two increments. The witness on his own deposed
that, a recommendation to stop his two increments was
made by DCP Mr.Prakash Mutyal. Mr. Prasnna had made
inquiry. Then he was transferred as D.C.P. Zone-IX and
D.C.P. Mr.Prakash Mutyal was transfered in his place.
He did not remember the date on which show cause
notice was issued to him.
808. The witness further deposed that, when he was
called for recording his statement by the S.I.T., he
did not carry any documents with him. He was called by
the S.I.T. on 20.03.20010 and 21.07.2010 for recording
his statement. On both those dates, the S.I.T. did not
show him the Order-Book of D.N. Nagar Police station.
On both those dates the S.I.T. did not ask him anything
...843/-
Exh.1124 843 (J-SC 317/10)
as regards to the said Order Book. On both those dates
the SIT did not show him any station diary. The S.I.T.
did not ask him anything about the Order Book and the
Station Diary. He had deposed for the first time
before the court as regards to the Order Book and the
Station Diary. The S.I.T. did not show him Exh. 668
and also did not ask him about Exh.668. Exh.668 did
not bear his signature at any place on it. He had
seen Exh.668 for the first time before the court. As a
Senior P.I. he issued office orders. Record of office
orders was maintained in the Police Station. The copies
of office orders were not sent to the superiors.
Signature of the police officer or police personnel
concerned was obtained when the office order was
related to that officer or police personnel. Exh.668
did not bear signature of Mr.Devidas Sakpal. The
witness on his own deposed that, signature was obtained
on office copy and the original was issued to the
concerned. The office copy was kept in the record of
the police station. Entries Exhs.669 and 670 did not
bear his counter signatures. The witness on his own
deposed that, it was not necessary to put counter
signatures. For the first time, he saw those entries on
12.11.2006, in the afternoon. He did not remember
exact time. There was no record to show that the
station diary entries were placed before the Senior
P.I. There was no other proof except his bare verbatim
...844/-
Exh.1124 844 (J-SC 317/10)
to show that station diary entries were placed before
the Senior P.I. The Senior P.I. was empowered to issue
office orders. The P.I. could issue office order
pertaining to his portfolio. He deposed before the
court for the first time that Exh.668 bore signature of
accused no.9. The signature was made under designation
of Sr. P.I. in Exh.668. There was no mention of any
other name or designation in Exh.668. Omission as
regards to, there was squad of the Additional C.P.,
West Region in D.N. Nagar Police station and that, As
the work of the squad was confidential, I did not make
inquiry about their work, have been brought on record
during cross examination.
809. The witness further deposed that, he had
occasions to work with the squad in some cases. The
members of the squad used to consult him in the cases
in which, he worked with the squad. They used to give
all information to him in those particular cases.
Documents Exh.190 and Exh.191 were shown to the witness
by the SIT on 21.07.2010. He did not have any knowledge
as regards to those two documents. He did not produce
those documents before the S.I.T. Except identifying
the signatures on those two documents he did not know
anything about the said documents. All were not
empowered to put signatures as the Senior P.I. He did
not see the Writ Petition filed before the Hon-ble High
...845/-
Exh.1124 845 (J-SC 317/10)
Court on 20.03.2010, 21.07.2010 or at any point of
time. As D.N.Nagar Police station had got no relation
to the Writ Petition, he did not do anything about it.
He never saw F.I.R. in C.R. 246/09. He never felt it
necessary to know the contents of the Writ Petition and
FIR in C.R.246/09. Whatever, information he had of this
case was on the basis of the documents that he had
seen. He had seen only the Station Diary in connection
with this case. The witness denied that, he was
deposing false under pressure of the S.I.T. He knew
'Dhabbu' since 1992. He resided at Vakola Santacruz
(E). He knew Bobby @ Akhil Khan since 1995. He resided
in J.B. Nagar, where he resided. The witness denied
that, he deposed false that the special squad was
formed by the orders of the Additional C.P., West
Region and that, API Palande and Mr. Kamble, Mr. Shinde
and Mr. Desai were working in the special squad. The
witness further denied that, there was no such special
squad and that, office order Exh. 668 was fabricated
and false document and that it did not bear signature
of accused no.9.
810. Further cross examination discloses that, as
per the Order Book column no.8 Exh.666(A) no specific
duty such as bandobast etc., was alloted to P.I.
Suryawanshi on 11.11.20006. On 11.11.2006 P.I.
Suryawanshi was on reserve duty at Police Station. The
...846/-
Exh.1124 846 (J-SC 317/10)
signature on document Exh.668 above the designation of
Senior Police Inspector was not made in his presence.
He could not tell as to when was the said signature put
on Exh.668. Omissions, the office order did not bear
my signature. It bore signature of P.I. Mr. Suryawanshi
(accused no.9.). It was issued in the name of Sr. P.I.
D.N. Nagar Polices station. The order stated that, with
effect from 21.08.2006 P.C. 10502. Devidas G. Sakpal
was working with P.I. Shri. Pradeep Sharma and P.I.
Shri Pradeep Suryawanshi. He could identify signature
of Mr.Suryawanshi have been brought on record from
statements dated 20.03.2010 and 21.07.2010 before the
S.I.T. The witness denied that, Exh.668 did not bear
signature of P.I. Mr.Suryawanshi and that it was a
false and fabricated document.
811. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, different portfolios for different
P.I.'s in the Police Station were created for the
purpose of allotment of specific duties to them and for
distribution of work. He distributed the work as per
the standing orders. P.I.-Administration was supposed
to allot duties to the police officers/ personnel. He
was also supposed to do Administration Work of the
Police Station, including vehicle, store, Muddemal,
Arm/s, Ammunitions, leave etc. The witness denied
that, bandobast was a part of administration. P.I. L &
...847/-
Exh.1124 847 (J-SC 317/10)
O was supposed to do work in respect of bandobast.
'Umang Programme' was within the jurisdiction of
Oshiwara Police station. The road outside of the Sports
Complex was within the jurisdiction of D.N. Nagar
Police station. The dress rehearsal was in the stadium
which was within the jurisdiction of Oshiwara Police
station. He, along-with other officers, were on
bandobast duty in the stadium at the time of the
rehearsal. He had orders of bandobast during which he
was supposed to look after the V.I.P's, the Sr.
Officers and the Organizers. He was alone on the duty
outside the stadium and no other officers were on the
duty with him. He received orders of the bandobast one
day prior to the programme. He could not tell whether
he received the said order in the morning or not.
There was no mention of specific place and specific
area in the said order. The number of officers
required for the bandobast was not mentioned in the
said orders. He did not feel it necessary to know as to
how many officers would be required for the bandobast.
There was reference of PSI Mr.Pattade in column no. 2
in Exh.667. Column no.28 entry no. 4 mentioned names of
PSI Mr. Chimate, API. Mr.Rajane, PSI Mr. Pattade at
Shahaji Raje Krida Sankul. The Sankul was the place
where 'Umang Programme' was held. They were having
bandobast duty at the said place. V.I.Ps and Sr. Police
Officers such as C.P. etc., were to attend the said
...848/-
Exh.1124 848 (J-SC 317/10)
programme. Bandobast was for protection of them and
also for the purpose that they should not sustain any
injury. He was not concerned with the question of
arranging any dress rehearsal of bandobast. Therefore,
he did not know whether there was any dress rehearsal
of bandobast. The witness denied that, on 11.11.2006,
he accompanied those officers to the venue, who were
alloted bandobast duties on 12.11.2006. He had not seen
as to whether entry of Exh.668 was made in any register
in the police station or not. He had not seen entry
of it in the police station till date. The witness
denied that, as per office order Exh.668 Mr. Devidas
Sakpal was not working with P.I. Mr. Pradeep Sharma and
P.I. Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi and that, the S.I.T.
prepared this false and fabricated letter and that it
was produced at the say of S.I.T. The witness further
denied that, Mr.Sakpal was attached to D.N. Nagar
Police station only and that, he was not working with
P.I. Mr.Pradeep Sharma and P.I.Mr. Pradeep Suryawanshi.
P.I. Palande resumed his duty in D.N Nagar Police
station in August 2006 and he served there till April
2007. The witness denied that, P.I.- Community was an
independent posting in the Police Station. A.P.I.
assisted the P.I.-Community. Both of them did the work
jointly. P.I. Mr. Palande was alloted day duties and
night duties.
...849/-
Exh.1124 849 (J-SC 317/10)
812. The witness denied that, Mr.Palande was
attached to D.N. Nagar Police station and not to the
Special squad. He did not have personal knowledge as
to which officers came to the Police Station and which
officers went out of the Police Station when he was out
of the Police Station for bandobast duty on 11.11.2006.
Except the station diary, he did not have any other
proof to show as to which officer visited the Police
Station on 11.11.2006. Alpesh Ajmenra was the leading
builder in Mumbai. It was the charge in D.E. against
him that he helped Ajmera against Heena Talwar and
helped him to dispossess Heena Talwar.
813. It has come in evidence of Mr.Mohammad Usman
Iliyas Shaikh (PW-88), Exh.674 that, in the year 2007,
he worked in a mobile shop, which was owned by
Mehamood (sheth). In 2007, the witness had a mobile
bearing no.9930044221. The sheth asked the witness to
give his driving license as he wanted to have a BPL Sim
Card, which he gave to Pinki Bhai (accused no.4
Shailendra Pande). The BPL Card which was obtained bore
number 9821056311. The witness further deposed that,
accused no.4 and accused no.12 used to visit mobile
shop of his Sheth.
814. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, since the year 2007 when he left the job, he did
...850/-
Exh.1124 850 (J-SC 317/10)
not have contact with his owner and that at that time,
he was residing at Mira Road. He did not reside at any
other address except the place mentioned before the SIT
and before the Court. Prior to 04.12.2010 i.e. the
date on which his statement was recorded by the SIT, he
did not discuss about the SIM Card with anyone. Mr.
Mehamood used to sell SIM Cards of different
Companies. He accepted the documents, forms etc. from
the customers and used to send those documents to the
Company. The witness knew as to how did the Sheth sell
mobiles, SIM Cards and what procedure was to be
adopted. 7 to 8 days were required for activating a
SIM Card after the procedure was completed. Officers
from the Company used to go to the house or office or
shop of a customer to verify the documents and after
verification by the officers SIM Card was activated.
Except on those two occasions Mehamood Sheth did not
ask him to give his photograph or his driving license.
Mehamood Sheth did not ask him or any other employee to
do any work in respect of issuance of a SIM Card but he
on his own did the said work. Officers from the Company
came to his residence at Shafi Manzil after he handed
over driving license and photograph to Mehamood Sheth.
The witness denied that, officers from the Company came
to his residence at Mira Road. They came to his
residence at Santacruz. His ancestral house was at
Santacruz and the same address was given to the
...851/-
Exh.1124 851 (J-SC 317/10)
Company. He was residing on rental basis in the house
at Mira Road. He used to visit the house at Santacruz.
He handed over his driving licenses and photographs to
the Sheth. He was residing at Mira Road. It did not
happen that, he resided at Mira Road 15 years prior to
recording his statement by the S.I.T. on 04.12.2010, he
resided at Mira Road. It did not happen that, his
father and others shifted to Mira Road as there was a
problem in his my family 15 years prior to recoding his
statement by the S.I.T. on 04.12.2010. He did not know
what was written in his statement dated 04.12.2010. He
was asked his name, that of his Sheth and also about
Sim Card. He came out of the SIT office within 10 to
15 minutes. He was educated up-to 10
th
Std., through
Urdu medium. He informed the SIT that, there were some
family disputes in his family prior to 15 years
therefore, his father along-with him shifted to Mira
Road from Santacruz and started residing at Mira Road.
He did not have any proof to show that he was working
in the Shop of Mehamood Bhai. Two more persons were
working in the said shop.
815. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know name of the person from
BPL Company who visited his ancestral residence at
Santacruz. He was present at the house of Santacruz
when the said person visited the residence at
...852/-
Exh.1124 852 (J-SC 317/10)
Santacruz. He did not remember the date on which the
person from BPL Company visited his residence at
Santacurz. The SIM Card was sent at his residence. He
received the said card at Santacruz(W). The company did
not issue a letter to him for receiving the SIM Card.
The person from the company handed over the SIM Card to
him on the way. He obtained signature of the witness in
the Diary (Note Book) on the road. SIM Card number and
Mobile number were different from each other. He handed
over the said SIM Card to the Sheth. He did not know
what did the Sheth do with the said SIM Card. All this
happened in the year 2007. It would be correct to say
that, due to family dispute his father along-with he
had already shifted from Santacruz to Mira Road prior
to 2007. The witness denied that, he got his Ration
Card transferred from Santacruz to Mira Road and that
they had two Ration Cards; one from Santacruz and
another from Mira Road. After his statement was
recorded by the S.I.T., he did not have occasion to
read the statement and to again visit the S.I.T.
Office. He knew that if one mobile number was
discontinued, the same number was given after
continuation. He did not know when the mobile number
was discontinued and when it was continued thereafter.
He handed over his photographs and driving license to
Mehamood Sheth after he received the SIM Card on the
road.
...853/-
Exh.1124 853 (J-SC 317/10)
816. The witness further deposed that, he did not
know as to when the mobile number was re-activated on
second occasion after he gave his photographs and
driving license to Mehamood Sheth. He did not open the
box containing the SIM Card that he received. After
handing over the SIM Card to Mehamood Sheth, he did
not have an opportunity to talk to the said mobile
number. He did not know the mobile number given to
Mehamood Bhai till he went to the office of the S.I.T.
He knew the mobile number when he received the card.
Police had shown him the said mobile. He did not
discuss about the said mobile number since 2007 to 2010
with anyone. He did not state about the crime number
sections, etc., of this case to the S.I.T. The S.I.T.
also did not ask him about it. The witness denied
that, he did not state facts of this case to the S.I.T.
Omission as regards to, Sheth wanted to continue the
BPL CARD again, as the previous CARD was discontinued
and that Sheth actually wanted to give this CARD to his
wife but, he gave it to Pinki Bhai, have been brought
on record by the defence. He did not know any more
contents in his statement dated 04.12.2010 except that
of his name, address and mobile number. He did not
give his mobile number to the police.
817. Further cross examination of the witness
...854/-
Exh.1124 854 (J-SC 317/10)
discloses that, on second occasion, the officer from
the Company came to his house for verification and met
him at the house. The officer told him that, the SIM
Card would be continued. He did not know as to when
did the SIM Card continue on second occasion after the
officer met him at the house at Santacruz for
verification. He did not have an occasion to talk to
Mehamood Bhai after he received the SIM Card on second
occasion and after it was handed over Mehamood Bhai.
He did not know what did Mehamood Bhai do with the SIM
Card after it was handed over to him. He had talks
with Pinki Bhai on one occasion in the shop of Mehamood
Bhai. The talks took place in the year 2007, but were
not about the SIM Card. Except greeting each other, no
more talks took place. His duty hours were since 10.00
a.m. to 09.00 p.m. There was no holiday for the shop.
Once he resumed duty in the shop, he would leave the
shop in the night time. The witness denied that, the
Sheth did not ask him to give his photograph and
driving license to him and that on second occasion also
Sheth did not tell him that, the SIM Card was
discontinued and that he did not ask him to give his
photograph and driving license and that he did not give
his photograph and driving license to Sheth. The
witness denied that, the officers from BPL did not come
to him for verification on two occasions and that, he
did not have talks with Pinki Bhai at any time. The
...855/-
Exh.1124 855 (J-SC 317/10)
witness further denied that, he identified Pinki Bhai
before the Court at the say of the S.I.T. The witness
denied that, he deposed false that, Mehamood Bhai gave
the SIM Card to Pinki Bhai. The witness also denied
that, he deposed false that, he saw the SIM Card when
he received it for the first time and that, on
04.12.2010 for the first time police showed him the
mobile number prior to it and that he did not know the
said number and that, he was deposing false at the say
of the S.I.T.
818. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not know as to in which month of
2007 he purchased the said mobile. He gave photo and
driving license to Mehamood Bhai for purchasing the SIM
Card. The witness could not tell as to in which month
and on which date of 2007 did Mehamood Bhai purchase
the SIM Card on the basis of said documents. The
witness was daily meeting Mehamood Bhai after handing
over the said documents to him. He could not tell the
date and month on or in which the said SIM Card was
discontinued in 2007. He did not remember, the date and
month on or in which Mehamood Bhai asked him about the
validity of his driving license. He could not tell as
to after how many days of purchasing the SIM Card did
Mehamood Bhai ask him as to whether his driving license
was valid or not. Mehamood Bhai asked him about
...856/-
Exh.1124 856 (J-SC 317/10)
validity of his driving license as the Company would
not accept it, if it was invalid. His earlier SIM Card
was discontinued when Mehamood Bhai asked him as to
whether his driving license was valid or not. Earlier
SIM CARD was discontinued though it was purchased on
his documents therefore, Mehamood Bhai asked him about
the validity of his driving license. At that time, he
showed him his driving license and told him that, his
driving license was valid. The witness denied that, at
that time already Mehamood Bhai had purchased another
SIM Card. Mehamood Bhai told him that, the earlier SIM
Card was revalidated and that another SIM Card was not
purchased.
819. Further cross examination discloses that,
Mehamood Bhai asked him whether his driving license was
valid and he told him that his driving license was
valid and that he informed the witness that SIM Card
purchased on his driving license was disconnected and
that all this happened at one and the same day. On the
same day he informed the witness that the SIM Card
already purchased on his documents was re-activated.
The witness could not tell the date and month on or in
which the said talks between him and Mehamood Bhai took
place. The said talks took place in the year 2007. He
had no knowledge as to on which date the already
discontinued SIM Card was re-activated. The witness
...857/-
Exh.1124 857 (J-SC 317/10)
could not tell, as to how many days prior to his talks
with Mehamood Bhai did the already discontinued SIM
Card was re-activated. Prior to his talks with Mehamood
Bhai, he did not know as to how did Mehamood Bhai get
the SIM Card re-activated. He did not know as to for
how many days did the SIM Card work after it was re-
activated.
820. It has come in evidence of Mr.Rajesh Sampatrao
Gaikwad (PW-89), Exh.675 that, in the month of
November, 2007, he worked as a Nodal Officer in
Reliance Communication Ltd., Mumbai. His office
received requisitions vide letters Exhs.676,678,680,
682 and 684 by DCP, Zone-IX (9) seeking information as
regards to SDR of the mobile number 9323459998 for the
month of November 2006, details of Cell ID and Tower
Locations, CDR reports preserved as per directions of
The Hon'ble High Court as on 11
th
and 12
th
November 2006
and tower location and coverage area ID's and BTS as on
11.11.2006, as mentioned in the letters. Accordingly
he retrieved the data and furnished information vide
Exhs.677,679,681, 683 (colly.) and 685 respectively.
821. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, he was an Electrical Engineer. His duty, as a
Nodal Officer, was to retrieve the data and to furnish
it to the Law Enforcement Agencies and to the Security
...858/-
Exh.1124 858 (J-SC 317/10)
Agencies. The witness denied that, he did not have
technical knowledge as regards to the data stored in a
server, retrieving it, receiving calls by the server or
sending the calls etc., All these works were of the
I.T. Department from their company. The witness further
deposed that, his computer was always connected to the
Central Server. With user name and password, he logged
on to the Central Server and retrieved the data. The
witness further denied that, to go into the backup
system a special password was required. As a Nodal
Officer, he did not have a special password and also he
did not have authority to go in the backup system. If
there was a failure or it got corrupt then it was
difficult to retrieve the data from backup system after
a period of one year and it was only applicable to CDR.
There was a separate format for SDR which was
separately recorded in server and it was not connected
with CDR. After one year, if data was found to be
corrupt and if any agencies asked the company to
furnish the data of CDR then it was not possible to
retrieve or to get CDR details from the backup system
in respect of incoming or outgoing calls.
822. The witness further deposed that, he knew
Cell I.D. and Site I.D. Cell I.D. and Site I.D. are
different. Cell ID meant there were numerical numbers
which were defined in the switch. Site ID's were 15
...859/-
Exh.1124 859 (J-SC 317/10)
digit or 16 digit characters which were given for the
identification of BTS site. Site ID and Cell ID showed
Tower Location. Each Tower Covered a different area.
The number given to the Cell I.D. was the number given
to the Tower. The digit numbers i.e. 15 digit or less
were for the purpose of making reports. Sometimes
address of the Tower changed. Cell I.D's and Site I.D's
was the work of maintenance department of his Company.
It was not the work of the Nodal Officer. Coverage area
of a tower depended upon the open field, density of
population etc. The witness denied that, in Mumbai a
tower covered an area of 1000 to 1500 meters. The
witness, on his own, deposed that, tower in Mumbai
covered an area of about 500 meters. He could not tell
whether, a tower situated at Marine Lines would cover
an area up-to Malbhar Hill as it was the sea side. He
had got I.P. address of his computer. The witness
denied that, his I.P. address would appear on the data
if he retrieved the data from the server on his
Computer. There was nothing on the data to show as to
who had retrieved the data.
823. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, in the case in hand there is nothing
except his bare verbatim to show that he retrieved the
data. Information of Cell and Site I.D. was not
available on his Computer. In that respect he had to
...860/-
Exh.1124 860 (J-SC 317/10)
request to the maintenance and I.T. Department of his
Company. They were already receiving the Cell I.D. and
corresponding P.D.S. Data from maintenance and I.T.
Departments. They got data monthly in respect of Cell
I.D.'s and Site I.D.'s. They maintained the said data.
They got the data in the first week of the month. It
was stored from the year 2005. It was stored month-
wise. They had to mention it while furnishing data to
the Law Enforcement Agencies that the data was
furnished from the stored month-wise data. They
furnished data to the Law Enforcement Agencies or the
Security Agencies on the same day on which they
received the letter from these agencies, if data was
available with them. The date of retrieving the data
did not appear on the printout.
824. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, there was nothing in Exh.677 and Exh.
679 to show as to when the information was retrieved.
The format appearing in Exh.679 was not the format from
the server, but they prepared the said format after the
information was retrieved from the server. A file was
maintained. They retrieved the information from the
said file. There was no format as such in the server
in respect of tower locations, Cell I.D.s and Site
I.D.s. The witness could not tell as to when was the
information in Exh.681 retrieved from the server. He
...861/-
Exh.1124 861 (J-SC 317/10)
did not know as to when did Mr.Rao retrieve the hard
copy. His signature appeared there on the hard copy.
It was not in a sealed condition. He did not know
whether there was any date on the hard copy. Letter
Exh.683 was silent on the fact that, Mr. Rao had taken
the hard copy, then it was preserved and he had taken
it's xerox copy. There was no date below the initials
on page-2o of Exh. 683. There was no mention in the
said page-2 that he had taken the xerox copy. Exh.685
did not mention the date of retrieving the data. Except
his bare verbatim, there was nothing on record to show
that he retrieved the data and that it was retrieved
on a particular date.
825. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the data as regards to the details of
customers application and supporting documents (SDR)
was stored in the server. The information supplied by
them to the Law Enforcement Agencies contained name,
address, date of activation and mobile number of the
subscriber and other details of documents etc., were
not furnished. When he gave statement to the S.I.T.,
he did not have any documents with him of which he
supplied the information. The S.I.T. had shown him the
documents and on its basis he gave statement. At the
time of giving statement to the S.I.T., he did not
realize that there was a mistake in dates in Exh. 677
...862/-
Exh.1124 862 (J-SC 317/10)
and Exh.679. Exh.685 had his signature. There was no
mention in Exh.685 that, he retrieved the information
and that it was retrieved on a particular date. The
S.I.T. did not show him Exh.685 at the time of
recording his statement. He had seen the said letter
for the first time before the Court. He did not
remember exact date on which the S.I.T. recoded his
statement and that, he was shown four to five letters
except Exh. 685 and that he was asked only about those
letters and also that thereafter, he left the S.I.T.
office. The S.I.T. did not ask him anything else
except as regards to the information furnished by him
through four to five letters. The witness denied that,
the S.I.T. prepared his statement on their own and
that, he was deposing false at the say of the S.I.T.
826. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he could not tell as to when did he
receive the first letter as regards to information of
mobile no.9323459998, without perusing letter. He did
not have occasion to go through the CDR's of the said
mobile. He did not remember whether prior to letter
Exh.677, their department furnished any information in
respect of mobile number 9323459998 to the S.I.T. He
did not have occasion to retrieve information of CDRs
of this mobile. He could not tell the date of
activation and deactivation of this mobile. Their
...863/-
Exh.1124 863 (J-SC 317/10)
office did not provide information of CDR, application
form, documents supplied by the applicant and date of
activation and date of deactivation of the said mobile
to the S.I.T. along-with Exh.677. He could not tell as
to whether on 09.03.2011 the said mobile was
functioning or deactivated and that whether it was a
prepaid or a post-paid mobile. He could not tell reason
as to why the date of activation and deactivation of
the said mobile was not furnished to the S.I.T. Unlike
the call details SDR and Cell IDs were manually fed in
the Computer. The subscriber details were fed in the
computer by the customer relations department. Cell
I.D. were fed in the Computer by the maintenance
department. The witness denied that, the maintenance
department and the customer relations department
provide the cell information to them. He would not know
as to when the said information was fed or changed or
updated by the department concerned. He would not know
as to how many days this information was updated prior
to retrieving the information by him. He did not know
as to who fed and updated and when it was fed and
updated. It was not a Company policy that not to ask
for the information from the customers relations
department and maintenance department. The portal in
their Company had got all information.
...864/-
Exh.1124 864 (J-SC 317/10)
827. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not tell the S.I.T. in respect
of the portal. The Company policy was to issue a
certificate when electronic data was furnished to the
Law Enforcement Agencies. The purpose behind issuing
the Certificate was to certify that the information
furnished to the Law Enforcement Agencies was true and
correct. He knew that it was a provision in law. In
this case no certificates were issued with the
information that he furnished to the Law Enforcement
Agency. While issuing information of CDR, a Certificate
was issued. They did not issue a certificate as regards
to other information as those were not electronic
records. A Certificate was not issued even for the
information of CDR pertaining to this case. He could
not assign any reason as to why the certificate was not
issued along-with information of CDR in this case. The
witness denied that, he did not issue a certificate
because the report was false. Letter Exh.691 dated
29.08.2009 bearing O.W.2459/DCP/Zone-9/2009 was
addressed to the Nodal Officer of his Company with a
request to furnish requisite information in respect of
phone number mentioned therein. The letter was received
by their office. A copy of e-mail addressed to DCP
ZoneIX, Mumbai from his office was shown to the
witness. Its copy was addressed to the witness vide
Exh.691. In pursuance to letter Exh.691, information
...865/-
Exh.1124 865 (J-SC 317/10)
was sent by their office vide letter Exh.692.
828. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sanjay Laxman
Apage (PW-90), PN 30704, Exh.686 that, during the
period since 2002 to 2007, he worked as Section Karkun
in Versova police station. He used to update the
personal information of Ammaldars and make entries in
the book. He effected entry in respect of accused no.2
Tanaji Desai vide Exhs.687 and 687A. So also there was
an entry in the book in respect of accused no.7 Vinayak
Shinde vide entry Exhs.688 and 688A.
829. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, as per the printed proforma the book was provided
for taking entry of personal information of police. The
witness denied that, the said entires were not official
entires and that, the Government did not provide or
publish any book for taking such entries. The witness
admitted that, there were no printed columns for taking
such specific entires.
830. Further cross examination of the witness
related to column numbers 1 to 14, serial number,
warrant number, date and case number, arrest warrant,
officer issuing warrant, name of accused, designation
of Executing Police Officer, his signature and date,
date of return, the amount to be recovered, whom the
...866/-
Exh.1124 866 (J-SC 317/10)
warrant was addressed, date of execution and return,
recovered amount, signature of the inspector for
receiving amount, mode of disposal and remarks. There
was no entry taken as per the printed proforma and the
book was meant for entering the warrants. The witness
denied that, the said book was not shown to the Sr.
P.I. ACP etc., No superior officer entered his
endorsement and signature in the said book. This book
did not bear seal of the police station. The witness
could not tell the reason as to why the first five
pages were left blank. The column nos.3,4,5 on page no.
6 were left blank as some new Ammaldars could join
duties. The witness could not tell as to why the said
blank columns on page 6 were not filled in.
831. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Versova Police station was no where
written on the said book. There were no page numbers
in the said book. In the year 2005-2006, the Book had
the brown coloured cover. The book had then a new
binding. The witness denied that, when the Ammaldar
was transferred or retired his entry was taken in the
said book. Entries of transfer and retirement were
taken in the said book. The words 'transfered to
Andheri' were written at Exh.688. He did not write
those words and did not know when were those words
written. Those entries were made by different
...867/-
Exh.1124 867 (J-SC 317/10)
constables who were appointed as Section Karkun (+|++).
There were two entries in his handwriting on the page
prior to the page Exh.687 and Exh.688, but there was no
entry in his handwriting on the subsequent page to page
Exh.687 and Exh.688. The witness was shown previous
page to page Exh.687 and 688. Last two entries, bottom
entries were in his handwriting. There was nothing in
it to show as to when the bottom entry was made. The
entries were marked Exh.689. The Xerox Copy was marked
Exh.689(A). Column nos.4 to 14 were blank as the
Ammaldar concerned might not have given the said
information. The mobile numbers or telephone numbers
were not mentioned in Exh.689. In Exh.687 and Exh.688
only Provident Fund Number and Mobile Number were
written in English. Provident Fund Number of Mr.Desai
was not in his handwriting. The date of entry was not
mentioned. The entries were made on the basis of Police
Notice (P.N.Para) as regards to transfer, promotion or
retirement. He did not know anything about the said
mobile and he did not have talks to those mobiles. He
did not remember whether the Passbook Number and Mobile
Number were written in by means of different pens. The
witness denied that, he deposed false under pressure of
the SIT that, he made the said entries and wrote the
numbers at the say of the S.I.T.
...868/-
Exh.1124 868 (J-SC 317/10)
832. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sadhu Krushna
Pattade (PW-91), ret. ASI, Exh.690 that, on 13.11.2006,
when he was attached to Versova police station, he
took 15 sealed packets along with a letter to Forensic
Science Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai. Before leaving
police station, he made entry in station diary vide
Exh.297(A). Exh.294(A) is his endorsement stating that
15 sealed parcels were deposited by him in Forensic
Laboratory, Kalina. So also, he brought said muddemal
and reports Exhs.251(A), 253(A), 254(A), in sealed
condition back from Forensic Laboratory, Kalina to
Versova police station.
833. During cross examination the witness deposed
that, the S.I.T. recorded his statement only once i.e.
on 17.03.2010 and it showed him some documents at the
time of recording his statement. Those were three
reports. Except those three reports, the S.I.T. did not
show him any other documents. Taking entry in Muddemal
Register was not the duty of Muddemal Clerk. The said
entry was taken by the officers. The Muddemal Clerk put
his signature in IPC Muddemal Register after he
received the Muddemal in his custody from the officer.
This was the only entry about receiving the Muddemal by
the Muddemal Clerk. Entry of taking Muddemal to the
C.A. and bringing the Muddemal back from the C.A. was
taken in IPC Muddemal Register. Muddemal Clerk took the
...869/-
Exh.1124 869 (J-SC 317/10)
entry in IPC Muddemal Register of the Muddemal after it
was brought back to the police station after showing it
to the Home Minster, to the DGP, to the Commissioner,
or when it was brought back from the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai. Entry in the Muddemal
Register was taken as in the same condition the
Muddemal was received. If, Muddemal was taken out of
the Muddemal room for any purpose, its entry was taken
in the Muddemal Register.
834. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, words,=|+ +=|+ 6523/06dtd.13/11/2006nl
+l| +|a|=| +|=+| |+ =::=|= r|= ||=| in Exh.298 and words,
=|+ +=|+ 6523/06dtd.13/11/2006 nl +l| +|a|=|in Exh.
299 were in his handwriting. He saw Muddemal in Cr.
no.302/06 on two occasions i.e. on 13.11.2006 and
18.08.2007. There was no mention in Exh. 298 and Exh.
299 that, the said Muddemal was kept in sealed
condition. There was no mention in Exh. 299 that the
report and the Muddemal was brought back to police
station from CFSL, Kalina. There was no mention in
Exh. 298 and Exh. 299 that, the Muddemal was brought
back to the police station from CFSL, Kalina in sealed
condition. He did not state before SIT that, The
Muddemal was shown to him and then it was sealed in his
presence at Kalina and that the report and Muddemal was
brought back to the police station in sealed condition
...870/-
Exh.1124 870 (J-SC 317/10)
and that his signature was obtained on the office copy
of the report while handing over the report and
Muddemal to him. There was no mention in Exh. 298 and
Exh. 299 that, the Muddemal which was to be kept in
Store Room was kept in the store room. There were
different In-Charge for store room and for safe. On
13.11.2006, 15 sealed packets were in custody of Mr.
Sankhe when he called him. There was no mention in
Exh.297 as regards to handing over to him 15 sealed
packets. There was also no mention of O.W. Number of
the letter in Exh. 297. There was no mention that, he
carried sealed Muddemal from Police station to Kalina,
Mumbai. When the Muddemal was brought back, no entry in
Station Diary was made. The witness denied that, no
sealed packets were given to him and that he did not
bring back sealed packets from Kalina, Mumbai to
Versova Police station. The witness further denied
that, since 18.08.2007, he had not seen the said
muddemal.
835. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dinkar
Shrikisanrao Thakur (PW-92), ACP, Exh.693 that, he had
produced affidavit (Exh.694 colly.). Its contents were
true and correct and it bore his signature. Since
07.06.2012, he joined Control Room , Navi Mumbai. He
received communication from Special P.P. as regards to
production of original Fax Message Book containing
...871/-
Exh.1124 871 (J-SC 317/10)
entries of 11.11.2006. He could not produce the
original Fax Message Book. The original Fax Message
Book was misplaced as there was shifting of the Control
Room to the Ground Floor in the same premises, in the
month of 2011.
836. It has come during cross examination that, the
Notice dated 01.03.2012 from SPP was seen by him for
the first time during the last week. I had not seen any
entry anywhere as regards to the misplaced Fax Message
Book. He was not posted at the Control Room in December
2011 when the Control Room was shifted. He did not see
any entry as regards to the time of shifting of the
Control Room. When he made inquiry during the last
week, the officers / police personnel who were present
at the time of shifting the Control Room were present
before him. They were Head Constable Mr.Somavanshi, ASI
Mr.Inamdar. The witness further deposed that, portion
marked A in his affidavit Exh.694 was stated by him
at the say of ACP Mr. Dilip Patil. He did not record
statements of Mr.Somavanshi and Mr.Inamdar. Fax Message
Book remains in the custody of Head Constable, General
Duty (G.D.). The witness denied that, misplace of the
Fax Message Book was not in his personal knowledge and
it would be wrong to say that, the Fax Message Book was
misplaced long before first week of December 2011. The
witness further deposed that, Mr.Somavanshi, H.C.,
...872/-
Exh.1124 872 (J-SC 317/10)
G.D., told him that the Fax Message Book was in his
custody till first week of December 2011. He did not
make entry anywhere stating that, he made search for
the Fax Message Book, but even then the Book was not
traced.
837. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, his office received a letter dated
01.03.2012 on the same day. A.C.P. Mr.Dilip Patil sent
a reply to the said letter and that affidavit Exh. 694
was prepared on the basis of said letter. He did not
mention in the affidavit that, prior to preparing the
affidavit he had talks with A.C.P. Mr.Dilip Patil.
Except his bare verbatim, there is no other proof to
show that he had talks with A.C.P. Mr.Dilip Patil as
regards to the misplaced the Fax Message Book. Till
that day, no action had been taken against any police
officer or police personnel for the misplaced Fax
Message Book. The witness denied that, he prepared a
false affidavit at the say of the S.I.T.
838. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sadashiv Vithoba
Borale (PW-93) Exh.695 that, on 11.11.2006, he was
attached to the office of the Commissioner of Police,
C.B.D Control Room, Navi Mumbai. He effected entry no.
1770 in the register in respect of a fax received from
Aruna Anil Bheda from Sector 29, Vashi vide Exh.696.
...873/-
Exh.1124 873 (J-SC 317/10)
The Fax message stated that, c| |c| r|a |=a |+| n|r| ||l=
+||=n|+l +a=+ +=4|4 .The Control room received this Fax on
11.11.2006 at 16.45 hours. He sent this Fax through
Constable from APMC Police Station to Vashi Police
Station. The Fax was in English. He stated that, except
Word 'Arun' remaining part was true and correct. In
place of Arun it should be Anil and that it happened in
hurry.
839. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, his statement was recorded by the SIT in its
office at Pawai. (The prosecution made a statement that
his statement was not recorded by the SIT). The witness
further deposed that, information to the Control Room
can be received by way of 'I' letter, 'II' Telephone,
'III' Fax, 'IV' Telegram. Besides this, the information
can be received in person and through wireless. All
these 6 modes of receiving information by the Control
Room are entered into different Books. Different Books
are maintained by different constables on duty. The Fax
Message Book was not only in his custody. It was in
custody of different duty constables. He had seen the
Fax Message Book up to the year 2007. He saw the Fax
Message Book having the said entry in it in the year
2007 till he was transferred from the Control Room,
Navi Mumbai. Entry of Fax was taken only in the Fax
Message Book. A Station Diary was maintained in the
...874/-
Exh.1124 874 (J-SC 317/10)
Control Room. He had no occasion to see the said Fax
again at anytime after making the entry in the Fax
Message Book and after sending it to Vashi Police
Station. No one made inquiry in respect of the
misplaced or lost Fax Message Book. On the day of
deposing before the Court, for the first time, he came
to know that the name was wrongly written in the entry
No.1770. He came to know on that day that, the name
was wrongly written on the basis of name of the
informant Aruna Anil Bheda. It was not mentioned in the
entry as to whether it was in respect of the son or the
husband of the informant. The entry of Fax Message was
not made in the station diary. The entry that he had
seen on that day was made in the Fax Message Book.
There was nothing in Exh.696 to show that it was a Fax
Message Book or its page. There was no mention at the
said entry that the fax was received. The entry in the
last column as well as the writing was not in his
handwriting. The Fax Message Book was shown to the
Senior P.I./ A.C.P. after the entry was made. They did
not put any signature or endorsement on the said entry.
There was no other record to show that entry dated
11.11.2006 was shown to the P.I. or A.C.P. Except his
bare verbatim there was no other proof to show that the
Control Room received the fax and on its basis, the
entry was made.
...875/-
Exh.1124 875 (J-SC 317/10)
840. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he knew H.C. Mr.Somanvanshi and ASI Mr.
Inamdar. He did not know A.C.P. Mr.Chikle. He did not
remember as to who was the A.C.P. at the relevant time.
He did not know ACP Mr.Dilip Patil. H.C. Mr.Somanvanshi
and ASI Mr.Inamdar were attached to the Control Room
till he was transferred. He did not know for how much
period after his transfer they were attached to the
Control Room. The fax was received by the officer first
in the Control Room. A.P.I. Mr. Bokare was on duty to
receive the fax. The witness denied that, no fax was
received and no entry was made in the Fax Message Book
and that, as there was no entry. He had not produced
the said Fax Message Book. The witness also denied
that, he deposed false that, Exh.696 was the page from
the Fax Message Book and that the entry was false.
There were two entries in his handwriting. Those were
1770 and 1771. Except those entries, the other entries
did not bear signature and dates. He did not know as to
who made the other entries. All entries were of fax,
but it was not mentioned there that the entries were of
fax. Page no.107 was mentioned in the seal of his
office in Exh.696. Upper half portion of the seal was
visible and remaining lower half portion was not
visible. Words +||=n |+ +||= were visible. The witness
denied that, the entries were not from his office and
that, he had deposed false at the say of the S.I.T.
...876/-
Exh.1124 876 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness further deposed that, the entry was only of
right hand side. There was no entry of left hand side
before the Court.
841. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sunil Sampatrao
Somawanshi (PW-94), PH, Exh.701 that, on 12.11.2006, he
was on day duty at Control Room, Navi Mumbai. He made
entries dated 12.11.2006 in station diary at Sr. nos.
20 and 21 (Exhs.702 and 703). The entires were as
regards to phone call received from PI Sonawane from
Thane City Police Control Room informing that, one
Aruna Bheda sent a fax message that her husband Anil
Bheda and Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta were taken
through a silver coloured Qualis vehicle by police and
their lives were in danger. The incident took place in
Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. They were informed about
it as Vashi Sector-9 was within their jurisdiction. He
informed Vashi police station accordingly after taking
the said entry. A phone of PI Mr.Patil from Vashi
police station was received by the Control Room. Mr.
Patil informed that, Aruna Anil Bheda, on 11.11.2006,
at 6 pm, lodged a report in Vashi police station
stating that, her husband Anil Bheda left home at 10 am
stating that, he was going outside for refilling his
mobile, but did not return home. A missing report was
registered in Vashi police station on the basis of said
complaint. As per this information, he took entry in
...877/-
Exh.1124 877 (J-SC 317/10)
the station diary.
842. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, Mr.Dinkar Shrikrishnarao Thakur, ACP, was
attached to the control room since 09.06.2012. There
were about 6 to 7 Registers/ Books maintained in the
Control Room. Those were Station Diary, Daily Crime
Report Book, VIP Movement Book, VIP itinerary book, Fax
inward and outward Register and General Outward
Register. He used to do different duties in Control
Room regarding making entries in different registers/
books. The witness denied that, if he was allotted to
do entries in a specific register or a book, he could
not make entry in any other register/ book. The witness
further deposed that, if the other staff went outside
for some work, he could make entry in his book or
register. Entry as regards to sending fax or receiving
fax was taken into the fax message book. The entry of
incoming and outgoing fax was not taken in the station
diary.
843. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, it did not happen that, till February
2008 i.e. during his tenure in Control Room, there was
any incident of misplace of any of the seven registers.
Since February 2011 till date, the control Room
continued to maintain the said seven registers/ books.
...878/-
Exh.1124 878 (J-SC 317/10)
No one made enquiry with him since February 2011 till
date in respect of misplaced registers/ books. Enquiry
in respect of misplaced registers/ books was made with
him one month prior to his deposing before the Court.
ACP Mr. Thakur made the enquiry, who told the witness
that, a letter from the SIT was received calling upon
to produce original fax book. He searched for the
register. It was informed by the previous officers/
staff that, the register was missing and its report was
already sent. Those were ASI Mr. Inamdar and ASI Mr.
Patil. They did not tell him as to when was the book
misplaced. He searched for the book in the record of
Control Room. He searched the book for two days. ASI
Mr.Inamdar and he searched the book. Only one
book/register was found missing i.e. the fax message
book. There was no entry made anywhere in respect of
missing of fax message book. A report was sent. He saw
the copy of the said report. He did not remember the
date of the report, but it was of the year 2012. He did
not take entry of missing fax message book. He did not
submit report of missing of the fax message book. He
could not tell as to when did the fax message book was
misplaced, but approximately the fax message book might
have been misplaced during the shifting of record on
two occasions in the control room. The shifting was in
the month of April 2011 and on 05.12.2011. He did not
ask anyone who shifted the record as regards to
...879/-
Exh.1124 879 (J-SC 317/10)
misplaced fax message book. Mr.Inamdar and Mr.Patil
were attached to the Control Room when the record was
shifted. They helped in shifting the record. After
searching for two days, he orally informed Mr.Thakur
that, the book could not be traced. Mr.Inamdar also
informed Mr. Thakur that, the book could not be traced.
The ACP was having control over the registers and books
from the Control Room. He did not know as to who
searched for the book prior to sending the previous
report. The witness admitted that, except his bare
verbatim, there was no other record to show that, he
searched for the book for two days.
844. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, entry of official correspondence to the
control room was not taken anywhere. There was no entry
in respect of receiving letter from the SIT and as
regards to making search for the fax message book. If a
letter was received from outside, it was complied with
and then it was kept in the file. Outward number was
given to the reply letter. There was no inward number
given to any letters. The letters were kept in a loose
file. He personally did not see the letter regarding
search of fax message book. He did not have personal
knowledge as regards to the entries Exh.702, Exh.703
and that those entries were made at the say of
Mr.Sonawane and Mr.Patil. Any message was sent to the
...880/-
Exh.1124 880 (J-SC 317/10)
Control Room because the said Message used to be
relayed to all police stations within the jurisdiction.
Mr.Sonawane was CRO from Thane City Police Station. The
Fax Message was received by the Commissioner of Police
Thane. The Message was sent from the Commissioner of
Police Thane to The Control Room, Thane. Entry Exh.
702 did not mention the time and date at which the fax
was received by the office of the Commissioner of
Police, Thane. Entry Exh.702 did not mention the date
and time at which the CRO, Thane City was informed
regarding the fax message. Navi Mumbai CRO was informed
two minutes prior to 11.45 a.m. This was the first
entry as regards to the fax message.
845. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Exh.702 and Exh.703 did not mention
that, Mr.Sonawane and Mr.Patil gave the informations to
him. First he heard those messages and thereafter, he
wrote down the said messages. They did not furnish copy
to the person who sent the message. They did not inform
the message to the person who sent the message.
Portions marked in A and B in Exh.703 were
correctly written. Portion marked A in Exh.702 was
written by the witness on his own. It was not informed
by Mr.Sonawane to him. That was the only entry as
regards to informing Vashi Police Station to confirm
and to make inquiry and that there was no other entry
...881/-
Exh.1124 881 (J-SC 317/10)
in this respect. Portion marked B in Exh. 703 was
written on his own. There was no entry mentioning that
information Exh. 703 was forwarded by him. Vashi CRO
did not give any information to their Control Room. If
the message was directly sent to the office of the
Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, its entry was not
taken in the Station Diary of the Control Room. If the
office of the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai sent a message
to the Control Room, then its entry was taken in the
Station Diary. On 11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006, he was on
day duty. On 13.11.2006 and 14.11.2006, he was on
night duty. No Fax Message was received from the office
of the Commissioner on 11
th
and 12
th
November 2006. The
witness on his own deposed that, later on he came to
know that a fax message was received on 11.11.2006. On
13.11.2006, he came to know that, a fax message was
received on 11.11.2006. He did not see the said fax
message. He personally did not take entry of the said
fax anywhere. The entries of Telephonic Message and
Wireless Message were taken in the Station Diary. On
11.11.2006, no Wireless or Telephonic Message was
received from the office of the Commissioner of Police,
Navi Mumbai or from the office of the Commissioner of
Police, Thane as regards to missing of Anil Bheda and
Ramnarayan Gupta. If there was a Message in respect of
missing complaint, it was duty of the Control Room to
inform to police station concerned in whose
...882/-
Exh.1124 882 (J-SC 317/10)
jurisdiction the incident occurred. The witness denied
that, there was no Fax Message Book in their Control
Room and that, he deposed false that the Fax Message
Book was lost and could not be traced out despite his
searching for two days. The witness also denied that,
he had deposed false to save the ACP who filed a false
affidavit in the Court.
846. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shashidhar
Sitaram Shetty (PW-95), Exh.704, that, his mobile no.
was 9819006484. Previously, he was having another
number, but he did not remember it. For the last six
months, he had been residing at different addresses
than Indradhanushya Apartment, Ground floor, Room No.2,
Sector No.2, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. For the last one year,
he was serving in a hotel. Prior to that, he was
working at APMC Market, Vashi. He used to purchase
damaged food-grains from warehouse, clean it and sold
it. He alone used to do the said work. He used to sell
food-grains to Santosh Shettiyar from APMC Market.
Santosh Shettiyar was having his shop (gala) in APMC
Market and was having some workers in his shop. They
used to clean food-grains purchased from him and
Santosh used to used to sell it. He used to purchase
food-grains from the warehouse which were wasted during
loading and unloading. He did the work of purchasing
food-grains for the period of 3 and half years. His
...883/-
Exh.1124 883 (J-SC 317/10)
relations with Santosh Shettiyar were restricted only
to the extent of business. He did not remember mobile
number of Santosh Shettiyar. He was having daily talks
on mobile of Santosh Shettiyar. It did not happen that,
he came to know a friend of Santosh Shettiyar and that
he did not go along with Santosh Shettiyar to CBD,
Belapur. He did not remember whether he and Santosh met
in August, 2009. He did not go at the turning near
Turbhe Flyover at any point of time. He did not go
along with Santosh to N.L. Area, Nerul. He did not go
to the house of a person by name Dhiraj. He along with
Santosh Shettiyar did not go to Hotel Shabari in Vashi.
His statement was recorded by the SIT, but he did not
remember date and month. (As the witness resiled from
his earlier statement and declined to fully support the
prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put questions to
the witness as per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the
Evidence Act).
847. During further evidence, the witness deposed
that, he used to purchase food-grains from 8-10
warehouses. A bill was issued when he purchased the
food-grains but it was given in writing on a letter-
head. A permission was required to take food-grains out
of the warehouse and Manager gave permission to give
food-grains out of the warehouse. A seal of the
...884/-
Exh.1124 884 (J-SC 317/10)
warehouse used to be affixed on the letter-head, but it
did not bear signature of the owner of the warehouse.
The manager used to look after the transactions of the
warehouse. There was no register in warehouse. He did
not put signature in any register. He had to show the
letter-head at the gate of the warehouse. By showing
the letter-head, he used to take the food-grains and
the letter out of the warehouse. He used to purchase 50
kilogram to 100 kilograms after every to to four days.
He used to pay Rs.4 to 5 per kilogram. This was from
one warehouse. Similarly, he used to purchase food-
grains in the same nature from other warehouses, by
following same procedure. He used to pay Rs.800/- to
Rs.1000/- per warehouse for purchasing food-grains. He
used to sell all food-grains to Santosh Shettiyar.
Santosh Shettiyar hired the shop on rental basis. The
shops would change from time to time after expiry of 11
months. There was no one to help him in his
transaction. He used to get Rs.3/- to 4/- per kilogram
more on the purchase price from Santosh Shettiyar. He
was selling the food-grains to Santosh Shettiyar till
the time he was engaged in the said business. Santosh
did not issue any receipt in his favour. He did not
pay income tax. He had a PAN Card for the last 4 to 5
years. He did not file returns. He did not state
before the SIT that, mobile number 9820261059 was
mobile number of Santosh Shettiyar, but it might be his
...885/-
Exh.1124 885 (J-SC 317/10)
phone number. The witness could not assign any reason
as to why portions marked A, B,C and D were so
written in his statement. The witness categorically
deposed that, it did not happen that, due to Santosh
Shettiyar, he knew his friend Janya Sheth from CBD
Belapur for two to three years prior to recording his
statement by the SIT and that he, along with Santosh
Shettiyar, went to the house of Janya Sheth. He did not
know whether Janya Sheth met with a motor accident due
to which his body below the neck became paralyzed
(handicap). The witness denied that, he deposed false
to save Pinki, who was friend of Santosh and who was
having good relationship with him. The witness also
denied that, he deposed false to help Pinki and Janya
Sheth, and that he and Santosh Shettiyar were engaged
in black-marketing, and that he wanted to help Santosh
Shettiyar.
848. It has come in evidence of Mr.Mehmood Mahammad
Ali Shaikh (PW-96), Exh.705 that, in the year 2006, he
ran a mobile shop named and stayled as S.D. Mobile
Shop in Naya Nagar, Mira Road, Thane. He used to sell
and repair mobiles. He used to sell SIM Cards also. The
continued to run till the year 2008. The witness owned
a Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No. MH-01-Y-7494
during the said period and it was purchased for Rs.
1,10,000/- on loan borrowed from HDFC Bank to the tune
...886/-
Exh.1124 886 (J-SC 317/10)
of Rs.90,000/- and paid cash of Rs.20,000/-. It was
purchased through an agent. Its colour was dark blue.
The monthly installment was of Rs.4,000/-. He deposited
almost all installments. When the shop was running, he
deposited about six installments. The car was totally
damaged as it was left near a drainage and it was not
with him. Its parts were stolen. He did not sell the
said car. He did not know Shailendra Pande. He did not
know Mohammad Moiuddin Shaikh @ Mohammad Takka. He did
not know Hemlata Pande. During the election period, he
went to bungalow of Mithalal Jain. The witness could
not tell as to whether in the year 2007 he applied for
SIM card or not. He was having a SIM Card in his name
in the capacity of proprietor of the Mobile shop. He
did not remember confirmatively as to whether SIM Card
number 9920871117 was in his name or not. He did not
give the said SIM Card to anyone for use. No one gave
him Rs.1,50,000/- for depositing the loan amount. He
knew Mohammad Usman Illiays Shaikh. It did not happen
that, he purchased BPL SIM Card No. 9821056311 on the
basis of the documents of Mohammad Usman Illiyas Shaikh
and he did not hand over the said SIM Card to any of
his friends. Police did not record his statement at any
point of time. (As the witness resiled from his earlier
statement and declined to fully support the
prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put questions to
the witness as per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the
...887/-
Exh.1124 887 (J-SC 317/10)
Evidence Act).
849. It has further come in his evidence that, it
did not happen that, he repaid only 3-4 installments of
Rs.3,895/- and thereafter, he could not repay the
installments, therefore, he told his friend Mohammad
Moiuddin Shaikh @ Mohammad Takka that he wanted to sell
his Zen Car and that thereafter, Mohd. Takka brought
his friend Shailendra Dhup Narayan Pande @ Pinki to his
shop at 10.30 am at Naya Nagar and that the said friend
was residing at Golden Nest, Mira Road and also that,
the witness sold the car to Shailendra Pandey @ Pinki
and received an amount of Rs.30,000/- in cash and told
him to pay remaining installments upon which he gave
Rs.1,50,000/- of cash and that he told him to keep the
amount for business and to pay the installments and
also that it was decided that, the car was to be
transferred in the name of Shailendra Pandey after
clearance of loan and that the said car was handed over
in possession of Shailendra Pande.
850. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that, thereafter, he started repayment of
installments of HDFC Bank Loan. It did not happen
that, Shailendra Pande @ Pinki used to call him on
phone when he was not at Mira Road and used to tell him
to give money to some persons and that, accordingly he
...888/-
Exh.1124 888 (J-SC 317/10)
used to give money to said persons from the amount
deposited by Shailendra Pande. The witness denied
that, due to this, he and Pinki became good friends.
The witness has further denied that, he also came to
know that, Shailendra@ Pinki was the informant of
encounter specialist Police Inspector Mr.Pradeep
Sharma, and that he got acquainted with Pinki's wife
Hemlata Pande, and that he used to take Hemlata Pande
through Zen Car if she wanted to go somewhere and also
that, he used bring household articles of Pinki through
the Zen car. The witness further denied that, three to
four months after purchase of the said car, Pinki gave
light golden colour to the Zen car. The witness further
denied that, in the month of July, 2007, Pinki came to
his shop and made demand of a prepaid card of HUTCH
Company and when the witness made demand of documents,
Pinki told him that he did not have documents and told
him to give SIM Card on the basis of his documents for
his use and as their relations were very good, the
witness gave his SIM Card of HUTCH Company bearing No.
9920871117 to Pinki. The witness denied that, Pinki
used the said card and that the witness had talks with
Pinki on the said mobile no. 9920871117. The witness
further denied that, he was repaying the installments
till recent time, but due to his bad economic
condition, he stopped repaying the installments and
that in December, 2009, he saw the Zen car with Pinki.
...889/-
Exh.1124 889 (J-SC 317/10)
851. The witness denied that, he came to know
through the news from newspaper in January, 2010 that,
Shailendra Pande @ Pinki along with Mr. Pradeep Sharma
and other police officers were arrested in the case of
encounter of Lakhan Bhaiya and that, police recorded
his statement in Marathi on a computer and it was
explained to him in Hindi. The witness denied to have
stated portion marked A and portion marked B in his
statement dated 03.09.2010. The witness further denied
that, one day his friend Shailendra Pande came to him
and made demand of one SIM Card for his wife and that
at that time he took xerox of driving license and a
photo of Mohammad Usman Illiyas Shaikh and gave SIM
Card number 9821056311 of BPL Company to Pinki and that
after some days, Pinki told him that the said number
was deactivated therefore again the witness took
documents and photo of Mohammad Usman Illiyas Shaikh
and got the said SIM Card activated and that time he
told Mohammad Usman that, the said SIM Card was given
to his friend Pinki with the same number and that
Mohammad also knew Pinki. Police called him only once
and made inquiry with him in respect of the vehicle.
The witness denied that police wrote down whatever was
asked to him. The vehicle was insured. The insurance
did not continue after two years. He did not remember
as upto what period he repaid the loan installments. He
...890/-
Exh.1124 890 (J-SC 317/10)
did not remember whether he purchased the car in July
2006 and as to when total installments were repaid.
The total loan installment amounts have been repaid in
the year 2009. He used the said car for about four
years till the end of 2010 and then he stopped using
the car as its engine did not function. The car was
transferred in his name. He did not have documents of
the said car or of the bank. The witness could not
identify accused nos. 4 and 12 though they were shown
to him as they were present before the Court.
852. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, he did not know Santosh Shettiyar and as to in
whose name did mobile no.9820261059 stood. He had never
occasion to talk on the said mobile. The address of his
shop was at Shop No.6, Nida Park, Naya Nagar, Mira
Road, Thane. Exh.453 (colly), page-9, had his photo and
residential address and stamp of his shop on page-10,
there was stamp of his shop and mention of his
residential address. Mobile no.9819153762 on page-10
was his mobile number. There were three xerox pages of
his driving license along with the application. The
xerox pages had stamp of his shop. The application was
of HUTCH SIM Card, mobile no.9920871117. The photograph
on the application had his signature and also his
signature appeared below photograph on the application.
There were his four signatures on the application form
...891/-
Exh.1124 891 (J-SC 317/10)
and two signatures appeared on page no.10; one as a
customer and one at the stamp of the shop. The xerox
copies of the driving license had his signatures and
stamps on all the three xerox pages; two signatures on
each page. He was using the said mobile number as it
was his mobile number. The mobile SIM Card was
activated on 04.07.2007 and was deactivated on
08.05.2010. He did not know who was Janya Sheth. He
did not talk to mobile no. 9833886791 at any point of
time. He did not know whose number it was. The witness
denied that, he talked to mobile no. 9833886791 from
his mobile no. 9920871117 on 23 occasions between the
period 13.08.2009 to 08.01.20010. The witness expressed
his ignorance as to whose number was 9867429023. He did
not talk to this mobile number. He did not remember
whether he had talks from his mobile no. 9920871117 to
mobile no.9819153762. He had been doing business as an
Estate Agent for the last six years at Mira Road. He
did not know whether Pinki and Mohammad Takka resided
at Mira Road. He did business of Esate Agent, along
with Nashir, Jaffar, Guddu and those were only persons
with whom he had the business as Estate Agent.
853. It has further come in his evidence that,
Yunus Haji Abdul Jabbar Shaikh was his cousin and was
the son of his maternal aunt. The witness denied that,
he and Yunus Haji Abdul Jabbar Shaikh visited each
...892/-
Exh.1124 892 (J-SC 317/10)
others residents on occasions of festivals as they were
having cordial relations with each other. The witness
did not know what did Yunus do prior to one and half
years when the witness was on visiting terms with him,
his family and his family were having cordial relations
with each other and were on visiting terms. They were
having talks on phone. They did not meet each other
outside their residences. He did not know whether
Yunus was on visiting terms with Janya Sheth at the
house of Janya Sheth. He did not remember as to whether
7498160578 was the mobile number of Yunus or not. The
witness further admitted that, mobile number of Yunus
was 9833156478 and he had talks recently with Yunus on
mobile i.e. on the day of Id i.e. day before yesterday
and also yesterday. On the day of deposing before the
Court, he did not have talks with Yunus. He did not
know whether Yunus was also a witness in this case. He
did not have talks with Yunus as regards to the inquiry
in respect of this case. The witness further denied
that, he knew that, Yunus was also the witness in this
case and that, he, Mohammad Yunus Takka and Pinki were
good friends and also that to save Mohammad Takka,
Pinki and Janya Sheth, he was deposing false at their
instance. The witness further denied that, he deposed
false that he was using mobile no. 9920871117 and that
he gave this mobile number to Pinki (accused no.4) and
that, he purchased mobile no. 98211056311 in the name
...893/-
Exh.1124 893 (J-SC 317/10)
of Mohammad Usman Iliyas Shaikh and gave it to Pinki
for his use. The witness denied that, he gave both
these numbers to Pinki and that therefore, he said
that, he did not have talks with Janya Sheth and
Santosh Shettiyar. The witness denied that, Pinki was
using both these numbers and that he used to talk to
Janya Sheth and Santosh Shettiyar from these two phone
numbers.
854. During cross examination by the defence, the
witness deposed that, he had not received witness
summons in this case. Three officers, Madam and the
advocate before the Court talked to him. The witness
identified the complainant present before the Court and
Ld. SPP for the State present before the Court. He was
called on 18
th
August 2012 in chowki for one hour and he
was told that, his Id could not be disturbed and he be
called on third day of the Id in the Court. He had
talks with the Madam, the advocate and the police
officers in the police chowki. He was called in MRA
Marg police station near Musafir Khana. He did not
give mobile number 9920871117 to Pinki at any point of
time. When he was in the police chowki on 18
th
August
2012, he was told by the Madam that, he should depose
before the Court that, he gave the said number to Pinki
and that Pinki had talks from that mobile number to
those two earlier numbers. He purchased the said number
...894/-
Exh.1124 894 (J-SC 317/10)
9920871117 in his name in the capacity of proprietor of
the Mobile Shop. He purchased the said number for his
shop.
855. During further cross examination, the witness
deposed that, he went to the office of the SIT at 12.00
noon and he was allowed to go at about 4.00 to 5.00 pm.
Meantime, four to five officers made enquiry with him.
For the first time in his life he went to the police
station and that when he was called by the SIT. He was
afraid when he was called by the SIT. He was afraid
that the police might involve him somewhere. Therefore,
he wanted to leave the SIT office as early as
possible. It was also his feeling that, the police
should not call him again. The witness admitted that
he had heard names Janya Sheth and Santosh Shettiyar
for the first time on that day in the Court and those
names were never in his life till that day. The
witness also admitted that, the SIT did not make
enquiry with him about Janya Sheth, Santosh Shettiyar
and Yunus. The SIT did not show him any documents /
papers during the course of inquiry.
856. During re-examination by Ld. SPP for the
State, the witness deposed that, summons Exh.706 shown
to him did not bear his signature. The witness admitted
that, Exh.453 bore his signature on the stamp of S.D.
...895/-
Exh.1124 895 (J-SC 317/10)
Mobile Center, which were of his shop. Exh.706, page
nos. 9 to 13 bore his signatures and those signatures
were seen as that on Exh.453. There was no date
mentioned below signature in Exh.706 at Sr. No.7.
Mehamood Mohammad Ali Shaikh written in Exh.706 was his
name. On 18.08.2012, the witness was informed to come
to the court. The Id was on 20
th
August, 2012. He made
his purchasing on 19
th
August, 2012. On the day of ID,
he was at home. On that day, SIT officers did not meet
him. The witness denied that, summons Exh.706 was
served on the day of Id i.e. on 20.08.2012. His wife
accompanied him in M.R.A. Marg police station and was
also present when he deposed before the court. He and
his wife were afraid when they were called to the
police station. His wife accompanied him to the police
station. She was afraid when she was to come to the
court. Police officer asked him to keep his wife out
of the police station therefore, she did not enter in
to the police station till the time he was in the
police station. He came to the police station through
Honda City Car of his uncle by name Ashraff Mamu. He
was out of his house for minimum five hours. He came
along with his children and wife. When the police
called him he did not inform Ashraff Mamu. He did not
tell Yunus that, he was called by the SIT on
18.08.2012. He did not tell Ashraff Mamu and Yunus that
he was to attend the court on that day. The bike was
...896/-
Exh.1124 896 (J-SC 317/10)
Honda Activa. His relations with Ashraff Mamu were
cordial. He did not know the price of Honda City Car.
He told Ashraff Mamu that, he was going to Bombay. He
was driving the car. He did not tell anyone that he was
called in MRA Marg police station.
857. It has further come in his evidence that, he
earned Rs.15,000/- per month. Rs.1,000/- per month were
spent on his two children, who studied in English
medium in Banekar School. He used to take his wife and
the children by bike if they wanted to go somewhere.
It was illegal. As he and his wife had Roza they could
not go by bike. Therefore, they went through Honda City
Car to MRA Marg police station. He never used Honda
City Car to take his wife and children outside Mira
Road. Ashraff Mamu was an electrician. He ran his shop
at Mira Road. He ran a garage and repaired vehicles as
regards to the body and other parts which including
engine parts and painting of the vehicles. The garage
belonged to his brother in law Farid Qureshi. When his
Zen Car was damaged, he did not do work of repairing
vehicles. At that time, he was not in a position to
repay the installments. His economic condition was not
good as his ECS cheques were also bounced. He did not
remember as to how many cheques has got bounced. He did
not tell as to for how many months did his cheques
bounce and after how many months of purchasing the car
...897/-
Exh.1124 897 (J-SC 317/10)
his cheques got bounced. HDFC Bank issued a notice to
him as his four cheques got bounced. Then he paid only
one installment. HDFC Bank did not tell him that it
would seize his car, as he paid one installment. He did
not remember as to when did he pay remaining three
installments. He did not receive second notice from the
bank, as he regularly paid installments through the
bank agent who used to collect the installments in cash
from him. The vehicle was transferred in his name. He
did not remember as to when it was transferred in his
name. The witness denied that, he repaid installments
from the money given by Pinki and that, his economic
condition was sound.
858. He had been residing at Mira Road for the last
12 years. He was residing in Musafir Khana i.e. since
his birth till attaining 22
nd
year of his age. He
resided along with his family, who included his father,
mother, brother and sisters. No one from his family
resided at Musafir Khana when he deposed before the
Court. He did not remember the year in which his family
shifted from Musafir Khana but it was prior to 12
years. When they shifted from Musafir Khana the house
was let out. It was a room admeasuring 10 ft. X 10 ft.
He did not remember as to how many rooms were there at
the ground floor. Other people also resided at the
ground floor. He did not remember as to how many
...898/-
Exh.1124 898 (J-SC 317/10)
families were there. He did not have cordial relations
with them, who were engaged in the business of selling
imported chocolates at Crowford Market after he
completed 17 years of his age. He did not have a shop.
He was purchasing products from a shopkeeper and would
sell to number of shopkeepers. He did the said business
for three years. For remaining two years, he did not do
any business. He was having cordial relations with
those shopkeepers and when he deposed before the Court
he did not have any differences with them. He met those
shopkeepers sometimes when he used to come to Mumbai.
The witness denied that, Pinki was close (khas adami)
to Mr. Pradeep Sharma and that, he knew Pinki for the
last 6 years and he did all household works of Pinki at
his house. The witness denied that, he deposed before
the Court as per say of Advocate Mr. Vanjara appearing
for Mr. Sharma and Mr. Pinki. The witness denied that,
he never visited MRA Marg police station at any point
of time and did not meet any officers from the SIT or
to the prosecutor or the complainant. The witness
denied that, he wanted to depose false therefore, he
denied his signature on the summons and that he
deliberately did not put date of service of summons on
the summons.
859. It has come in evidence of Mr. Vikas Narayan
Phulkar (PW-97), Nodal Officer from Vodafone Company,
...899/-
Exh.1124 899 (J-SC 317/10)
Exh.711 that, since, 1995, he had been serving as the
Alternate Nodal Officer in Vodafone Company. As per
requisition letters from SIT vide Exhs.422, 432, 444,
446, 448, 452, 414, 420, 424, 426, 440 and 442 he
retrieved information and submitted the same to the SIT
vide Exhs.423, 433, 445, 447, 449, 453, 415, 416, 417,
421, 425, 427, 441 and 443.
860. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, before he was appointed as the 'Alternative Nodal
Officer' he was serving as Security Officer in
'Vodafone Company' till the year 2000 and thereafter,
the nodal office was bifurcated from the Security
Office. Electronic record was stored in his Computer
for a period of one year. After a period of one year,
the electronic record was transferred to the Server. He
could not say as to how long the electronic record
remained in the server. Firstly, the Electronic data
was recorded in the server and simultaneously it was
recorded in Magnetic Tapes. The new Electronic record
of the last one year came to his computer from the
server. If the electronic record of a period of one
year was asked for by the Law Enforcement Agencies, it
would not be available on their computer. I.T.
Department would retrieve the said electronic record
and furnish it to them if the record was required of a
period of more than one year. He was not in a position
...900/-
Exh.1124 900 (J-SC 317/10)
to say as to how I. T. Department retrieved the said
electronic record. Except information in Exh.433, other
information was not of more than one year old period.
Document Exh.417 was executed on 3
rd
September, 2010,
which contained information of the month of August and
September, 2009. Though information of August 2009 was
of more than one year, the information was not sent to
the server. He was not aware as to why the information
of August 2009 was not automatically sent to the
server. The same case was with Exh.416. The SIT did
not record his statement and had never called him
during the course of investigation. The day before he
saw the referred document for the first time after
those documents were sent to the S.I.T.
861. The witness is an Arts Graduate. He learnt
about the electronic records only after he joined the
service. He knew that, electronic records were to be
certified as it was requirement of the Law. The company
certified the record only if the Law Enforcement
Agencies made a request to that effect. For the
purpose of certification, there was a format in their
Computer. They filled in only numbers, the period of
which the information was sought and the reference of
requisition letter. The SIT did not request to certify
the said record therefore, those were not certified and
moreover, it was not an electric record. Exhs.421,
...901/-
Exh.1124 901 (J-SC 317/10)
423, 425, 441 and 443 were not electronic records
therefore, these were not certified. As the personnel
informations of the customers were concerned, these
were provided by the Customer Service Department.
Customers details were manually fed in the Computer.
The Computer in which this information was fed was
Vodafone Smart System. It was the application for
storing the personnel information of the subscriber.
This personnel information was being updated from time
to time. The witness denied that, they could not
retrieve the said information. They could not feed the
information. The witness was not in a position to say
as to when the information as regards to Exhs.447 and
449 was fed in the Computer. Electronic record was a
record which was automatically stored either in a
server or in a Master Computer. Exh.451 was Customer
Form and documents submitted along-with the form. These
documents had been provided to him by the Customer
Service Department. This was not an Electronic record
therefore, no Certificate could be given. Exh.453 was
the application form and documents submitted along-with
the Application Form by the Customer. These were not
electronic records. The certificate along-with the
record was the custody certificate and it was not a
certificate as required u/s.65(B) of the Evidence Act.
While issuing a certificate as regards to the
electronic records supplied to the Law Enforcement
...902/-
Exh.1124 902 (J-SC 317/10)
Agencies, three things were to be considered; 1.
Identify Electronic records. 2. they have to give
particulars of devices involved in electronic records.
3. As regards to the matters contained therein. All the
three certificates in Exh.445, Exh.447 and Exh.449 did
not mention the system from which the information was
retrieved and when it was produced in the system. Exh.
453 was a custody certificate. Exh.445, Exh.447 and
Exh.449 did not mention that the information was
retrieved by him. These also did not mention as to
when did he retrieve the information. It was only thing
stated in the certificate that, The print-outs of the
calls made (incoming and outgoing) through the said
Cellular Numbers i.e. 9833676351, are supplied by means
of appropriate electronic equipment. The witness
denied that, certificates Exh.445, Exh.447 and Exh.449
did not certify that the information was produced and
stored in the system, in which the said information was
being regularly produced and stored and also that, it
was not mentioned in the certificate that the system
was operating correctly. Certificate was required to
be given in respect of electronic records when evidence
was to be given in a proceeding. The certificate issued
by him were not as per provisions of Sections 65(B) 4
Evidence Act. The witness admitted that, in C.R. No.
55 in S.C. 294/09, he wrongly stated that, In Town
Cell Towers, Theaters, one-two kilometers of area, he
...903/-
Exh.1124 903 (J-SC 317/10)
came to know about this fact from their Engineers.
862. Further evidence of the witness discloses
that, in two- three months thereafter, he came to know
that it was wrong, but denied that, he came to know as
he was called as a witness in this case. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false at the say of the
S.I.T. and that, he deposed wrong in C.R.No. 55 and
also that two to three months thereafter, he came to
know that it was wrong. The witness denied that, he
did not retrieve the information and that he did not
furnish the information to the S.I.T. The witness
further denied that, all information was prepared and
filled in by the S.I.T. and that he only put signatures
on the said information.
863. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he could not tell as to when the
particular person applied for mobile number and when
the number was allotted to him as per Exh.453, page 26,
in respect of 9833886791. He did not know whether page
26 in Exh.453 was filled in by the subscriber or a
person from their department or by the retailer. The
date mentioned in the application form was 21.08.2007.
The witness further deposed that, the Company gave
number to the distributer and then the distributer gave
number to the retailer and then the retailer gave
...904/-
Exh.1124 904 (J-SC 317/10)
number to the subscriber. He did not know and he could
not say even after perusal of entire document as to
when did the subscriber purchase the said number. He
did not know whether, the form was the subscriber
detail form to be submitted at the time of purchasing
mobile number. He did not know whether the said number
could not have been purchased prior to 21.08.2007.
864. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, after purchasing mobile number by the
subscriber they activated the number within 48 hours of
the purchase. In case of prepaid the activation was
done within 24 hours and in the case of postpaid it
might require more time. In case of prepaid,
particulars were verified but address was not verified
at the spot but it was verified on the basis of
documents only. Personnel verification by visiting the
place was not done in case of prepaid mobile. There
was remark, Seen and Verified on the said document.
It was in rubber stamp. There was no signature of the
person verifying. The witness further deposed that,
'Shree Hanuman Telecom' and 'HUTCH Shop', Panvel were
different shops. Shree Hanuman Telecom was the retailer
and HUTCH Shop was their own shop. Rubber stamp was of
Shree Hanuman Telecome. Some signature appeared there
however, there was no signature at the rubber stamp of
HUTCH Shop and also there was no endorsement seen and
...905/-
Exh.1124 905 (J-SC 317/10)
verified as regards to the HUTCH Shop. He could not
tell as to who was the previous subscriber of this
number. There was no such rule in respect of using
mobile number in fictitious name. It was an offence.
The S.I.T. did not make inquiry with him after the
reports were submitted to the S.I.T. Documents Exhs.
453 were submitted by him to the SIT on 12.10.2011. It
was not furnished in pursuance to letter Exh.414. He
did not peruse document Exh.453 at the time of
furnishing information in pursuance to letter Exh.414.
He saw document Exh. 453 after receipt of letter Exh.
414.
865. The witness further deposed that, date of
activation of mobile no.9833886791 was 10.02.2007 and
date of deactivation was 15.08.2010 as per Exh.417.
Minimum three months time was required to allot the
same number to another subscriber from the date of its
deactivation. He could not explain as to why the date
21.08.2007 appeared in the form Exh.453 though the date
of activation was 10.02.2007. The witness denied that,
those were bogus documents created to suit the case of
prosecution. The information provided under Exhs.441
and 443 was of the period the S.I.T. had asked for. By
perusing these two documents, he could not tell as to
of which period the information was sought by the SIT
and of which period the information was supplied by
...906/-
Exh.1124 906 (J-SC 317/10)
him. By perusing documents Exhs.440 and 442, the
witness could not tell as to of which months
information was sought by the S.I.T. The period was of
the letters under reference in Exh.440 and Exh.442.
He did not remember as to whether while preparing the
report, he went through the letters under reference in
Exh.440 and Exh.442. There was no reference in Exh.441
and Exh.443 in respect of letters under reference in
Exh.440 and Exh.442 and that he had referred to those
letters.
866. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sandeep
Ganpatrao Dal (PW-98), Sr.PI, Exh.713 that, when he was
attached to Armoury at Naigaon, as Sr. PI, in response
to a letter dated 04.02.2010 received by him from the
SIT (Exh.714), he provided copies of original
register(Exh.715), wherein entries in respect of
allotment of arms were taken related to crime no.
246/09. He also received a letter from the SIT (Exh.
494). As per Exh.493(A), the SIT made demand of butt
no.786 and 10 rounds each of the batches of which the
empties were recovered. Details of arms and ammunitions
were given in Exh.494. He also received a letter (Exh.
495) from the SIT. It was in respect of butt no.347,
which stood in the name of accused no.1 Pradeep
Sharma, then PI of Dharavi police station. He received
a letter(Exh.496). He made endorsement on it. In
...907/-
Exh.1124 907 (J-SC 317/10)
pursuance to the said letter, the Magazine Section
handed over seven arms in total to the SIT. A letter
dated 10.12.2009 (Exh.488) sent by him to Dharavi
police station, stating that .38 Rugar revolver
allotted to accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma on 24.12.2001
be deposited in Magazine Section Armory, Naigaon.
Accordingly, he sent a letter (Exh.479) to Sr. PI of
Dharavi police station requesting to send documents
related to used cartridges, including FIR, spot
panchanama etc. So also, he received a letter dated
08.12.2009 (Exh.502) from Sr. PI of Andheri police
station.
867. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, Exh.493, Exh.493(A), Exh.494, Exh.496, Exh.488,
Exh.478, Exh.479 & Exh.502 shown during Examination in
chief to him were not shown to him by the SIT at the
time of recording his statement dated 04.02.2010. He
did not state before the SIT that, some of these
documents were prepared at his instructions by his
assistant. He did not state about any of these
documents before the S.I.T., as he did not feel it
necessary. He did not feel it necessary to state
before the SIT that, depositing of ammunitions was not
allowed as there were less rounds. All above mentioned
documents were documents prior to 04.02.2010 i.e.
before the date of recording his statement by the SIT.
...908/-
Exh.1124 908 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not feel it necessary to state about these
documents before the S.I.T. therefore, he did not state
about the said documents. The record in his office was
not a public record and the public in general had no
access to it. No person without permission can enter
into the premises of Naigaon Armory. If anyone wanted
to enter there he had to take his permission or
permission of the ACP. It depended upon the nature of
the work as to whether oral permission could be
granted. The witness could not tell as to whether he
granted any oral permission or might have been granted
on one or two occasions, but could not tell as to when
did those occasions take place. He did not know whether
ACP gave such oral permission No record was maintained
of the person who entered in the premises by oral
permission. The purpose for which the said person
entered into the Armory was also not recorded anywhere.
There was no record to show as to when such oral
permission was given. The officers of the SIT and
panchas had entered into the premises by oral
permission. At the request of the SIT officers, they
had come for taking custody of weapons under
panchanama. Hence, oral permission was granted by him.
The other private persons did not enter into the
premises. He did not state the said fact before the
S.I.T., as he did not feel it to be an important fact.
The entry of names and number of persons who entered
...909/-
Exh.1124 909 (J-SC 317/10)
into the premises at the oral permission, was not taken
anywhere. Except his bare verbatim, there is no other
proof to show that he gave oral permission to the
S.I.T. to bring panchas for panchanama in their
premises. He did not remember the fact of giving oral
permission, during the course of his examination-in-
chief and that the date on which he gave the oral
permission. He gave oral permission only once.
868. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, they did not keep a 'Visitor's Book'.
Entry of visit of Police, CBI , NIA and SIT etc., was
not taken anywhere. Entry of the person from the S.I.T.
was not taken anywhere. If under R.T.I. or if any
police made demand of the copy of or record they issued
a true copy of the record. The corrections at the
words Rugar and Number in Exh.478 were not in his
handwriting. The witness could not tell as to who made
these corrections and when these corrections were made.
He was not shown original documents of which true
copies were shown to him during examination in chief.
He knew difference between a true copy and a certified
copy. He was empowered to issue a certified copy.
True Copy is called '[k jh uDdy'. The witness got confused
when asked about lk {k k a f dr iz r. The witness denied that, on
04.02.2010 these documents were not in existence
therefore, he did not state about these documents
...910/-
Exh.1124 910 (J-SC 317/10)
before the S.I.T and also that, it was his sheer
imagination that he gave oral permission. He also
denied that, no such oral permission was granted and he
had deposed false under pressure of the S.I.T. The
witness also denied that, he deposed false to please
his superior so that he might be transferred at a
choice post. He was transferred in 2011.
869. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he received only one letter Exh.714.
There were no other papers along with the said letter.
He did not call for the papers under reference in this
letter. The front page of this letter did not bear his
signature. No one directly brought this letter to him
form the S.I.T. Mr.Mahadik was his superior officer in
the capacity of ACP at the relevant time. The regular
method of correspondence was that the Additional C.P.
sent the correspondence to DCP, then the correspondence
was sent to the ACP and the ACP sent the correspondence
to the Senior P.I. In some required contingencies the
correspondence could directly come to the Sr. P.I. from
the office of Additional C.P. or DCP.
870. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the letter was addressed to the
Additional C.P. The letter would first go to the office
of the Additional C.P. Letter Exh.714 was addressed to
...911/-
Exh.1124 911 (J-SC 317/10)
the Additional C.P., who was the In-charge of Armed
Forces. Armory Section was the part of Armed Forced.
The letter did not bear signature of the Additional
C.P., but it was marked by the office of the Addl. C.P.
There was a signature to that effect from the office of
the Addl. C.P. The witness could not tell whose
signature it was. The signature under endorsement,
Urgent marked to Sr. P.I. was of P.S.I. Mr. Koli,
reader to DCP LA-I. The witness denied that, there was
no Inward number of the office of the Additional
Commissioner on Exh.714. Letter Exh.714 pertained only
to the Arm/s. He could not tell whether he personally
verified or not as to whether the Arm/s mentioned in
the letter Exh.714 were received by the Armory Section
or not. The witness denied that, on 04.12.2010, the
said letter was not received by his office and that the
letter was fabricated thereafter at the say of S.I.T.
Letter Exh.715 was sent by his office. Exh.714 was the
letter under reference at Serial No. 1 bearing O.W. no.
2123 dated 04.02.2010 mentioned in Exh.715. He sent
xerox true copies along-with letter Exh.715. There was
no mention of pages of the Xerox True Copies sent
along-with Exh.715, in letter Exh. 715. The witness
could not tell name of the constable who took the
Xerox Copies. He confirmed the contents in the xerox
copies tallying with the original and then the true
copies were made. His office did not have a Xerox
...912/-
Exh.1124 912 (J-SC 317/10)
Machine. The registers were sent out of the Armory
Section for taking xerox. Its entry was not taken
anywhere stating that the registers were sent out of
the Armory Section.
871. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, Exh.493(A) was addressed to the
Additional Commissioner. The letter did not bear
signature of any person from the office of the Sr.
P.I., Armory Section. The S.I.T. addressed this letter
to the Additional Commissioner with a request to make
Arm/s butt no.786 available to them. The letter did
not directly come to his office. The letter was
received by his office through office of the Additional
Commissioner. In pursuance to the said letter Exh.493
(A), pistol butt no.786 was made available to the
S.I.T. The witness could not tell without perusing
the letter as to how many days after receipt of the
letter his office made pistol butt no.786 was made
available to the S.I.T. The witness deposed that, the
S.I.T. recorded his statement related to the true
copies and denied that, he deposed false at the
instance of S.I.T.
872. It has come in evidence of Mr.Suresh Jagannath
Nalawade (PW-99), ACP, Exh.716 that, on 17.12.2009,
when he was attached to Versova police station as Sr.
...913/-
Exh.1124 913 (J-SC 317/10)
P. I., he received a letter dated 17.12.2009 (Exh.717)
in relation to investigation of C.R.Nos.246/2009 and
302/2006 and made requisition of muddemal property
seized in C.R. No.302/06. Accordingly, he handed over
muddemal in a sealed condition to PSI Mr. Chalke vide
his letter dated 19.12.2009 (Exh.718).
873. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, after receipt of the letter Exh.717 from the SIT,
he confirmed from Muddemal Clerk as to whether the said
Muddemal was there in Muddemal Section and instructed
Muddemal Clerk to take out Muddemal from Muddemal
Section. Omission as regards to this portion has been
brought on record. The Muddemal entered into the record
of Muddemal Section was handed over to P.S.I. Mr.Chalke
in a sealed condition. Omissions as regards to, Seal
of FSL has been brought on record. He knew accused no.
2 Mr.Tanaji Desai, who was attached to Versova Police
Station. The witness could not tell as to when Mr.
Tanaji Desai joined Versova Police station. He did not
remember as to whether Mr.Tanaji Desai deposited one
pistol on 11.09.2008 in Versova Police Station. He did
not remember whether he ordered Mr.Tanaji Desai to
deposit the said pistol. If a police officer or a
police personnel deposited the arm/s with the District
Hawaldar of the Police Station concerned, then its
entry was taken. He did not remember whether Tanaji
...914/-
Exh.1124 914 (J-SC 317/10)
Desai had one pistol with him when he joined Versova
Police station. On 11.09.2008, he was Sr.P.I. of
Versova Police station. He did not remember as to
whether on 11.09.2008 Tanaji Desai deposited one pistol
and 38 rounds in Versova Police station by his orders.
He also did not remember as to whether its entry was
taken at Sr. No.42/08 dated 11.09.2008 in the Station
Diary. There was also Weapons Movement Register in
Armory Section of Versova Police Station. Armory
Section of the Police station sent monthly inspection
report of Arm/s and Ammunitions to Naigaon Armory. In
the said inspection report, it was also mentioned if
there was any use of ammunition by a particular weapon
by a particular person. The S.I.T. did not carry out
panchanama in his presence when the Muddemal was handed
over to the S.I.T.
874. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, telephone number of Versova Police
station during his tenure was 26304812. Entry of
assignment of duties to the Police officers / Police
personnel was made in the Order Book by the Sr. P.I.
Seven Bungalow Chowki and Yari Road Chowki were within
the Jurisdiction of Versova Police station. The duties
of In-charge of those Chowkies were not assigned by the
Sr. P.I. The duties of the officers of the Beat were
assigned by the Sr. P.I. There were three Beats. Yari
...915/-
Exh.1124 915 (J-SC 317/10)
Road Beat was one of those three Beats. The Order Book
was maintained on day to day basis. The Station Dairy
is also maintained on day to day basis. The Diary was
daily shown to the Sr. P.I. or ACP and the Sr. or ACP
put his signature/s in the Station Diary. Entries of
the officers/personnel as regards to their going on
leave, joining after leave, leaving the police station
for a particular work and returning to the police
station after the work were taken in the Station Diary.
Letter dated 27.03.2010 did not bear his signature. The
witness denied that, he issued a letter which bore
signature of P.I. Kalpana Gadekar. The word In-
charge Sr. PI was not mentioned in the said letter,
which was issued by Sr. PI. The witness was on leave
for 15 days and only after perusing record he could
state as to whether on 27.03.2010 he was on duty or
not. As per Station Diary, the entry at 11.00 a.m on
11.11.2006 Mr. Harpude (Accused no.17) joined his
duties after his leave. The entry dated 11.11.2006 at
12.05 p.m. entry no. 17 was as regards to Mr. Harpude
leaving the police station for inquiry. The letter
dated 27.03.2010 was marked Exh.719. The entry dated
11.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. was marked Exh.720. The entry
dated 11.11.2006 at 12.05 p.m., entry no.17 was marked
Exh. 721. The witness could not tell whether village
Versova was within the jurisdiction of Yari Road Beat.
He did not know whether Mr. Harpude was In-charge of
...916/-
Exh.1124 916 (J-SC 317/10)
Yari Road Beat. The witness admitted that, a case under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed
in Versova Police station against him on 03.05.2012
during his tenure as Sr.P.I. of Versova Police Station.
875. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Sharad
Krushana Borse (PW-100), Exh.723 that, he was attached
to Versova police station since 28.1.2011 to 22.12.2011
and thereafter since 7.5.2012 till date. The witness
produced letters Exhs.724 and 725. The defence has
admitted genuineness of these documents and declined to
cross examine the witness.
876. It has come in evidence of Mr.Shreepad Anant
Ranjekar (PW-101), Exh.726, that, he received a letter
dated 26.05.2010 (Exh.727) from SIT. Accordingly, he
replied the said letter vide letter dated 28.05.2010
(Exh.728), stating that ammunition i.e .38 bore were
manufactured in Ammunition Factory, Khadaki in the year
2001 and were supplied to Central Pool, SRPF Group-I,
Pune, Maharashtra State. 60,000 ammunitions of .38
bore were supplied. Maharashtra Police was supplied
with .38 rounds 03/02 i.e March 2002. There was an
entry at page 158 (Exh.729A) in register maintained by
him showing ammunitions supplied. So also vide entry on
page no.180 (Exh.730A) showing that, ammunitions were
supplied by them. Material/ ammunition was handed over
...917/-
Exh.1124 917 (J-SC 317/10)
to Mr. BB Sakpal, Asst. Police Inspector vide voucher
(Exh.731A), inspection note (Exh.732A) and letter of
authority (Exh.733A). The witness further deposed that,
page no.152 of the register mentioned the year
2000-2001. Page No.174 stated the year 2001-2002.
877. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, Exhs.729,730,731,732 were in the custody of their
department. Exh.728 was not produced that day from his
custody, which was a reply dated 28.05.2010 to Exhibit
727. The reply did not bear his signature. The witness
denied that, he came to know about the reply when he
received the summons. Letter Exh.728 was totally silent
on date of manufacture, date of ready of the
ammunitions and date of supply of the ammunitions. On
28.05.2010, his department was aware of the fact that
the ammunitions were manufactured in the year 2001 and
were ready in the year 2002 and were supplied in the
year 2002. In Exh.728 at Sr.No.4,- Maharashtra Police
the date is shown as March, 2002. The date showing
that, material was ready. The letter does not mention
as to when the said material was manufactured and when
it was supplied.
878. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, there was an In-charge of records in
Administrative Department. One has to issue a request
...918/-
Exh.1124 918 (J-SC 317/10)
letter to the In-charge of the Records for supply of
documents and then only, the documents are supplied.
These are the confidential records. The witness denied
that, an entry was taken by the In-charge person of the
Records Department while handing over the record to
someone else. The record was handed over only to
authentic persons. The General Manager was the
authentic person. Both these documents i.e. Exhs.729A
and 730A did not mention any financial year, but it was
mentioned in Exhs.729 and 730, which was the original
register. Xerox copies Exhs. 729A and 730A did not bear
his signature and seal of their factory and it did not
state any financial year. The witness denied that,
Accounts Department prepared the invoice of the
quantity which was to be supplied and of which bore and
accordingly, it would calculate the amount. Documents
Exhs.731A and 732A did not bear his signature. Document
Exh.733A also did not bear his signature. The witness
denied that, he saw all these documents referred to
above at the time of taking those documents from the
Records and then that day in the Court. If any document
passes through him, he put his signature/ initials on
the document. All these documents did not bear his
initials/ signatures and also endorsement seen. A
register was maintained at the gate and accordingly, a
gate pass was issued when the material went out of the
factory. The security person at the gate would not
...919/-
Exh.1124 919 (J-SC 317/10)
write his name or number on the voucher. For that
purpose, there were different registers. The Gate
Register would have all the details mentioned in it
against this gate pass number. Exh.731A did not bear
his signature. The witness denied that, he deposed
false at the say of the SIT. Page 152 was totally blank
except mentioning the year 2000-2001 and it did not
bear his signature and seal of his office or signature
of any other officer. Page 174 was also totally blank
except mentioning the year 2001-2002 and did not bear
his signature and seal of his office or signature of
any other officer.
879. It has come in evidence of Mr.Sahil Ramesh
Joshi(PW-102), Exh.736 that, in the year 2006, he was
Special Correspondent in Aaj Tak News Channel. The
main work of the channel was to do shootings and to
telecast the incidents/ happenings etc. In connection
with this case, he received a letter dated 19.06.2010
from SIT(Exh.737), requesting to furnish some footage
regarding Lakkhan Bhaiya Encounter. Accordingly, he
submitted footage to the SIT in the form of C.D. (Exh.
739) vide their letter dated 21.06.2010 (Exh.738).
After playing the C.D., he identified the footage as
the same footage which was handed over to the SIT.
...920/-
Exh.1124 920 (J-SC 317/10)
880. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he was not in a position to state as to who
decided to telecast this particular event. In routine
course the stories were normally sent on air. Entire
coverage was not aired. The story which was sent to
Delhi Head Office, the Bureau chief there would decide
as to whether it was worthy to be telecast or not. If
the story went in the name of the reporter who had
covered, it was not necessary that it went under the
name of Bureau Chief. In the present case, it was a
footage. Therefore, there was no record of the
reporter. Bombay Office also did not maintain a record
as to which reporter sent the footage. They maintained
the record up-to a particular time limit and after the
time limit was over the record was not available. If
any important story was there the record of that
reporter was maintained. In this case there was no
record of the reporter. They did not keep record of the
Cameraman in Bombay Office. Mostly that record was not
kept in Delhi Office. Record of time of air was not
kept in their office. As far as story of this case was
concerned there was no record of air kept in their
office. Some footage were borrowed from other Channels.
There were various News Channels who shared footage
among themselves. The reporter got his professional
limits by way of professional ethics as to what was to
be covered and what was not to be covered. While
...921/-
Exh.1124 921 (J-SC 317/10)
covering a shot of offence, it was focused on the spot
where the blood was there, the place where arms and
ammunitions were lying and if there was a dead body
then on that place. The witness could not tell exact
date on which he got the C.D. from Delhi Office. When
he received the C.D. from Delhi Office, he checked it
on his laptop as to whether it was proper or not. It
was the first occasion to see the C.D, when he checked
it. Thereafter, he had occasion to see the C.D. in
S.I.T office and then before the Court. The C.D. by
itself did not reflect any time. He did not make any
effort to find out as to when the footage was shot and
as to when it was aired to Delhi Office. The S.I.T.
did not ask him about it. He did not have personnel
knowledge as to when the footage was shot and as to
when it was aired.

881. It has come in evidence of Mr.Amit Jayantibhai
Patel (PW-103), Exh.740 that, prior to doing
construction business, he was doing transport business
for five years and carried out construction business
for 7 to 8 years. In the year of 1994, he was doing
business in Security Services by name Super Security
at Income Tax Circle, Ahemadabad and his office was
situated at C.U. Shah College. The said office was of
his friend by name Mahendra Sing @ Ram Singh. He used
to pay rent to him. Mahendra Singh was doing business
...922/-
Exh.1124 922 (J-SC 317/10)
in Cement Agency. Besides this, Mahendra Singh did not
do any other business. Many people used to come in to
the office of Mahendra Singh. There was no one who was
introduced to him from persons coming into the office
of Mahendra Singh. He did not have friendship with any
one from the persons coming to the office of Mahendra
Singh. He was not introduced with Janardhan Tukaram
Bhanage @ Janya Sheth. He did not know any Prem or
Yunus. In the month of March, 1994, police arrested his
friend Mahendra Singh. Avinash Sawant from Mumbai
arrested him. Mahendra Singh was arrested in Narcotics
by Narcotics Unit/ Branch from his office. The witness
was also arrested in Narcotics case along with Mahendra
Singh on the charge of selling mandrax. They were about
6-7 persons along with him in this case. The police
did not make search for any other persons. He was
placed in Arthur Road Central Prison and Nashik Central
Prison for about three and half years in connection
with the said case. He did not go to Belapur at any
point of time and did not know Udhani, Subhash Lefty,
Sanjay Surve and Lakhan Bhaiya. He never went to
Lilavati Hospital in December, 2001 or thereafter. He
did not know any Chetan or Pinki. He was having mobile
phone bearing no. 9898655555 for the last five years.
He did not know who was Santosh Shettiyar. He did not
know whose number 9833886791 was. He did not know
whether he had talks with any one on the said mobile.
...923/-
Exh.1124 923 (J-SC 317/10)
He had not heard name of encounter specialist Pradeep
Sharma and had not seen him. (As the witness resiled
from his earlier statement and declined to fully
support the prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put
questions to the witness as per the provisions of Sec.
154 of the Evidence Act).
882. During questions u/s.154 of the Evidence Act
the witness deposed that, Divyang was his brother.
Divyang informed him that, the SIT officers from Mumbai
were to come to him for inquiry. He did not go to the
SIT on 04.09.2010. It did not happen that, even after
informing him by Divyang he avoided to go to the SIT as
he had fear of Pinki. The witness did not identify
accused no.4 Pinki, who was present before the Court.
The witness further deposed that, it did not happen
that, he came to know that the SIT was searching for
him everywhere then only he went to the SIT. The
witness denied that, on 04.09.2010, the SIT recorded
his statement and that he stated before the SIT that,
he was afraid of Pinki and therefore, he avoided to
remain present before the SIT. The witness admitted
that, he stated before the SIT that, as the SIT started
inquiry about him everywhere therefore, he contacted
the SIT on the mobile number given to his friend and
fixed the date i.e. 04.09.2010 for his appearance
before the SIT. The witness could not assign any
...924/-
Exh.1124 924 (J-SC 317/10)
reason as to why portion marked A was so written in
in his statement in his name dated 04.09.2010. It did
not happen that, at his office in Ahamedabad he came to
know that Mahendra Singh was engaged in some illegal
business.
883. He paid Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/- towards rent to
Mahendra Singh. He did not search for any other place
on rental basis. The same rate was of the rent in
adjoining offices. It did not happen that, he did not
afford the rent for his Agency therefore, he did the
work of agency from the office of Mahendra Singh. The
witness denied that, Janardan Tukaram Bhanage @ Janya
Sheth was one of the persons who visited the office of
Mahendra Singh and that Mahendra Singh introduced him
to Janya Sheth saying that Janya Sheth was a big
businessman in potatoes and onions and that he became
the friend of Janya Sheth. It did not happen that, he
also became friend of a person by name Yunus driver who
used to come with Janya Sheth. The witness denied that
he stated portion marked B in the statement in his
name dated 04.09.2010. The witness denied that, API
Mr.Pradeep Sharma from Narcotics Squad arrested him and
Mahendra Singh. The witness expressed his ignorance as
to why portion marked C was so written in his name in
statement dated 04.09.2010. The witness admitted that,
he was not even remotely concerned with the business of
...925/-
Exh.1124 925 (J-SC 317/10)
Ram Singh and even then police arrested him. The
witness denied that, squad of Pradeep Sharma was in
search of Janya Sheth, who was also engaged in business
of mandrax. The witness expressed his ignorance as
regards to portion marked D in statement dated
04.09.2010 in his name.
884. It has further come in his evidence that, his
case was tried in City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai.
He did not remember as to whether his case number was
NDPS Special Case No. 121/94 along with Special Cases
Nos. 72/94 and 150/94. The witness admitted that, ten
other persons were also arrested. His advocate in the
said case was Mr. Rizwan Merchant. He did not know as
to whether Mr. Iyaz Khan was the advocate of Mahendra
Singh. He did not know whether Advocate Mr. Anil Lala
represented the other accused. He did not know whether
C.R. No. of the said Narcotics Case was 7 of 94 of
Narcotics Cell, Andheri Unit. He did not know whether
the case at initial stage was in the court of the then
Judge Mr. Gupta (C.R. No.27). He did not remember
whether he filed a Bail Petition in the said Court. He
did not remember as to whether the Bail Petition was
having No. 296/94 dated 05.08.1994 and as to whether it
was filed by Adv. Mr. Anil Lala. He had not ever seen
accused no.1, who was present before the Court. The
witness did not identify the accused though accused no.
...926/-
Exh.1124 926 (J-SC 317/10)
1 was present before the Court.
885. It has further come in his evidence that, he
was produced before the Court on the fixed dates and
remained present before the Court during the course of
recording of evidence. He did not know whether Mr.
Sharma deposed as P.W No.11 in his case in the capacity
of I.O. He did not know whether Mr. Sharma filed a
reply to his Bail Application. He did not know whether
Prem Shetty was wanted accused in the said case. The
witness admitted that, the proceedings of the said case
continued for three and half years. He did not know
whether interpreter Datar was serving in the Court of
Judge Mr. Gupta. He did not remember whether on 21
st
,
24
th
, 29
th
April 1997, he was present before the Court.
He did not remember as to whether on those dates
evidence of Mr. Sharma was recorded in the court.
886. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that, when he carried out business in transport
and in construction, Janya Sheth used to come to visit
his Guru in Girnar, Junagad and that at that time, he
used to reside at his house. Therefore, relations
between him and Janya Sheth were cordial. It did not
happen that, the driver of Janya Sheth by name Yunus
also used to come along-with Janya Sheth to him. It did
...927/-
Exh.1124 927 (J-SC 317/10)
not happen that, he also used to visit the house of
Janya Sheth situated at Belapur. He did not know as to
whether Janya Sheth was engaged in the business of
lands in the year 2000. It did not happen that, once he
went to the house of Janya Sheth at Belapur he took him
to the office of Urmish Udhani and introduced him to
Urmish Udhani. It did not happen that, Janya Sheth
informed him that, Urmish Udhani was a builder and that
Janya Sheth did transactions of lands through Urmish
Udhani. It did not happen that, he was introduced to
Subhash Lefty, Sanjay Surve and Lakhan Bhaiya at the
house of Janya Sheth. He did not know whether Janya
Sheth was having his relations with gangsters such as
Chhota Rajan, Guru Satam, etc. He did not know whether
Janya Sheth was having influence in his area or not. He
could not assign any reason as to why portion marked
E was so written in the statement in his name dated
04.09.2010. It did not happen that, in the year 2001,
Janya Sheth met a car accident and due to it, his body
below the neck was paralyzed and that he was admitted
in Lilavati Hospital and on 2-3 occasions he met him in
Lilavati Hospital. It did not happen that, even in that
condition, Janya Sheth used to go to offer prayers to
his Guru and to Somnath and at that time he used to
stay with him and also Yunus used to be with him and
used to take his care. The witness could not assign
any reason as to why portion marked E was so written
...928/-
Exh.1124 928 (J-SC 317/10)
in statement in his name dated 04.09.2010.
887. The witness further deposed that, he did not
watch television and did not read newspaper. It did not
happen that, he watched T.V. and read newspaper that in
the month of November, 2006, there was an encounter of
Lakhan Bhaiya in Mumbai. It did not happen that,
thereafter, once Janya Sheth stayed at him while going
to his Guru and that while chit-chatting with each
other there was subject of Lakhan Bhaiya and that Janya
Sheth abused in the name of Lakhan Bhaiya and said
=+| =|+ |++=| ||, +n+| 4|4 a+| |:|, thereafter, he also said
that prior to encounter of Lakhan Bhaiya and while in
the police custody, police arranged talks of Janya
Sheth and Lakhan Bhaiya and that at that time, Janya
Sheth asked Lakhan Bhaiya - |l +n| =+| r ! = 4= +| =|+ a=| ||
+|, and that he discussed this with Yunus while
drinking liquor. The witness expressed his ignorance as
to why portion marked G was so written in his
statement dated 04.09.2010. He did not know Chetan. It
did not happen that prior to two and half years there
was marriage of the son of Janya Sheth by name Chetan,
therefore, the witness went to the house of Janya Sheth
and that Janya Sheth introduced him to one Pinki who
was the special (khaas) person of encounter specialist
Inspector Mr. Pradeep Sharma, and that Pinki also dealt
in property matters and also that, thereafter the
...929/-
Exh.1124 929 (J-SC 317/10)
witness and Pinki were in contact with each other on
mobiles and also that whenever the witness went to
Janya Sheth they personally met each other and also
that the witness was introduced to Santosh Shettiyar
who was doing business in food-grains in APMC Market
who was having special relations with Janya Sheth. The
witness expressed his ignorance as to why portion
marked H was so written in his statement in his name
dated 04.09.2010.
888. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that, recently he contacted Janya Sheth on
mobile no. 9833886791, but when he came to know about
the arrest of Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Pinki and others in
respect of Lakhan Bhaiya case, he stopped contact with
Janya Sheth. He did not know DCP Mr. Prasanna, but he
knew Mr. Ghorpade. It did not happen that, API Mr.
Ghorpade typed his statement in presence of DCP Mr.
Prasanna, read over and explained to him and that, he
stated that it was correct as per his say. The witness
expressed his ignorance as to why portion marked I
was so written in the statement in his name dated
04.09.2010. He did not have talks with Janya Sheth on
mobile no.9833886791. The witness denied that, since
01.08.2009 to 24.01.2010, he had talks from his mobile
no. 9898655555 with Janya Sheth on mobile no.
9833886791 on 415 occasions. The witness denied that,
...930/-
Exh.1124 930 (J-SC 317/10)
since 13.08.2009 to 05.09.2009 he had talks with Janya
Sheth from his mobile no.9898655555 to mobile no.
9833886791 on 77 occasions. The witness was shown Exh.
417 (page 2). his mobile number appeared at first four
serial. In the second column, at serial nos.1 to 4 the
mobile number was mentioned with which he had talks
from his mobile. He did not talk to Janya Sheth on
14.08.2009 at 10:46:03 for 386 seconds and at 11:21:48
for 178 seconds and at 10:38:44 for 140 seconds. He did
not have talks to mobile no. 9821056311. He did not
know to whom did the said mobile belong. The witness
denied that, since 13.08.2009 to 05.09.2009, he had
talks to this mobile on 38 occasions.
889. The witness was shown Exh.546 (CDR) (page Nos.
2 and 3). There is mention of mobile no. 919821056311
in the column of calling party dated 15.08.2009 for a
period of 15:22:23 on page no.2 and also on page no.3
for a period of 10:50:25. the witness denied that call
dated 15.08.2009 was received on his mobile from mobile
no. 9821056311. The witness denied that, his talks to
this number from his mobile was for a period of 619
seconds. The witness denied that, call dated 22.08.2009
was made by him to mobile no. 9821056311 and the talks
continued for a period of 548 seconds. The witness
denied that, he had deposed false that, he had never
seen Mr.Pradeep Sharma and that, he was having good
...931/-
Exh.1124 931 (J-SC 317/10)
relations with Janya Sheth and Pinki, and that he had
talks with Pinki on the given mobile no.9821056311 on
many occasions. He also denied that, he had talks with
Janya Sheth on given mobile no.9833886791 on may
occasions. The witness further denied that, he,
Mahendra Singh and Janardhan Bhanage were doing
business in Narcotics and that, Janya Sheth was having
cordial relations with gangsters such as Chhota Rajan
and Guru Satam. The witness denied that, he deposed
false that he did not know Pradeep Sharma, Pinki and
Janya Sheth only to save them, as he was afraid of
these three persons.
890. During cross examination by the defence, the
witness deposed that, there was prohibition in Gujarat
State, therefore, question of drinking liquor did not
arise. The prohibition was since the time of Gandhiji
and it was still there. He was falsely implicated in
the Narcotics case and was lodged in jail for three and
half years for no reason. He was quite unhappy with
the policemen who arrested him in Narcotics case and
placed him in jail. Even that day, he was unhappy with
the policemen who arrested him and prosecuted in
Narcotics Case. He did not have any relations with the
officers who arrested and falsely implicated him in the
Narcotics Case. After three and half years, justice was
done to him and he was acquitted in the case.
...932/-
Exh.1124 932 (J-SC 317/10)
891. It has further come in his evidence that, the
SIT officers met him on two occasions. Once Mr.
Ghorpade met him. On another occasion, Mr.Ghorpade and
Mr. Goankar met him. On both occasions, these both
officers did not show any printouts of the telephone
which were shown to him on that day in the Court. He
has seen those printouts that day for the first time in
the Court. He did not remember the date on which Mr.
Ghorpade and Mr. Gaonkar met him. He was staying in
Hotel Avion near Domestic Airport, Santacruz. He stayed
there for one day. He met Mr. Ghorpade and Mr. Gaonkar
in the said hotel. It was their second meeting. It was
after 10 to 15 days of the first meeting with Mr.
Ghorpade. He had preserved the bill of the hotel and
had come and stayed at Hotel Avion because he was
called by the SIT. He preserved the bill as he should
not again be falsely implicated in a case as before.
The bill was produced before the Court vide Exh.741. He
was afraid that, the police might falsely implicate him
in a case. He was told to come when called by the SIT.
The witness further deposed that, he gave Rs.5,00,000/-
to Mr.Gaonkar. He did not give money to him when he met
him for the first time. The SIT never called him after
he paid Rs.5 lacs and he felt totally relieved. Due to
this, he did not make any complaint to any one about
payment of Rs.5 lacs. He did not know Pinki, therefore,
...933/-
Exh.1124 933 (J-SC 317/10)
he had no fear of Pinki. The witness received summons
of this case at 02.30 pm on 21.08.2012 in Mumbai. He
was in Mumbai on 21.08.2012, 22.08.2012 and 23.08.2012
and he had been to the Court on those days. After
23.08.2012, he came to the court on 28.08.2012. On
27.08.2012, he was not present in the Court. He was
informed to come to the court on 21.08.2012. One week
prior to 21.08.2012, Mr. Ghorpade informed him on phone
to come to the court on 21.08.2012. Previously, he was
informed that, he should come whenever he would be
called. The area outside the court is called V.T. area
as per his say. He was served with summons near the
Army Hotel. The witness admitted that, he was shown the
paper and was informed as to he should depose before
the court. He did not depose as per the say of the
police, as it was not true.
892. It has come in evidence of Mr.Anant Tukaram
Patil (PW-104), retired ACP, Exh.743 that, since the
year 2001 to 2003, he was Sr.P.I. in APMC Police
Station. He knew Anil Bheda, a broker, who used to
visit the police station and was the broker in food
grains. He used to come to the police station for
settling the dispute. Some other brokers and merchants
used to come along with Anil Bheda to the police
station. Anil Bheda was arrested in four cheating
cases. On 12.11.2006, he went to D.N.Nagar police
...934/-
Exh.1124 934 (J-SC 317/10)
station to meet Mr.Pradeep Sharma, PI at D.N.Nagar
Police station. He knew Mr.Sharma since the year 1984
as they worked together. The SIT officers Mr.Chalke and
API Mr.Ghorpade recorded his statement on 29.01.2010 in
respect of Crime No.246/2009 of Varsova police station.
He told the said officers that the said statement was
wrongly typed and it was not correct. Thereafter, the
SIT did not contact him. The SIT officers told him
that he was to remain present before the Magistrate,
10
th
Court, Andheri, Mumabi on 02.02.2010. Accordingly,
his statement was recorded before the Magistrate. The
witness deposed that, he made a wrong statement before
the Magistrate as he was under fear. The statement was
marked as Exh.744 (pages 1 to 7). (As the witness
resiled from his earlier statement and declined to
support the prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put
questions to the witness as per the provisions of Sec.
154 of the Evidence Act).
893. The witness deposed during cross examination
by Ld. SPP that, he did not know as to whether a Writ
Petition as regards to the encounter case was filed in
the Hon'ble High Court or not. The witness denied that,
he did not lodge complaint as the SIT did not reduce
his statement in writing as per his say. Mr.Sharma
took part in many encounters. The witness denied that,
he was deposing false to support the accused.
...935/-
Exh.1124 935 (J-SC 317/10)
894. Cross examination by defence discloses that,
P.S.I. Chalke and API Ghorpade did not record whatever
he stated to them. When he told PSI Mr.Chalke and API
Mr.Ghorpade that they recorded his wrong statement and
at that time for the first time PSI Mr.Chalke and API
Mr.Ghorpade threatened him. PSI Mr.Chalke and API
Mr.Ghorpade pressurized him to say Yes to the statement
whatsoever was recoded by them. The statement was
recorded by them was not acceptable to him therefore,
they took him to the DCP Mr.Prasanna. DCP Mr. Prasanna
threatened him that he would be arrested if he did not
state as per the contents in statement before the
police, to the Magistrate. He also said that he would
see how he would get the pension. Due to the threats,
he had no alternative but to state before the
Magistrate as per the version in 161 statement. He had
a fear that police might arrest him in a false case.
He knew that sometimes police arrested in false cases
and also in pending C.R.'s (Open C.R.) against unknown
persons. His statement before the Magistrate was not
voluntary and that it was only due to pressure. On
02.02.2010, first he went to SIT Office. PSI. Mr.
Chalke and the constable came along-with him to the
Court. Before that they gave him the statement u/s.161
Cr.P.C for reading. When he was taken to the
Magistrate, he knew that the SIT personnel were around
...936/-
Exh.1124 936 (J-SC 317/10)
him. Therefore he did not dare to tell the Magistrate
till his statement was over that nothing had happened
as stated. The Notary Application was prepared on
31.05.2010 and was notarized on the same day. He
prepared the said Notarized Application because the
S.I.T. prepared the statement under pressure. The
another reason was that he prepared the Notarized
Application because the S.I.T. got admitted the things
by him before the Magistrate.
895. The witness further deposed that, he suffered
heart attack between 29.01.2010 to 02.02.2010 due to
mental tension and arrangement of marriage of his
daughter. Thereafter in the month of July, an
angioplasty was done on him. When he was taken to DCP
Mr. Prasanna, he was told that if he stated before the
Magistrate as per narration in statement u/s. 161 then
he would not be arrested. After recoding his statement
on 02.02.2010, the S.I.T. did not pay heed to him. The
S.I.T. did not accept his application when he went with
the application to the S.I.T. There were no police
officers who could have helped him in this connection.
He knew Mr. A.N. Roy, Mr. Mendonsa and Mr.D.Shivanandan
only because they were his superiors and that he did
not have any personal relations with them. He was sure
that Mr.A.N.Roy, Mr.Mendonca and Mr.D.Shivananadan
would not be in a position to help him therefore, he
...937/-
Exh.1124 937 (J-SC 317/10)
did not think of going to them for help. Mr.Sharma did
not have any participation in the six encounters that
he carried out. Those Six encounters were genuine
encounters. Mr.Chalke and Mr.Ghorpade told him that it
was a fake encounter. He did not know whether the
encounter was genuine or fake.
896. The witness further deposed that, news in
respect of encounters frequently appeared in the
newspaper therefore, he did not pay heed. His junior
officers would not have been of any help to him as
regards to the application which he got notarized. His
immediate superiors also would not have been of any
help to him as regards to the application which he got
notarized. He came to know in the S.I.T. office and
from the summons that he received that the case was
registered by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court.
The IPS officers did not get involved in the Court
matters. He did not have any occasion to see Mr.
Thakur again and speak regarding the work as the said
work was already over. Though he knew that it was
perjury to state false before the Magistrate, he stated
false as he was under mental tension and that he was
threatened by DCP Mr.Prasanna. He was apologetic for
stating false before the Magistrate. Even while
deposing before the Court, he was remorseful for
stating false before the Magistrate. He would not have
...938/-
Exh.1124 938 (J-SC 317/10)
stated so before the Magistrate if he was not under
mental tension and if he was not threatened. The S.I.T.
might have arrested him for any reason other than the
statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. dated 29.01.2010. It was not
necessary that he might have been arrested in this case
only. There was no mention of the fake encounter in the
summons therefore, he did not feel it necessary to make
inquiry about it. He remembered that he visited
Mr.Jayant Thakur on 12.11.2006 only when Mr.Ghorpade
and Mr. Chalke asked him about it on 29.01.2010.
Whatever he deposed regarding the event of 12.11.2006
before the Court was stated by him before the SIT on
29.01.2010. He did not know full name of Jayant @
Jayendra Thakur.
897. It has come in the evidence of Mr.Sanjay
Shivaji Vhanmane (PW-105), Exh.748 that, since 2001, he
had been serving as a Reporter in Maharashtra Times
and since 2001 till beginning of 2006 he was allotted
Crime Beat and the, he was shifted to Political Beat in
the beginning of 2006. While he was in Crime Beat, he
used to cover the news from crime world. He used to
collect information as regards to the news from crime
world from the PROs or Senior Officers from Police
Department. Mostly, since 2003, information as regards
to the crimes was collected from the PROs in the office
of the Commissioner of Police. He did not know Pradeep
...939/-
Exh.1124 939 (J-SC 317/10)
Sharma. He did not remember whether he covered any news
of any incident related to Anti-extortion Cell. He knew
Pradeep Lonankar. He did not know Dnyanesh Devede,
Sachin Vaze and Ashok Borkar. He knew only on the
basis of reading newspaper as regards to Ramnarayan
Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiya. Since 2003, he was having a
mobile, bearing no. 9821433947. The said mobile was
with him till date. He did not know police officer Mr.
Nikam. He did not know Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu and
Akhil Khan @ Bobby. He did not know Pinki. He did not
have talks with Mr. Nikam, Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu,
Akhil Khan @ Bobby and Pinki. He used to save mobile
numbers of police officers with whom he was in contact.
Mobile no. 9821552987 was not known to him. He did not
have talks to this number. Police did not record his
statement. Police had called him prior to one and half
years to two years. He used to reside at 12/75, BDD
Chawl, NM Joshi Marg, Mumbai-13 prior to residing at
702, Yashashree Tower, NM Joshi Marg, Kuri Road,
Mumbai-13. (As the witness resiled from his earlier
statement and declined to fully support the
prosecution, the Ld. SPP for the State put questions to
the witness as per the provisions of Sec. 154 of the
Evidence Act).
898. During questions u/s. 154 put by the Ld. SPP
for the State, the witness deposed that, prior to one
...940/-
Exh.1124 940 (J-SC 317/10)
and half years to two years police had called him for
inquiry about mobile call details. He was asked about
mobile no. 9821552987. The witness denied that, he was
asked about outgoing calls from his mobile no.
98214339472 to mobile no. 9821552987. As a reporter,
he knew after inquiry police record statement. On
13.03.2010, he was called for inquiry, but police did
not record his statement at any point of time. He did
not tell police to record his statement into writing.
Mr. Ghorpade made inquiry with him, but he did not ask
Mr. Ghorpade as to why he did not record his statement.
The witness, on his own, deposed that, he did not know
the said procedure.
899. It has further come in his evidence that, he
was the crime reporter for about four years. He never
covered any cases from the Court. He covered the cases
from police stations. He did not attend remands. He did
not collect information as regards to the progress of
the case and as to who were the witnesses. He knew that
charge-sheet includes statements of witnesses and
relevant documents. He knew that witnesses were called
by the police and their statements were recorded. He
did not know PI Mr. Gaonkar from the SIT. He never saw
him. He was called for the first time for inquiry by
any police. He did not tell anyone that the SIT had
called him for inquiry. The SIT or any police did not
...941/-
Exh.1124 941 (J-SC 317/10)
call him at any point of time prior to 13.03.2010. He
did not discuss the fact of the SIT calling him, with
his friends, as he did not feel that it was important.
900. He did not remember as to when did he come to
know about the case of Lakhan Bhaiya. He did not come
to know it in the month of November, 2006. He did not
come to know it in August 2009. He had friends in Crime
Beat even after he left the Crime Beat. The witness
admitted that, the reporters from Crime Beat share news
with each other. When he was called for statement, he
came to know about Lakhan Bhaiya's case. Only on the
basis of news in the newspapers, he came to know that
there was encounter of Lakhan Bhaiya. He watched T.V.
and read newspapers. He rarely watched news channels.
He did not read the news on 07.01.2010, stating that
Mr. Pradeep Sharma was arrested in this case. He read
Maharashtra Times and perused headlines from The
Times of India. He did not know as to whether the news
of arrest of Mr. Pradeep Sharma was flashed on T.V.
channels and that there were headlines of the said news
in all newspapers. As he was shifted to political
beat, he did not have contact with reporters from Crime
Beat. In the year 2001, he was attached to Political
Beat. He did not know whether the C.M or the Dy. C.M
passed adverse remarks against Mr. Pradeep Sharma. He
did not know whether the said news appeared in the
...942/-
Exh.1124 942 (J-SC 317/10)
newspapers. The witness denied that he deposed false
that his statement was not recorded by PI Mr. Gaonkar.
The witness denied that, since 2003 to 2008, he was
looking after the Crime Beat of Mumbai and Maharashtra
and that, due to it he came in contact with superior
officers. Police Inspectors and other Officers from
police department in Maharashtra and that due to it, he
used to talk to them on mobiles and that since the year
2004 he knew Mr. Pradeep Sharma, PI, Mumbai and that at
that time he was serving in Anti-extortion Cell, Police
Commissionerate Mumbai and that for the purpose of
covering news, he was in contact with him and with
police officers Dnyanesh Devade, Sachin Vaze, Pradeep
Lonankar, Ashok Borkar from his group. The witness
expressed his ignorance as to why portion marked A
was so written in the statement dated 13.03.2010, which
was in his name. The witness was shown Exh.543 (CDR).
The police had shown him the said printout. There were
two outgoing calls from his mobile no. 98214339472 to
mobile no. 9821552987. The first call was at 21:51
hours. Its duration was 51 seconds. The second call
was at 21:52 hours having its duration of 155 seconds.
He was shown these entries. He did not know whether
9821552987 was the mobile number of Mr. Pradeep Sharma.
The witness denied that, since 10.11.2006 to 30.11.2006
he had talks from his mobile no.9821433947 to mobile
no.9821552987 on 17 occasions. The witness further
...943/-
Exh.1124 943 (J-SC 317/10)
deposed on his own that, that was his office phone
therefore, his associates also used to talk from the
said mobile number. The witness denied that, the said
mobile was in his name. He further deposed that, when
he covered news he kept his mobile with him. He took
mobile with him to his house. Sometime, the said
mobile remained with him and sometime it remained with
his associates in the office. His office hours in the
Political Wing since 2006 were since 12 noon to 7.00
pm. Sometimes, it continued upto 00.00 hours. The Press
Conference of a Minister or a Secretary was held once
or twice a month. The information of political
development was given on phone to them. Those were
given personally to them. One cannot tell that
therefore it was necessary that his phone must be with
him. It did not happen that, after showing him printout
he informed that, mobile no. 9821552987 was of Mr.
Pradeep Sharma. The witness expressed his ignorance as
to why portion marked B was so written in his name in
the statement dated 13.03.2010. The witness further
deposed that, he did not know Nikam, the driver of Mr.
Pradeep Sharma. It did not happen that, mobile no.
9870156169 of Mr. Pradeep Sharma was saved by him in
his mobile. The witness expressed his ignorance as to
why portion marked C was so written in his name in
statement dated 13.03.2010. He did not know Pradeep
Sharma therefore, question of saving the said mobile
...944/-
Exh.1124 944 (J-SC 317/10)
number in his mobile did not arise. The witness
expressed his ignorance as to why portion marked D
was so written in his statement. The witness denied
that, his statement was typewritten in Marathi on
computer and was recorded by Mr.Gaonkar and that it was
read over and explained to him and that he stated that
it was true and correct as per his say. The witness
expressed his ignorance as to why portion marked E
was so written in his statement dated 13.03.2010. The
witness failed to identify accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma,
who was present before the Court, but deposed that he
saw him in newspaper and on T.V channels and on that
basis he knew that he was Pradeep Sharma.
901. During cross examination by the defence, the
witness deposed that, Police Press Room was situated in
the Commissionerate near Crowford market. On
13.03.2010, the SIT officers asked him his name,
address and occupation. Prior to that day, he did not
know as to why did the SIT call him. He had talks with
officers from the SIT and within 10 to 15 minutes he
left the SIT office. Portions marked A to E were
never written in his presence. While covering a
Political Report, in the capacity of a reporter from
Political Cell, two to three persons used to accompany
him. When he was on the location and if any call came
on his office phone which was in his name, the persons
...945/-
Exh.1124 945 (J-SC 317/10)
accompanying him attended the call. It was same with
the outgoing calls. It happened that, when he was in
the office and also when he was on some location, it
being the phone of his office, his other colleagues
also used the said phone. Sometimes, he had to work
upto 02.00 am or 03.00 am and more also. If he had to
go to the Airport to cover some news he had to stay
there up-to 04.00 am. Passing adverse remarks against
Pradeep Sharma by the C.M and Dy.C.M was not a
political news. He personally did not know Mr.Nikam.
He did not have his mobile numbers with him. The
witness did not give mobile no.9821552987 to the SIT.
902. It has come in evidence of Mr.Lalitkumar
Motilal Tak (PW-106), Exh.759 that, police from Dharavi
police station requested him to act as a panch on a
panchanama which was to be prepared in respect of
seizure of bullets relating to Pradeep Sharma, who was
arrested. Another pach was also present there. Sr. PI
Mr. Patil took out six bullets and kept in presence of
SIT officers. The bullets were having numbers at its
base. Accordingly, panchanama (Exh.486) was prepared
and bullets were kept in a plastic bag. The plastic
bag was wrapped in a brown paper and label was affixed
on it. Article-114 the envelop, label and three seals,
thread and Art.115 (colly.) six bullets before the
Court were the same.
...946/-
Exh.1124 946 (J-SC 317/10)
903. During cross examination, the witness deposed
that, at the time of recoding panchanama, he was
studying in third year B.Com. College examinations were
held in the month of March. I was studying in Rajarshee
Shahu College, situated between Sion Railway Station
and Sion Castle. He attended Sion College for two
years. He knew topography of Sion and that his
residence was Dharavi. His father used to run a factory
of the production of armature of the electric motor of
the mixer. They produced and repaired armature in the
factory. The witness, his brother and two ladies worked
in the factory. Policemen did not come for repairs of
armatures in the factory. No work of local repairs was
done in the factory. No work from other Company came
to their Factory. The work done in the factory was sent
from the other shopkeepers and the said work was done
and then was sent to them. He did not have an idea as
to whether bills of the work done in the factory were
prepared or not. He knew that, his father was assessed
to the Income Tax.
904. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, even though there were tests and
examinations in his college he used to go to the
factory for about 30 to 45 minutes. On the day on
which this panchanama was prepared, he came to know as
...947/-
Exh.1124 947 (J-SC 317/10)
to what was panchanama. Total facts since his meeting
with the Hawaldar, writing of the panchanama till he
left the police station were mentioned in the
panchanama. The total facts of calling him by the
Hawaldar and other facts were mentioned in the
panchanama. It was not mentioned in the panchanama that
while he was going from his house to the factory, one
Hawaldar met him and he told the witness that 30 to 45
minutes would be required for panchanama. The distance
between his house and Dharavi Police Station was of
three to four minutes by walk. That time, he was going
to the factory. The witness denied that, when he saw
the six bullets for the first time in the police
station i.e. in the cabin of Mr. Patil, those bullets
were lying on a table. He did not know as to from where
did Mr. Patil take out the bullets. Mr. Patil held the
bullets in his hand.
905. Further cross examination discloses that, the
witness denied that, Mr.Ghorpade reduced the panchanama
into the writing. Initially the bullets were put in a
plastic bag. Thereafter the plastic bag was kept in a
brown paper. Then the label was affixed on the brown
paper and thereafter it was sealed. The thread was
wrapped around the brown paper. The seals were affixed
at three places. The fact of wrapping the brown paper
by a thread was not mentioned in the panchanama. It was
...948/-
Exh.1124 948 (J-SC 317/10)
not mentioned in the panchanama that the brown paper
was having three seals but it was mentioned that it was
sealed. He did not tell the officer about three seals
on brown paper as he did not pay attention to it. He
did not tell the officer that, there was no mention in
the panchanama of wrapping the brown paper by means of
a thread.
906. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the label contained as regards to the
details of bullets and there were signatures on the
label. Besides that, he did not remember as to what
more was written on the label. He did not remember as
to what was written above the details of the bullets.
It was not mentioned in the panchanama that after the
panchanama was written the officer told the Hawaldar to
bring xerox of the panchanama. The handing over of
xerox copy to the Hawaldar and handing over panchanama
to the S.I.T. officer was not mentioned in the
panchanama. It happened when the panchanama was over
and it happened in his presence. The Hawaldar wrote on
the original that he received the copy. He had seen
what the Hawaldar wrote on the original. He put date
under his signature whenever it was necessary. He did
not feel it necessary to put date under his signature
on the panchanama. The date below the signature in
attendance register in a college showed that a
...949/-
Exh.1124 949 (J-SC 317/10)
particular student was present at a particular date in
the college. There was no system of recoding attendance
in the College. There was no system of putting
signature and date below it in his school. Only word
P was marked in the school by the teacher. The
witness denied that, if a person put signature and date
below the signature then it was taken for granted that
the person put the signature on that particular date.
If there was no date below the signature one could not
say as to when was the signature put by that person.
907. The witness further denied that panchanama
dated 22.03.2010 was not recoded in his presence and
that nothing had happened in his presence and also
that, he put signature on the panchanama later on. The
Hawaldar wrote words,+ |==|=lon the panchanama. It was
not written that xerox was received. There was date
below his signature on the label on brown envelop. The
witness denied that, the thread was not wrapped on the
whole envelop. There was nothing more written in the
line where words - |-| r|| |==| =|=|a |+. He did not
have personal knowledge of the fact that The two
officers told him and to the another panch that, a Writ
Petition was filed and that under the said Writ
Petition this case was filed and that Mr. Pradeep
Sharma was arrested in the said case. Some bullets
relating to Mr. Pradeep Sharma were in Dharavi Police
...950/-
Exh.1124 950 (J-SC 317/10)
Station. The witness did not remember as to whether
Mr.Patil made an entry anywhere as regards to holding
the bullets in his hand, showing the said bullets to
him. He did not remember whether there was any blank
space in the panchanama when he read it and when it was
explained to him. He had seen the panchanama but he did
not remember as to whether there was a blank space in
the panchanama. In Exh.486, there was a blank space
after word |r. He did not pay attention to the said
blank space otherwise he would have pointed it out to
the police officer. The first page of the panchanama
did not bear his signature and that of the another
panch at any place on the first page. The witness
denied that, no panchanama was recorded in his presence
and that, as the Dharavi Police Station Officers knew
him, they asked him to put signature on panchanama,
therefore he put signature on panchanama at their say.
The witness further denied that, he had deposed false
at the instance of the S.I.T. Officers.
908. A summary of prosecution evidence of
Investigating Officers from the Special Investigation
Team (SIT) is as follows :-
On 21.08.2009, the SIT visited the spot at
Nana Nani Park, Versova, Mumbai. The complainant was
also present there. The complainant produced Compact
Disc (CD) of news clipping of Sahara Samay News Channel
...951/-
Exh.1124 951 (J-SC 317/10)
and video clipping of the complainant from his Motorola
Mobile phone, and those were taken charge of after
recording supplementary statement of complainant
Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1). On 25.08.2009, the SIT, along
with the complainant (PW-1) visited the spot of offence
at Vashi, Navi Mumbai i.e. Trisha Collection, JN-2/81,
A-2, Lakshdweep Hospital Road, Sector-9, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai. The SIT recorded supplementary statement of
Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1). On 27.08.2009, the SIT recorded
statement of Mr. Dhiraj Ugamraj Mehta (PW-38) and other
witnesses. On 28.08.2009, DCP Mr. KMM Prasanna and API
Mr. Ghorpade visited the spot of offence at Vashi, Navi
Mumbai and recorded supplementary statement of Dhiraj
Mehta (PW-38). On 31.08.2009, PI Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr.
Chalke visited the spot of offence at Nana Nani Park
for investigation.
909. On 01.09.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
statement of Mr.Shyamsunder Vishwanath Gupta (PW-3).
On the same day, PSI Mr. Chalke visited the office of
Magnum Opus Society for investigation. On 03.09.2009,
DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded statements of Mr. Anil
Jethalal Bheda and his wife Smt. Aruna Anil Bheda
(PW-40). On the same day, SIT obtained orders to record
statements of some witnesses as per provisions of
Section 164 of Cr.P.C from Ld. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mumbai. On 04.09.2009, DCP Mr. Prasanna
...952/-
Exh.1124 952 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded statement of witness Mr. Ganesh Rangayya Iyer
(PW-2). On 08.09.2009, API Mr. Ghorpade received photo
copies of Versova police station C.R. No.302/2006 u/s.
307, 353 of IPC r/w. Sections 3, 25, 27 of the Arms
Act. On 09.09.2009, the SIT submitted the first
Progress Report of the case to the Hon'ble High Court
Judicature at Bombay and requested the Hon'ble High
Court to direct the Mobile Companies to provide data
as demanded by the SIT. On 10.09.2009, the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to give directions as requested for
in respect of providing data. On 14.09.2009, the SIT
received copy of Postmortem (PM) Report in pursuance to
the letters sent to the Medical Officer, JJ P.M.
Center, Mumbai. On 23.09.2009, DCP Mr. Prasanna
recorded statement of witness Mr. Jayesh Kanji Kesaria
(PW-50).
910. On 25.09.2009, 26.09.2009 and 27.09.2009, DCP
Mr.Prasanna sent API Mr.Ghorpade and staff to Kolhapur
and PI Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr.Chalke to visit Hotel Mid-
town, which was under D.N. Nagar police station. On
26.09.2009, PI Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr. Chalke reported
to DCP Mr.Prasanna after visiting Hotel Mid-town. On
27.09.2009, API Mr.Ghorpade reported to DCP Mr.Prasanna
after visiting Hotel Majestic at Kolhapur. On
01.10.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of
Mr.Sanjivan Bhimrao Shinge (PW-20). On 02.10.2009, DCP
...953/-
Exh.1124 953 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr. Prasanna sent a letter to Sr. PI, Juhu police
station and the SIT received a copy of station diary
entry dated 26.07.2006 and personal details of Ratnakar
Kamble. On 03.10.2009, the SIT received copies of C.A.
Reports in Versova police station C.R. No.302 of 2006,
in pursuance to letter sent by the SIT to the Director,
FSL, Kalina, Mumbai. On 05.10.2009, DCP Mr. Prasanna
recorded statement of Dattatray Koyte (PW-71).
911. On 08.10.2009, the SIT submitted its second
Progress Report to the Hon'ble High Court. On the same
day, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement of Advocate
Mr.Mahesh Mule (PW-6). On 10.10.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna
instructed PSI Mr.Chalke to visit along with
complainant Mr.Gupta the office of Commissioner of
Police, Navi Mumbai and residence of Anil Bheda at
Diamond Co-operative Housing Society, Vashi, where he
resided on 11.11.2006, to verify the facts mentioned in
the FIR. Accordingly, PSI Mr.Chalke, along with
complainant Mr.Gupta, visited the said spot. PSI Mr.
Chalke recorded statements of witnesses. Then on the
same day, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded further statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1). On 16.10.2009, DCP Mr.
Prasanna recorded statement of the Medical Officer of
Sir JJ P.M. Center Mr.Gajanan Sheshrao Chavan(PW-29)
and that of other witnesses. On 22.10.2009, DCP Mr.
Prasanna sent a letter to the Principal, St. Mary's
...954/-
Exh.1124 954 (J-SC 317/10)
School, Vashi, Navi Mumbai to get record of Master
Parth Bheda, and on 09.11.2009, the SIT received a
letter from the Principal, St. Mary's Multipurpose High
School, along with the record of Master Parth Bheda.
912. On 30.10.2009, in response to a letter and
various reminders sent to the office of Aaj Tak News
Channel, finally, they forwarded a Compact Disc (CD)
containing footage of the news item aired by their
Channel regarding the encounter of Ramnarayan Gupta @
Lakhan Bhaiya, along with a letter. On 31.10.2009, DCP
Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of Advocate Mr. Amit
Jambotkar(PW-8). On 05.11.2009, the SIT submitted its
third Progress Report to the Hon'ble High Court and
requested to provide Judicial Magisterial Enquiry
Report and other documents to the SIT. On 12.11.2009,
PI Mr. Gaonkar prepared a letter addressed to the Addl.
Commissioner of Police, Armed Forces, to get weapons
and ammunitions. On 14.11.2009, the SIT received
Judicial Enquiry Report, along with papers from the
Hon'ble High Court. On 17.11.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded statement of witness Anil Mahadeo Kadam
(PW-26) and also sent three letters to the Addl.
Commissioner of Police, Naigaon Armoury, requesting him
to provide 8 fire arms and 50 live rounds for
examination at and by FSL.
...955/-
Exh.1124 955 (J-SC 317/10)
913. On 04.12.2009, PI Mr.Gaonkar prepared a letter
addressing to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Armed
Forces, Naigaon Armoury to get weapon. On 09.12.2009,
he prepared an authority letter addressed to the Addl.
Commissioner of Police. On 10.12.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna
authorized PI Mr.Gaonkar to take charge of the three
fire-arms and ammunitions from Naigaon Armoury.
Accordingly, PSI Mr.Chalke, API Mr.Ghorpade and PI Mr.
Gaonkar with other SIT members took charge of 8
firearms and 50 rounds of different bore under
panchanama and those arms and 50 rounds of different
bore were deposited at Versova police station for safe
custody. On 17.12.2009, PSI Mr. Chalke and PI Mr.
Gaonkar took charge of the .38 bore revolver of Rugar
Company having body No.161-21934 and butt No.347, under
panchanama.
914. On 19.12.2009, through a letter of the SIT
dated 17.12.2009, delivered on 18.12.2009, Sr.PI of
Versova police station was requested to hand over some
of the Muddemal taken charge in Versova police station
C.R.302 of 2006, in a sealed condition, and also issued
a letter to the C.A., FSL, Kalina, Santacruz(East) to
examine the firearmsammunitions collected from
Armoury, Naigaon and the muddemal collected from
Versova police station and to give expert opinion on
specific questions. DCP Mr.Prasanna also instructed PSI
...956/-
Exh.1124 956 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Chalke to collect the muddemal from Versova police
station and to deposit the same at FSL, Kalina along
with letter of DCP Mr.Prasanna. PSI Mr. Chalke took
charge of the muddemal taken charge in CR No.302 of
2006 in sealed condition. He also took muddemal taken
charge during investigation of CR 246 of 2009 and
deposited the muddemal at FSL, Kalina for examination.
DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of PSI Mr.Chalke to
that effect. On 23.12.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
statement of Mr.Mohandas Narayan Sankhe (PW-39). On
30.12.2009, API Mr.Ghorpade took Mr.Anil Jethalal Bheda
to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 22
nd
Court,
Mumbai, for recording his statement as per provisions
of Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
915. On 04.01.2010, the SIT submitted its fourth
Progress Report to the Hon'ble High Court. On
05.01.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke took Mrs. Aruna Anil Bheda
(PW-40) to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
22
nd
Court, Mumbai to record her statement as per the
provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 07.01.2010, the
SIT arrested accused Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma at Bandra
police station and on 08.01.2010, the SIT arrested
accused Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai, Ratnakar@ Rattu Kamble,
Shailendra @ Pinky Dhupnarayan Pande, Hitesh @ Dhabbu
Shantilal Solanki, Akil @ Bobby Shirin Khan. On
08.01.2010, all the arrested accused persons were
...957/-
Exh.1124 957 (J-SC 317/10)
produced before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Mobile, Andheri, Mumbai. In the second week of January,
2010, the complainant and three witnesses were
subjected to Psychological Test at FSL, Kalina, as per
the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. On
14.01.2010, the accused were produced for judicial
remand before the Court. On the same day, PSI Mr.Chalke
took accused Pradeep Sharma to JJ Hospital and then to
Thane Central Jail.
916. On 16.01.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna obtained order
from Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Court to
conduct Identification Parade of arrested accused
persons, except Mr.Sharma. A letter was given to Mr.
Satish Dinkar Rane (PW-84), Special Metropolitan
Magistrate, Morning Court, Andheri, requesting him to
conduct the identification parade in this case. API Mr.
Ghorpade was instructed to pursue the matter for
conducting test Identification Parade. In all six
applications were filed by the SIT.
917. On 19.01.2010, the SIT arrested accused
Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde. On 20.01.2010, accused
Vinayak Shinde was produced before the Court. On
20.01.2010, test Identification Parades of accused nos.
2 to 6 was conducted at Thane Central Jail. Meanwhile,
photos of all the arrested accused persons were
...958/-
Exh.1124 958 (J-SC 317/10)
published in newspaper, therefore, on 20.01.2010, DCP
Mr. Prasanna issued a letter to PRO, C.P. Office,
Mumbai, requesting him to request the media from
publishing photos of the arrested accused persons in
this case before their test Identification Parade was
over. On the same day, API Mr.Ghorpade, recorded
supplementary statements of witnesses Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda (PW-40).
918. On 21.01.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade took witness
Mr.Jayesh Kanji Kesaria (PW-50) to the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, 63
rd
Court for recording his statement as
per the provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On
22.01.2010, accused Vinayak Shinde was produced before
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court. On
23.01.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded supplementary
statement of complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1) and
on 29.01.2010, recorded statement of witness Mr.Anant
Tukaram Patil (PW-104). On 30.01.2010, test
Identification Parade of accused Vinayak Shinde was
conducted. Mr.Satish Rane,Spl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Morning Court, Andheri, conducted the said test
Identification Parade. API Mr.Ghorpade recorded
supplementary statement of witness Mr.Anil Bheda. On
01.02.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded supplementary
statement of Mr.Dhiraj Mehta (PW-38) and that of
Mr.Madan Tanaji More (PW-43).
...959/-
Exh.1124 959 (J-SC 317/10)
919. On 02.02.2010, the DCP recorded statement of
Milind Subhash More(PW-55) and that of Mr.Sumant
Ramchandra Bhosale(PW-32). He also received Ballistic
Report from FSL, Kalina. On 02.02.2010, PSI Mr. Chalke
took witness Anant Tukaram Patil (PW-104) to the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, 10
th
Court, Andheri, Mumbai for
recording his statement as per the provisions of
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On the same day, API Mr.
Ghorpade submitted authority letter given by DCP Mr.
Prasanna to the Director, FSL, Kalina to hand over the
report and the muddemal to him. He collected the report
and muddemal in 19 sealed packets from FSL, Kalina and
deposited it at Versova Police station. A diary entry
has been made and entries were made in the Safe
Muddemal Register. DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded statement
of API Mr.Ghorpade to that effect. On 04.02.2010, PSI
Mr.Chalke recorded statement of Sr.Inspector of Police,
Naigaon Armoury, Mr. Sandeep Ganpatrao Dal (PW-98). On
the same day, in pursuance to the letter sent to the
Addl. Commissioner of Police, Armed Police Forces, SIT
received certified copies of entries made in the Weapon
History Register at Naigaon Armoury, regarding movement
of arms and ammunitions. On the same day, witnesses
namely Milind More (PW-55), Madan More (PW-43) and
Sumant Bhosale (PW-32) were confronted with Mr. Anil
Bheda in SIT office. Supplementary statements of all
...960/-
Exh.1124 960 (J-SC 317/10)
the three witnesses were recorded by DCP Mr. Prasanna.
920. On 05.02.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna received report
of psychological test conducted on the complainant and
three witnesses. On 06.02.2010, DCP Mr. Prasanna moved
an application to the Hon'ble High Court, seeking
directions to the media not to publish photographs of
the accused persons. On 08.02.2010, the SIT submitted
fifth Progress Report to the Hon'ble High Court. The
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the media not
to publish photographs of the accused persons till test
Identification Parade was over. On 11.02.2010, DCP
Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of Praveen Purushottam
Kasawalekar (PW-56), Armourer, at Dharavi police
station. On 18.02.2010, in response to a letter dated
02.02.2010 from the SIT, DCP Mr.Prasanna received a
letter from six arrested accused refusing their consent
to undergo psychological test, along with a covering
letter from Superintendent of Jail, Thane Central
Prison. On the same day, PSI Mr.Chalke took witness
Mr.Milind More (PW-55) to the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, 10
th
Court, Andheri, Mumbai for recording
his statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. On 19.02.2010, PI
Mr.Gaonkar and staff arrested accused Manoj Mohan Raj @
Mannu.
...961/-
Exh.1124 961 (J-SC 317/10)
921. On 04.03.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke and PI Mr.Gaonkar
arrested accused Pradeep Suryawanshi. On 05.03.2010,
DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of Mr.Maruti
Yashwant Patil (PW-60). On 06.03.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded statement of Mr. Naresh Namdeo Phalke (PW-45).
On 09.03.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded statements of Mr.
Manoj Desai (PW-67) and that of Mr.Pravin Baliram
Bhosale (PW-80). On the same day, API Mr.Ghorpade took
custody of wanted accused Sunil Solanki in this case
from Godhra. 10.03.2010, Mr.Ghorpade arrested accused
Sunil Solanki. On the same day, in response to the
letter sent to Sr.PI, Armoury on 10.03.2010, he
submitted certified photocopies of the memos and
documents submitted by (1) Pradeep Sharma, (2) Dilip
Palande and (3) Tanaji Desai while procuring the arms
and ammunitions from Armoury Division along with letter
dated 04.02.2010. On 11.03.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded statement of Mr.Sujit Ramchandra Mhatre
(PW-16). On 12.03.2010, he recorded statements of Mr.
Vishnu Bapurao Khatal (PW-22), H.C. Buckle No.21442 and
Mr.Shawka Saybu Tadvi (PW-23), H.C. Buckle No.1655,
district staff of D.N.Nagar police station as on
11.11.2006.
922. On the same day, he recorded statement of
Mr.Sundar Rangappa Tendulkar (PW-9), Mr.Mrugesh
Dineshchandra Negandhi (PW-10) and that of Mr.Shabbir
...962/-
Exh.1124 962 (J-SC 317/10)
Mehmood Sayyad(PW-66). He also took charge of Qualis
motor car bearing registration No.MH-04-AW-8824 used in
the case under panchanama recorded in presence of Anil
Bheda. API Mr. Ghorpade made entries in Versova police
station in respect of it. On the same day, PI
Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement of Mr. Hanumant Girappa
Kambli (PW-17) and that of Jyotiram Sadashiv Fasale
(PW-19). On 13.03.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Sanjay Shivaji Vhanmane(PW-105). On
14.03.3010, he recorded statement of Smt.Geetanjali
Shrikrishna Datar (PW-68). On 15.03.2010, in pursuant
to the letter sent to the Asst. Commissioner of Police,
R/South, the SIT received a photocopy of attendance
register of sweepers in R/South Ward of B.M.C for the
month of November, 2006 along with a covering letter.
Accordingly, on 23.03.2010, the SIT received a
photocopy of attendance register of sweepers in R/South
Ward of BMC for the month of November, 2006, along with
a covering letter. On 16.03.2010, API Mr. Ghorpade
recorded statement of the Addl. Commissioner of Police,
West Region, Mumbai Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh (PW-78).
923. On 17.03.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Vishwanath Jagannath Shetty (PW-75). On
the same day, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statements of
ASI Mr.Sadu Krishna Pattade (PW-91) and that of
Mr.Vishvajit Chavan (PW-53). On 19.03.2010, API
...963/-
Exh.1124 963 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Ghorpade, along with Mr.Anil Bheda, visited Vashi.
Witness Anil Bheda showed the place from where he was
kidnapped and the route and the places where he was
kept. Accordingly, a running panchanama was drawn as
shown by Anil Bheda. On the same day, DCP Mr. Prasanna
recorded further statements of witnesses namely, Anil
Bheda, Madan More (PW-43) and that of Milind More
(PW-55). On 20.03.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
statement of Mr.Shankar @ Girish Dal Singh @ Girish
Nepali (PW-57). On the same day, API Mr.Ghorpade took
witness Mr.Sujit Mhatre (PW-16) to the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, 21
st
Court, Bandra, Mumbai for recording his
statement as per the provisions of Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. On the same day, DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded
statement of then Sr. PI Mr. Ajendrasingh Sadansingh
Thakur (PW-87).
924. On 22.03.2010, the DCP recorded statement of
Mr.Gautam Natha Ghadge (PW-86). On the same day, API
Mr.Ghorpade took charge of six rounds of .38 caliber
deposited by Pradeep Sharma at Dharavi police station
under panchanama and also recorded statement of Sr. PI
Mr.Hemant Anant Patil to that effect. Then the SIT
recorded statements of some witnesses. On 23.03.2010,
SMM Mr.Satish Rane(PW-84) conducted test Identification
Parade of Manoj@ Mannu Raj and Sunil Ramesh Solanki. On
the same day, SIT recorded supplementary statement of
...964/-
Exh.1124 964 (J-SC 317/10)
witness Anil Bheda. On 24.03.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar
recorded statement of witness Mr.Sunil Narayan Sawant
(PW-64). On 25.03.2010, DCP Mr. Prasanna sent a letter
to Sr.PI, Versova police station to get certain
registers and certified copies of documents/ personal
details of officers and men from Versova police
station. On 26.03.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade left for
investigation to Kolhapur. On 27.03.2010, Sr.PI,
Versova police station submitted registers and
certified copies of documents, along with a forwarding
letter. On 27.03.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade visited Hotel
Majestic at Kolhapur and drew a detailed panchanama and
also recorded statements of witnesses.
925. On 29.03.2010, PI Mr. Gaonkar sent a letter to
Sub-Divisional Engineer, C.T.O., Mumbai to get the
original booking forms of telegrams. The SIT received
five original booking forms of the telegrams along with
a forwarding letter. On the same day, API Mr. Ghorpade
recorded statement of Mr.Shaligram Kashiram Wankhede
(PW-4). On 30.03.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade took witness
Shakar Dal Singh @ Girish Nepali (PW-57) to the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, 22
nd
Court, Andheri, Mumbai for
recording his statement as per the provisions of Sec.
164 of Cr.P.C. On the same day, PI Mr. Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Parmanand Sitaram Desai(PW-14). On
01.04.2010, PI Mr. Gaonkar obtained non-bailable arrest
...965/-
Exh.1124 965 (J-SC 317/10)
warrants against accused 1) Dilip Sitaram Palande, 2)
Arvind Arjun Sarvankar, 3) Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape and
4) Janardhan Tukaram Bhanage @ Janya Sheth, who were
wanted accused in this case, from Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. On
02.04.2010, API Mr. Ghorpade took charge of remaining
muddemal in C.R.No.302 of 2006 from Sr. PI, Versova
police station. The muddemal was taken charge of and
again kept at stores/ safe of Versova police station,
and a station diary entry was also made.
926. On 03.04.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna submitted
charge-sheet against ten accused persons and on the
same day, the SIT submitted its sixth Progress Report
to the Hon'ble High Court, whereupon the Hon'ble High
Court directed to submit the next Progress Report on
07.07.2010. In pursuance to the application made to the
Hon'ble High Court on 06.04.2010, the SIT received
certified copies of the affidavits made by Pradeep
Suryawanshi in Criminal Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006.
On 13.04.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar, API Mr.Ghorpade and other
staff arrested accused Nitin Sartape in the office of
S.B.-II. On 19.04.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar received an
interim order in Anticipatory Bail Application filed by
accused Janardhan Bhanage. On 21.04.2010, API Mr.
Ghorpade took witness Mr.Mohandas Sankhe (PW-39) to the
Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10
th
Court, Mumbai
...966/-
Exh.1124 966 (J-SC 317/10)
for recording his statement as per the provisions of
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 22.04.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade
recorded statement of Nodal Officer Mr.Changdeo
Haribhau Godse (PW-54). On 20.05.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke
arrested accused Mohammed Moideen Shaikh @ Takka. On
26.05.2010, the SIT visited Khadki factory. On
28.05.2010, the SIT again visited Khadki factory and
received report from there. On 01.06.2010, API
Mr.Ghorpade recorded supplementary statement of 1)
Mr.Changdeo Haribhau Godse (PW-54) and statements of 2)
Mr.Yogesh Srikrishna Rajapurkar (PW-65) and that of
Mr.Rakeshchandra Rambhuz Prajapati (PW-62).
927. On 07.06.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke issued a letter
to the Dean, Cooper Hospital and received copy of MLC
Register. On 10.06.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
statement of PI Mr.Sushil Kamble(PW-59). On 12.06.2010,
PSI Mr.Chalke arrested accused Devidas Gangaram Sakpal
and on the same day, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement
of Mr.Govind Krishna Zazam (PW-27). On 14.06.2010, PI
Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement of Dr.Sunil Hari Shinde
(PW-11). On 22.06.2010, complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
(PW-1), along with his brother Mr.Shyansunder Gupta
(PW-3), was called at the SIT office and the
complainant submitted seven original documents and
C.D., which were still in his possession. DCP
Mr.Prasanna recorded further statement of the
...967/-
Exh.1124 967 (J-SC 317/10)
complainant Mr.Gupta and that of Mr.Shyamsunder (PW-3).
On 24.06.2010, in response to the letter sent by PI Mr.
Gaonkar to FSL, the SIT received original letters
issued by the Medical Officer, JJ P.M. Center to FSL
through Versova police station. On 26.06.2010, PSI Mr.
Chalke recorded statement of then DCP, Zone-IX
Mr.Vinaykumar Choubey (PW-61).
928. On 28.06.2010, Special Metropolitan Magistrate
conducted test Identification Parade of accused Devidas
Sakpal and Mohammed Takka at Central Jail, Arthur Road,
Mumbai. API Mr. Ghorpade recorded statement of witness
Anil Bheda. On the same day, DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded
statement of Mr. Kailash Ekilwale (PW-21), PN Buckle
No.961127. On 01.07.2010, Qualis Motor Car bearing
registration No. MH-04-AW-8824 was taken charge of
during the investigation and was handed over to the
owner Mr.Mrugesh Negandhi (PW-10). On 05.07.2010, the
SIT submitted seventh Progress Report in the Hon'ble
High Court. On perusal of the progress report, the
Hon'ble High Court directed the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai, to take disciplinary action, including
suspension against all the seven absconding police
personnel. On the same day, PI Mr. Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Arun Awate (PW-63). On 09.07.2010, the
SIT submitted supplementary charge-sheet against three
arrested accused persons.
...968/-
Exh.1124 968 (J-SC 317/10)
929. On 12.07.2010, complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
was called at the office of the SIT and he forwarded an
application, along with enclosures, to enquire
regarding recoding of statements of some of the
witnesses in Versova police station CR No.302 of 2006
as per provisions of Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. The application
was taken on record and enquired into. On 14.07.2010,
DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded further statement of
complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta in connection with the
above mentioned fact of production of documents. On
19.07.2010, the SIT received order of the Hon'ble High
Court dated 05.07.2010 in Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006
for necessary actions. On the same day, the SIT
submitted its eighth Progress Report in the Hon'ble
High Court. On 20.07.2010, pursuant to the letter sent
to the Registrar, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Mumbai, copies of five letters submitted by the Sr. PI
of DN Nagar police station and Versova police station
were provided to the SIT.
930. On 21.07.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
supplementary statement of Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur
(PW-87) and that of PI Mr.Avdhoot Chavan (PW-15). On
22.07.2010, the SIT arrested wanted accused Janardan
Tukaram Bhanage @ Janyaseth. On 26.07.2010, the SIT
arrested Dilip Palande and Prakash Kadam. On
...969/-
Exh.1124 969 (J-SC 317/10)
02.08.2010, DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded statement of
Mr.Dattatray Sankhe (PW-31). On 03.08.2010, the SIT
arrested accused Ganesh Harpude, Anand Patade and
Pandurang Kokam. On 13.08.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded statement of Sahil Ramesh Joshi (PW-102). On
16.08.2010, the SIT submitted ninth Progress Report in
the Hon'ble High Court, upon which the Hon'ble High
Court directed the Mobile Companies to provide all data
as demanded by the SIT expeditiously. On the same day,
DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded statements of Anil Laxman
More (PW-51) and that of Pramod Shridhar Sawant(PW-81).
931. On 17.08.2010, test Identification Parade of
accused Kadam was conducted and supplementary statement
of witness Anil Bheda was recorded. On 23.08.2010, in
pursuance to the letter sent by PI Mr. Gaonkar, the SIT
received authenticated copy of High Court order dated
16.08.2010 in Cri. W.P. No.2473 of 2006. On 24.08.2010,
DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statements of Mr.Mahendra
Govind Tatkare (PW-77) and that of Mr.Umesh Yashwant
Revandkar (PW-83). On 27.08.2010, he recorded
supplementary statement of Anil Bheda. On 28.08.2010,
he recorded supplementary statements of Dhiraj Ugamraj
Mehta (PW-38) and that of Vilas Kandalgaonkar (PW-73).
On 02.09.2010, the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri was
requested by the SIT to issue proclamation against
wanted accused Arvind Sarvankar, and on 04.09.2010, the
...970/-
Exh.1124 970 (J-SC 317/10)
Court issued proclamation against him. On 03.09.2010,
the SIT obtained non-bailable warrant against Sandeep
Sardar from the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. On the same day, the SIT
recorded statement of Mr.Mehmood Mohammed Ali Shaikh
(PW-96).
932. On 04.09.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded
statements of witnesses Mr.Ashok Gajanan Sawant (PW-74)
and that of Mr. Amit Jayantibhai Patel (PW-103). On
06.09.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke executed promulgation of the
proclamation order against wanted accused Arvind
Sarvankar. On 08.09.2010, API Mr. Ghorpade took witness
Anil More(PW-58) to the the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate,
58
th
Court, Bandra, Mumbai, for recording his statement
under the provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On
09.09.2010, PI Mr. Gaonkar sent a letter to Police
Notice regarding accused Arvind Sarvankar. Accordingly,
on the same day information was published in the Police
Notice dated 12.10.2010. On 16.09.2010, API Mr.
Ghorpade took witness Mahendra Tatkare (PW-77) to the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 58
th
Court, Bandra, Mumbai
for recording his statement under the provisions of
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 17.09.2010, the SIT submitted
its tenth and last Progress Report before the Hon'ble
High Court and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
dispose off Cri. Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006.
...971/-
Exh.1124 971 (J-SC 317/10)
933. On 18.09.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade took witness
Umesh Revandkar (PW-83) to the Ld.Metropolitan
Magistrate, 58
th
Court, Bandra, Mumbai for recoding his
statement under the provisions of Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. On 20.09.2010, PSI Mr.Chalke took Pramod
Shridhar Sawant (PW-8) to the Ld.Metropolitan
Magistrate, 44
th
Court, Andheri, Mumbai for recording
his statement as per the provisions of Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. On 25.09.2010, the SIT recorded statement
of witness Shashidhar Shetty (PW-95). On the same day,
API Mr. Ghorpade recorded statement of Jyoti Babar
(PW-7). On 27.09.2010, a request was made to the Court
to issue proclamation order against wanted accused
Sandeep Sardar. On the same day, the Court issued
proclamation order the said accused. On 28.09.2010, API
Mr.Ghorpade visited Thane Central Prison to get
specimen handwriting of accused Hitesh Solanki. On
29.09.2010, a proclamation order was promulgated
against wanted accused Sandeep Sardar and recorded
panchanama accordingly and made station diary entry.
934. On 03.10.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna received
certified copy of Cri. Writ Petition No.181 of 2009
filed by accused Sartape and also the certified copy of
writ passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ
Petition. On the same day i.e. on 03.10.2010, PI Mr.
...972/-
Exh.1124 972 (J-SC 317/10)
Gaonkar sent a letter to Police Notice regarding wanted
accused Sandeep Sardar and accordingly, information was
published in Police Notice dated 12.10.2010. On
08.10.2010, the SIT filed supplementary charge-sheet
against six accused persons. On 18.10.2010, DCP
Mr.Prasanna submitted Default Report against PI
Mr.Mohandas Sankhe and his increment of one year was
stopped. On 20.10.2010, the DCP recorded supplementary
statement of Mr.Mohandas Sankhe (PW-39). On the same
day, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement of Mr.Manoj
Bhagwant Kamble (PW-70). On 30.10.2010, Section 174(A)
of the Indian Penal Code was added to the case. On the
same day i.e. on 30.10.2010, PI Mr. Gaonkar and PSI Mr.
Chalke and other staff arrested accused Sandeep Sardar.
935. On 06.11.2010, API Mr.Ghorpade recorded
supplementary statement of then Addl. Commissioner of
Police, West Region, Mr.Bipin Bihari(PW-78). On
17.11.2010, DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded statement of Mr.
Naresh Chandorkar(PW-12). On 18.11.2010, PSI Mr. Chalke
arrested accused Suresh Manjunath Shetty. On
19.11.2010, the SIT arrested accused Arvind Arjun
Sarvankar. On 23.11.2010, the DCP submitted Default
Report against then A.C.P. of D.N. Nagar police station
Mr.Dilip Suryawanshi and that of PI Mr.Avdhut Chavan.
On 30.11.2010, the SIT submitted third supplementary
charge-sheet against three accused persons i.e. accused
...973/-
Exh.1124 973 (J-SC 317/10)
nos. 20 to 22. As per application made by the SIT to
the Hon'ble High Court, the SIT received certified
copies of Criminal Applications, affidavits and orders
of the Hon'ble High Court.
936. On 04.12.2010, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mohammed Usman Illiyas Shaikh (PW-88) and
also recorded supplementary statement of witness
Mehmood Mohammed Ali Shaikh(PW-96). On the same day
i.e. on 04.12.2010, the SIT submitted an application
before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri, Mumbai, informing that the SIT was
conducting further investigation of the case as per the
provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On 13.12.2010,
PI Mr. Gaonkar recorded statement of a witness. On
24.12.2010, complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1)
submitted a certified copy of Special Leave Petition
and accordingly, his supplementary statement was
recorded. On 02.02.2011, Mr.Ramprasad Gupta (the
complainant) contacted the SIT Officers and submitted
certified copies of certain documents and accordingly,
his supplementary statement was recorded. On
01.03.2011, complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta was called
in SIT office and he submitted original copies of
certain documents, and his supplementary statement came
to be recorded in the SIT office. On 09.03.2011, PI Mr.
Gaonkar recorded statement of Mr.Santosh Khimji Naik
...974/-
Exh.1124 974 (J-SC 317/10)
(PW-47).
937. On 11.03.2011, Officers of the SIT informed
DCP Mr. Prasanna that, the prime witness in this case
Mr. Anil Bheda informed them on telephone that since
10.03.2011 he was receiving frequent calls from unknown
person from different P.C.Os. On 12.03.2011, Anil Bheda
informed the SIT Officers that, since 10.03.2011 he was
receiving frequent calls of an unknown person from
different P.C.Os, and sound clippings of the
conversations from the handset of Anil Bheda were
transferred to the lap-top of API Mr.Ghorpade. On the
same day i.e. 12.03.2011, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
supplementary statement of Anil Bheda regarding the
threats that he received. On 14.03.2011, DCP
Mr.Prasanna listened the conversations of Anil Bheda on
the laptop of API Mr. Ghorpade at Bandra Office. On
22.03.2011, API Mr. Ghorpade prepared a Compact Disc
(C.D.) of Anil Bheda's conversations with the unknown
person in 10 sound clippings. On the same day, PI Mr.
Gaonkar recorded supplementary statement of API Mr.
Ghorpade (PW-108).
938. On 23.03.2011, DCP Mr. Prasanna received the
Compact Disc(CD) of conversations from API Mr.Ghorpade.
The DCP directed API Mr.Ghorpade to handover the copy
to Vashi police station. On 24.03.2011, PSI Mr.Chalke
...975/-
Exh.1124 975 (J-SC 317/10)
prepared transcription of the Compact Disk. On
22.04.2011, DCP Mr.Prasanna recommended and forwarded
the application of Aruna Bheda, addressed to the
Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to get police
protection. Also, on the request of Mr. Ramprasad Gupta
and Mr.Ganesh Iyyer, seeking protection, was
recommended and forwarded to the then Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai.
939. On 01.06.2011, The Investigating Officer DCP
Mr.K.M.M.Prasanna was transferred as Superintendent of
Police, Satara District. On 09.06.2011, PSI Mr.Chalke
contacted and recorded statement of Mrs. Aruna Bheda
(PW-40). Mrs. Aruna Bheda submitted documents viz. (i)
A Copy of FIR of Vashi police station- CR No.I-24/2011
under Sec. 363 of the IPC, (ii) Photocopy of the
application to get police protection, (iii) Copy of the
letter received by Mrs. Bheda on 21.04.2011 and (iv)
Photograph.
940. On 16.06.2011, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Bhimrao Krishnaji Sonawane (PW-18) and
on 27.06.2011, he recorded statement of Sr.PI Mr.
Suresh Nalawade(PW-99). On 28.06.2011, PSI Mr.Chalke
recorded statement of witness Smt. Rachna Vanjare
(PW-5). On the same day i.e. on 28.06.2011, API Mr.
Ghorpade recorded statement of Mr. Raisingh Sabbusingh
...976/-
Exh.1124 976 (J-SC 317/10)
Chavan (PW-36). On 29.06.2011, PSI Mr.Chalke recorded
statement of Mr.K.T. Sonone(PW-35). On 01.07.2011, API
Mr.Ghorpade recorded statement of witness Mr.Astatu
Mana Arya (PW-37). On 10.08.2011, in pursuance to the
two letters sent to the Registrar of the Hon'ble High
Court, Bombay, the SIT received certified copies of
orders of the Hon'ble High Court on 13.02.2008,
13.08.2009 and on 19.07.2010 in Cri.Writ Petition No.
2473 of 2006. On 26.08.2011, API Mr.Ghorpade recorded
statement of Mr.Vasudev Chindhoji Channe (PW-41).
941. On 26.08.2011, PI Mr.Gaonkar issued a letter
to the Officer Incharge, Chief Telegraph Master,
B.S.N.L., Dadar, Mumbai along with xerox copies of
receipts of telegrams. In response to the letter, Mr.
W.C. Channe, Officer Incharge, Chief Telegraph Master,
B.S.N.L., Dadar, Mumbai, promptly provided the Report.
On 27.08.2011, Mr.Ghorpade recorded statement of
retired Telegraph Assistant Mr.Arjun Gangaram Satam
(PW-44). On 29.08.2011, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Sr. Supervisor of B.S.N.L. Mr.Bhavka
Bhangave (PW-42). On 02.09.2011, API Mr.Ghorpade
recorded statement of Mr. Ravindra Kulkarni (PW-49) and
that of one more witness. On 03.09.2011, Mr.Ghorpade
sent a letter to the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Main
Control Room, Navi Mumbai, to get information of action
taken on the fax message sent by the complainant (PW-1)
...977/-
Exh.1124 977 (J-SC 317/10)
on 11.11.2006 and also to get the certified copies of
entry made in the Registers regarding receipt of the
fax message. Accordingly, on 14.09.2011, the Asst.
Commissioner of Police, Main Control Room, Navi Mumbai,
submitted his report.
942. On 07.09.2011, API Mr.Ghorpade sent a letter
to the Deputy R.T.O., A.P.M.C. Market, Navi Mumbai to
get information about Qualis Motor Car bearing
registration No.MH-04-AW-8824. The Dy. R.T.O, APMC
Market submitted the information vide letter dated
01.11.2011. On 13.10.2011, API Mr. Ghorpade recorded
statement of Mr. Rajesh Sampatrao Gaikwad (PW-89) and
on 15.10.2011 recorded statement of Mr.Yogesh
Shrikrishna Rajapurkar(PW-65). On 18.10.2011,
Mr.Ghorpade recorded statement of Mr.Shekhar Vinayak
Palande(PW-69). On 02.11.2011, during the course of
investigation, API Mr.Ghorpade obtained original office
order in respect of P.C. 10502 Mr. Sakpal from Sr.PI
from D.N. Nagar police station. On 14.11.2011, API Mr.
Ghorpade recorded statement of Mr.Changdev Haribhau
Godse (PW-54) and on 15.11.2011, he recorded statement
of Nodal Officer Mr.Rakeshchandra Rambhuz Prajapati
(PW-62). On 15.11.2011, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Vilas Laxman Utekar (PW-58). On
03.05.2012, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded statement of witness
Smt. Purba Ketan Bhattacharya (PW-52).
...978/-
Exh.1124 978 (J-SC 317/10)
943. On 02.08.2012, PI Mr.Gaonkar recorded
statement of Mr.Diwakar Rao (PW-85). On 20.08.2012, PSI
Mr. Chalke served summons upon Mehmood Mohammed Ali at
Haidari Chowk, Mira Road, Thane. In this way, the
investigation by the S.I.T in C.R.No.246 of 2009 was
completed. Meantime, DCP Mr.Prasanna was transferred to
Satara. After the investigation was over, charge-sheets
came to be submitted before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri and
subsequently the case came to be committed to the
Court of Sessions on 25.05.2010 against accused nos. 1
to 10, on 19.07.2010 against accused nos. 11,12 and 13,
on 12.10.2010 against accused nos.14 to 19 and on
06.12.2010 against accused nos.20,21 and 22.
944. It has come during cross examination of Mr.
Manoj Laxman Chalke (PW-107), P.S.I., Exh.750 that, he
joined Police Department on 01.05.1997. It was his
third positing in Kasturba Marg Police Station. Prior
to that, he was attached to Meghwadi Police station and
Powai Police station. He was in contact with DCP
Mr.Prasanna, while he served at Kasturba Marg Police
Station, Meghwadi Police Station and Powai Police
Station. While he was in Meghwadi Police station, he
was DCP Zone-X and during the said period, he came in
contact with him. P.I. Mr.Gaonkar was deputed to the
...979/-
Exh.1124 979 (J-SC 317/10)
S.I.T. from Khar Police Station and A.P.I. Mr. Ghorpade
was deputed to the S.I.T. from Saki Naka Police
Station. Prior to joining the S.I.T., he had occasion
to work along-with P.I. Mr. Gaonkar at Meghwadi Police
Station but he did not have occasion to work along-with
A.P.I. Mr.Ghorpade before he joined the S.I.T. He
never carried out investigation along-with P.I.
Mr.Gaonkar. A.P.I. Mr.Ghorpade was reader to DCP
Mr.Prasanna, then DCP Zone-X.
945. The witness further deposed that, only one
room was allotted to the S.I.T. at the first floor at
Powai Police Station. All the four officers including
himself used to sit in the said room. They did not make
entry in the Station Diary of Powai Police station as
regards to their movements. The S.I.T. did not have its
own Station Diary. They did not maintain any personnel
Note Books regarding their movements. A Jeep was
allotted to the S.I.T. officers. A driver from
M.T.Section was provided to them. Their movements were
done through the vehicle which was allotted to the
S.I.T. At one time only one vehicle was allotted to
the S.I.T. Log-Book of the said Government vehicle was
maintained. The witness denied that, it was only the
Log-Book that showed movements of the S.I.T. officers.
The witness on his own deposed that, the officers used
to make entries in the Station Diary of Versova Police
...980/-
Exh.1124 980 (J-SC 317/10)
Station of important events. They did not make entry
in Versova Police Station in respect of their visits to
Versova Police Station. Entries as regards to movements
of the S.I.T. officers were not taken in Versova Police
Station or anywhere else. Except his bare verbatim
there was no other proof to show that a particular
witness or an accused or other persons were brought to
the S.I.T. office at a particular time.
946. The witness further deposed that, on
18.08.2009, he made entry in the Station Diary of
Kasturba Marg Police Station that he was to go to
report to DCP Mr. Prasanna as he was deputed to the
S.I.T. The witness denied that, thereafter he did not
make any entry in the Station Diary of Kasturba Marg
Police Station. He made entries in the Station Diary of
Kasturba Marg Police station on two to three occasions
after he joined the S.I.T. The witness denied that,
those entries were pertaining to investigation of this
case. Except his bare verbatim there was no other
record to show that at a particular time on 18/08/2009
he reported to the S.I.T. The witness denied that, P.I.
Mr.Gaonkar and A.P.I. Mr.Ghorpade had already joined
the S.I.T. prior to 18/08/2009. API Mr.Ghorpade
reported on 18/08/2009 prior to him. P.I. Mr.Gaonkar
reported on 20/08/2009 to the S.I.T.
...981/-
Exh.1124 981 (J-SC 317/10)
947. The witness further deposed that, he did not
have occasion to peruse any documents since 18/08/2009
to 20/08/2009 till the F.I.R. was registered on
20/08/2009. On 18/08/2009 at about 04.00 p.m., he
joined the S.I.T. DCP Mr.Prasanna did not give any
directions since 18/08/2009 to 20/08/2009 to collect
any documents. He did not remember as to whether DCP
Mr.Prasanna gave any directions to A.P.I. Mr. Ghorpade
since 18/08/2009 to 20/08/2009, in his presence, to
collect any documents. When asked as to whether there
was any entry anywhere stating as to when did Mr. Gupta
came to the SIT office on 20/08/2009, the witness
answered that, complainant Mr. Gupta did not come to
the S.I.T. office on 20/08/2009. He had seen
complainant Mr. Gupta on 20/08/2009 in Versova Police
Station. It was his first visit with Mr. Gupta. When
DCP Mr. Prasanna told him go to Versova Police Station
on 20/08/2009, he did not give any letter to him. On
that day A.P.I. Mr. Ghorpade came along-with him to
Versova Police Station. He, along-with A.P.I.
Mr.Ghorpade went to Versova Police Station. DCP
Mr.Prasanna also came to Versova Police Station. They
did not make an entry in the Station Diary of Versova
Police Station to the effect that they came to
Versova Police Station. Statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
was recorded at Versova Police Station. No one told the
S.H.O. of Versova Police Station by name A.P.I.
...982/-
Exh.1124 982 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Bhandalkar to record statement of Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta.
948. The witness further deposed that, the witness
was shown Exh.121 which was in three parts. One part
was the form filled by him, another part was a letter
in his handwriting and the third part was statement of
complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. Second part was in-
continuation of first part i.e. column no.12. None of
those three parts anywhere state that the complaint was
recorded in Versova Police Station. There was no
mention in Exh. 121 as to when did the complainant
lodge the complaint, when did the writing commenced and
when was it completed. The S.I.T. did not issue any
letter in writing to Mr.Bhandalkar for registration of
the crime. The S.I.T. did not give any acknowledgment
to Mr. Bhandalkar for receipt of the documents by the
S.I.T. There were two copies of the F.I.R. i.e. one was
original and another was copy. They received back the
original as well as copy of the F.I.R. from
Mr.Bhandalkar. The copy of the F.I.R. was prepared so
as to send it to the Court. The witness denied that, he
did not have with him any entry as regards to time as
to when copy of the F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate
and as to when it was received by the Magistrate. Exh.
121 did not bear any endorsement of the Magistrate.
Column no.15 of the F.I.R. was filled in by him in
...983/-
Exh.1124 983 (J-SC 317/10)
Versova Police Station. Column no. 13 of the F.I.R.
FORM was for the purpose of mentioning name and
designation of the investigation officer. The witness
denied that, the name mentioned in column no. 13 was
not correct. API Mr. Bhandalkar was not handed over
investigation of this crime. During the course of
investigation of this crime, statement of Mr.Bhandalkar
was not recorded.
949. The witness further deposed that, format of
the F.I.R. was filled in as per the information in the
report. Complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta brought along-
with him some documents such as a letter dated
14/11/2006 addressed to then Commissioner of Police
Mumbai, copies of the Fax Messages, Telegram etc.,
There was no mention of the these documents in the
format of the F.I.R. After registration of the FIR,
its entry was to be taken in the Station Diary, stating
brief facts from the FIR. There was no mention in the
Station Diary as regards to the documents that,
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta had brought with him at the time of
lodging the F.I.R. He obtained extract of the Station
Diary at the very same time from Mr. Bhandalkar. The
requisition was made orally. The said extract of the
Station Diary had not been produced before the Court by
the S.I.T.
...984/-
Exh.1124 984 (J-SC 317/10)
950. The witness further deposed that, besides the
F.I.R. format, Station Diary was another document where
there was mention of the F.I.R. The witness on his own
deposed that, besides these entries there was one more
entry of the F.I.R. in Crime Register. The S.I.T had
not filed extract of the Crime Register along-with
Charge-Sheet before the Court. The witness denied that,
the S.I.T. did not file extract of the Station Diary
entry and that of the Crime Register, before the Court
as the time in the F.I.R., did not match the timings in
the Station Diary entry and that in the Crime Register
and that, he mentioned wrong timing in the F.I.R.
format at the say of DCP Mr.Prasanna. There was mention
of seventeen persons in the F.I.R. The S.I.T made
efforts to call those seventeen persons mentioned in
F.I.R. for investigation. The first arrest was made on
07/01/2010 and that was of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. Till
07/01/2010, the S.I.T. had issued Notices to the
accused for the purpose of investigation. Those were
all seventeen accused mentioned in the F.I.R.
Acknowledgments of the said Notices were taken by the
S.I.T. from them. Without perusing record, he could not
tell as to when those Notices were sent to the said
seventeen persons. Those seventeen persons appeared
before the S.I.T. Inquiry was made with them. The
witness on his own deposed that, accused Janya Sheth
was not in a position to appear before the S.I.T.
...985/-
Exh.1124 985 (J-SC 317/10)
therefore, the S.I.T. made inquiry with him at his
home. Their statements were recorded by the S.I.T. The
accused were not arrested at the time of recording
their statements. The investigating Officer took
decision not to arrest them at that time.
951. The witness further deposed that, after
registration of the F.I.R., the first thing that they
did was they visited the spot of incident. At that
time, they did not receive papers of CR.No.302/06.
After receiving papers of CR.No.302/06, the S.I.T.
visited the said Spot. He did not remember the date.
The S.I.T. did not prepare panchanama at the spot after
receipt of papers. The S.I.T. did not record statement
of anyone when it visited the Spot after receipt of
papers. Except his bare verbatim there was no record to
show that the S.I.T. visited the spot after receipt of
papers from CR.No.302/06. The need to visit the Spot
was for the purpose of 1) Whether the facts stated in
F.I.R. in CR No.306/06 were possible, 2) To find out as
to whether they could get any witness to corroborate or
contradict the F.I.R or any eye witness. The witness
denied that, on 21/08/2009 they did not verify these
facts as they did not have papers from CR. No. 302/06.
Without perusing the panchanama he could not tell
whether panchas on panchanama dated 21/08/2009 were not
from the vicinity. The witness denied that, on
...986/-
Exh.1124 986 (J-SC 317/10)
21/08/2009 the S.I.T. did not visit the Spot at Nana-
Nani Park and that no panchanama was recorded at the
said spot and also that he was deposing false that
panchanama was recorded. The witness further denied
that, a false panchanama dated 21/08/2009 was recorded
by the S.I.T. in the office of the S.I.T .
952. The witness further deposed that, again the
S.I.T. visited the spot on 31/08/2009 after 21/08/2009.
The S.I.T. did not have papers with them on 31/08/2009.
On 31/08/2009 the S.I.T. tried to search for witnesses
but did not get any witnesses. Thereafter during the
course of investigation they got witnesses. One of
those witnesses was Bhaskar Raoji Kelkar. He recorded
statement of Bhaskar Raoji Kelkar on 09/11/2009. On
11/11/2006 he was on duty on Mobile-I of Versova Police
Station. He carried the injured from Nana-Nani Park to
the Hospital on 11/11/2006. The injured meant the
deceased in this case i.e, 'Ram Narayan Vishwanth
Gupta'. He also recorded statement of Pravin Sairoba
Rane on 17/11/2009, who was on duty on Wireless Mobile
- I of Versova Police station on 11/11/2006 and he also
carried the injured from the spot to the hospital. On
being asked to the witness whether they came across
during the recording of statement of these two
witnesses that the palpitation of the injured was going
on while he was being taken from the spot to the
...987/-
Exh.1124 987 (J-SC 317/10)
hospital, the witness answered that, both the witnesses
stated so in their statements before him that
palpitation of the injured was going on. The witness
further deposed that, he came to know through
statements of these two witnesses that when the injured
was taken to the hospital, Mr. Sartape and Mr.
Sarvankar were present at the hospital. As per the
statements of these two witnesses Mr. Sartape and
Mr.Sarvankar helped them to remove the injured to the
hospital through Mobile-I of Versova Police Station.
953. The witness further deposed that, Bhaskar
Raoji Kelkar and Pravin Rane were cited as witnesses in
the Charge-Sheet but S.I.T. did not take witness
summons to them. The witness denied that, summons of
these witnesses were not taken by the S.I.T as their
story was contradictory to the prosecution story. On
27/08/2009 the S.I.T. recorded statement of Rambabu
Rajaram Dhanuk, watchman of Magnum Opus Building. He
had seen his statement. He did not remember as to how
did this witness approach to the S.I.T. and that,
whether DCP Mr. Prasanna told him prior to his visit to
Magnum Opus on 01/09/2009 that statement of watchman
Rambabu Rajaram Dhanuk was recorded by the S.I.T. and
also that name of another watchman was also disclosed.
He could not tell whether statement of Rambabu Rajaram
Dhanuk was recorded in CR.No.302/06 also. Rambabu
...988/-
Exh.1124 988 (J-SC 317/10)
Rajaram Dhanuk was cited as a witness but the S.I.T.
did not take his summons. On 27/09/2009 when the S.I.T.
visited Hotel Midtown statements of the Manager, Staff,
Waiters etc., were not recorded at Hotel Midtown.
Thereafter, during the course of investigation their
statements were recorded. He could not even
approximately tell as to when their statements were
recorded. They produced documents. It was Register of
the Hotel. None of them had been summoned by the S.I.T.
to depose before the Court. They were not called in
T.I. Parade. For the first time statement of Anil Bheda
was recorded on 03/09/2009. He did not remember as to
how many Messages or Notices were issued to him since
20/08/2009 to 03/09/2009. He was the Star witness for
the purpose of investigation. It was necessary to
immediately record his statement. He saw Anil Bheda for
the first time on 03/09/2009. He was present while
some portion of statement of Anil Bheda was being
recorded by the S.I.T. Since 20/08/2009 to 03/09/2009
he did not visit house of Anil Bheda. On 27/09/2009,
when the S.I.T. visited hotel Midtown, Anil Bheda was
not with the S.I.T.
954. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the application for proclamation
against Sandeep Sardar was not filed in the court by
his signature but it was filed by signature of DCP Mr.
...989/-
Exh.1124 989 (J-SC 317/10)
Prasanna. He did not remember whether he went to the
Court for the said proclamation. He could not tell as
to when did he see the copy of proclamation for the
first time. Without perusal of record he could not tell
as to on which date the proclamation was issued.
Without perusal of record he could not tell as to at
what time on 29/09/2010 he went to Versova Police
Station. The witness denied that, he could not tell as
to whether on 29/09/2010 he went to Versova Police
Station or not. The witness on his own deposed that, on
29/09/2010 he went to Versova Police Station. On that
day, he and Mr. Ghorpade met each other. He and Mr.
Ghorpade along-with each other went to Versova Police
Station on 29/09/2010. The witness went to Versova
Police station on 29/09/2010 by the oral orders of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. Entry as regards to the oral orders issued
by DCP Mr.Prasanna was not made anywhere. He did not
remember as to who was Ammaldar of the S.I.T. on
29/09/2010. The Ammaldar called the panchas. He only
asked names & addresses of the panchas. Besides this,
he did not ask anything more to them. The witness
denied that, he could not tell as to what did Mr.
Ghorpade ask the panchas on 29/09/2010. He did not
obtain signatures of the panchas when the panchas came
to Versova Police Station for the first time. Without
perusal of record he could not tell as to from where
the panchas were brought. Even after perusal of Exh.
...990/-
Exh.1124 990 (J-SC 317/10)
239 he could not tell as to from where the panchas
were brought. Panch Jitendra Shivekar(P.W.30) had
mentioned his occupation as a driver. The occupation
was mentioned in panchanama as per the say of Jitendra
Shivekar. The witness denied that, the occupation as a
driver of the panch was falsely mentioned in the
panchanama. There were no shops situated by the side
of Versova Police Station, but there was a school by
the side of Versova Police Station. There was a Tea
Stall by the side of gate of Versova Police Station.
A.P.I. Mr.Ghorpade directed to bring the panchas. They
went to Police Quarters through the S.I.T. vehicle. It
was a Bollero Jeep. He did not remember as to whether
words Police were written on the Jeep or not. They
received the address of Sandeep Sardar from record. He
could not tell as to how many Police Quarters were
there in 'Aram Nagar'. There was no gate to the Police
Quarters. Only address of Mumbai of Sandeep Sardar was
available in the statement of Sandeep Sardar which was
initially recorded by them. Initially Sandeep Sardar
was called by the S.I.T. on two to three occasions in
the S.I.T. office Powai. Whenever he was called he came
to the S.I.T. office. Only one statement of Sandeep
Sardar was recorded though he was called on two to
three occasions. Address of the native place of a
person who joined Police Department was also entered
into the Police record. He did not remember whether the
...991/-
Exh.1124 991 (J-SC 317/10)
S.I.T. made any efforts to find out address of native
place of Mr. Sandeep Sardar. When a Police personnel
joined a Police Station for duty, address of his native
place was entered into the record of Police Station
concerned. He did not visit native place of Sandeep
Sardar. He did not remember whether any member of the
S.I.T. visited native place of Sandeep Sardar. The SIT
entered into the room of Sandeep Sardar at Aram Nagar
and tried to find out as to whether there were any
persons in the said room. He did not ask mother of
Sandeep Sardar address of native place of Sandeep
Sardar. The S.I.T. did not record statement of mother
of Sandeep Sardar. There were other rooms adjacent to
the room of Sandeep Sardar. There were four rooms on
each side of the said room. They did not make inquiry
in the adjacent rooms as regards to Sandeep Sardar. He
did not make inquiry as to from what point of time
Sandeep Sardar was residing there and from what point
of time he was not residing there. He did not remember
as to whether the S.I.T. officers, other than him, made
inquiry in the adjacent rooms about Sandeep Sardar. He
did not remember as to whether the other S.I.T.
officers recorded any statements from the adjacent
rooms in his presence. The SIT did not affix
proclamation to the door of room where Sandeep Sardar
was residing. He could not tell as to who was residing
in Room No. 132. Signatures of the panchas were not
...992/-
Exh.1124 992 (J-SC 317/10)
obtained on panchanama at the said place. They stayed
at the said place for ten to fifteen minutes. Beat No.
I Chowki was situated within the jurisdiction of
Versova Police Station. Nana-Nani Park was at a
distance of 50-70 meters from Beat No.I Chowki. He did
not remember as to how many officers and staff were
present in Beat No.I Chowki. He could not tell as to
whether a P.S.I. or A.S.I. was appointed at the Beat
Chowki. He did not remember as to whether there were
any persons present inside the Beat when they went to
the said Beat Chowki and that, as to whether there were
police personnel or some persons from general public,
in the said Beat Chowki. Seven Bungalow Police Chowki
was situated in Beat No.1. He did not remember as to
how many Beat Chowkis were situated within the
jurisdiction of Versova Police Station. He could not
tell as to whether Beat No.II Chowki was situated by
the side of Aram Nagar Police Quarters. After perusal
of record he could not tell as to whether Yari Road
Beat Chowki No. II was situated near Aram Nagar Police
Quarters or not. He did not know whether Aram Nagar
Police Quarters where Sandeep Sardar resided was within
the jurisdiction of Beat No II Chowki of Versova Police
Station. He did not remember as to whether the S.I.T.
made any inquiry as regards to the Beat within which
jurisdiction Aram Nagar Police Quarters were situated.
He visited Versova Police Station on many occasions in
...993/-
Exh.1124 993 (J-SC 317/10)
relation to this case. He did not make inquiry in
Versova Police Station to know as to under which Beat
Chowki Aram Nagar Police Quarters were situated.
Calling public by clapping hands was an important fact.
Such important facts had to be mentioned in panchanama.
It was not mentioned in the panchanama that the public
was called by clapping hands. The S.I.T. did not
record statement of anyone from the public who gathered
there after clapping hands.
955. The witness further deposed that, Nana-Nani
Park had only one gate. The gate did not remain closed.
He did not remember as to whether the said gate was of
grill. They were at the gate i.e. by the side of the
road. It was not mentioned in the panchanama that, the
public was called by clapping hands. Except his bare
verbatim there was no other proof to show that the
public was called by clapping hands. There was no wall
around Nana-Nani Park. He did not remember as to
whether there was a wall or not near the gate and
that, as to how many stairs (Steps) were there. Even
approximately he could not tell the number of stairs
(Steps). The S.I.T. did not record statement of any
person from the public which gathered there after
clapping of hands. The proclamation was in English
language. He did not read over the proclamation to the
public either in English or in Hindi or in Marathi
...994/-
Exh.1124 994 (J-SC 317/10)
language. At the instructions of Mr.Ghorpade, one
Ammaldar from the S.I.T. read over the proclamation. He
did not remember as to whether Mr. Ghorpade read over
and explained the proclamation to anyone. He could not
tell as to how many persons gathered at Nana-Nani Park
and from where did they come. The date on which the
accused was to remain present before the Magistrate
was not mentioned in Proclamation Exh.240.
956. The witness further deposed that, in Exh. 756
it was mentioned that Mr. Patel made a statement. He
did not tell Mr. Patel to record his statement. The
witness denied that, it was not mentioned in Exh. 756
that from Versova Police station he went home and from
there he went to Beat-I Chowki and from there he
went to Nana-Nani Park. Names of panchas who were with
him were not mentioned in Exh.756. There was no mention
in Exh.756 of recording panchanama and taking the
panchas with the witness. The witness denied that,
entry Exh.756 was a false entry made by him and that,
he deposed false that he, along-with panchas went to
Versova Police Station and from there to Aram Nagar
Police Quarters at Room no. 131 and that he pasted copy
of proclamation on the wall between Room No.131 and
Room No.132 and that Jijabai, mother of accused no.20
Sandeep Sardar, was present in the house and also that
he pasted the proclamation at the staircase of Building
...995/-
Exh.1124 995 (J-SC 317/10)
no.4. The witness denied that, they did not go to Beat-
I Chowki, Nana-Nani Park and that no public was called
by clapping hands and no proclamation was made over to
them. The witness further denied that, the S.I.T.
called Sandeep Sardar in the S.I.T. office in the month
of January 2010. He did not remember the dates on
which Sandeep Sardar was called in the S.I.T. office.
The witness denied that, on 29/09/2010 Sandeep Sardar
went to his native place as his maternal grand-father
was ill. The witness denied that, prior and after
29/09/2010 Sandeep Sardar was available in Mumbai but
the S.I.T. deliberately did not arrest him just to show
him absconding and that, Sandeep Sardar was not
absconding but the S.I.T. created a false proof against
him.
957. The witness further deposed that, the S.I.T.
recorded his statement only once. The S.I.T. never
recorded his statement as regards to recording
panchanama and executing the proclamation. The witness
denied that, he deposed false against Sandeep Sardar.
Sandeep Sardar was apprehended from his house. He did
not remember as to on which date Sandeep Sardar was
arrested. The witness recorded statement of P.W.98
Sr.P.I.Mr.Dal. The said statement was in respect of
supply of true copies from the Armory. At the time of
recording his statement, except asking him to produce
...996/-
Exh.1124 996 (J-SC 317/10)
true copies, he did not ask him anything more. Sr.
P.I. Mr. Dal, on his own, did not tell anything more to
him. The witness denied that, on 19/03/2010 the SIT
did not go to Trisha Collection, Bhandup Complex,
Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar and that the S.I.T. prepared false
panchanama Exh. 753 and that, the S.I.T. prepared a
false panchanama Exh.239. He could not tell as to when
Mohammad Takka was arrested. He arrested Sandeep
Sardar. The witness denied that, no arrest panchanama
in presence of panchas was recorded at the time of his
arrest. Arrest panchanama was not annexed to the
Charge-Sheet. He and the S.I.T. arrested Tanaji Desai.
The witness denied that, on 07/01/2010 Tanaji Desai was
called by the S.I.T. and that he came to the S.I.T. on
07/01/2010. He did not bring Tanaji Desai either from
his house or from any other place. He did not remember
as to from which place Tanaji Desai was picked up by
the S.I.T. Tanaji Desai was arrested on 08/01/2010. At
the time of arrest of Tanaji Desai, arrest panchanama
was recorded. The said arrest panchanama was not
annexed to the Charge-Sheet. He was arrested at Versova
Police Station. He did not remember the time of his
arrest. He was produced before the Court on 08/01/2010.
On that date total six accused were produced before the
court by the S.I.T. He did not remember the time at
which the said accused were produced before the Court.
The accused were produced before the court in the same
...997/-
Exh.1124 997 (J-SC 317/10)
condition in which they were arrested. The witness on
his own deposed that, the accused were produced in veil
before the Court. The witness denied that, the accused
were not in veil while they were produced before the
Court. DCP Mr.Prasanna, he and the S.I.T. team attended
the remand. After perusal of record he could tell as to
when Mr.Manoj Mohan Raj@ Mannu accused no. 8 was
arrested. His arrest panchanama was not annexed to the
Charge-Sheet. The witness denied that, accused nos.
2,8,12,20 & 21 had been falsely arrested in this case.
958. The witness further deposed that, in this case
main investigating officer was DCP Mr.Prasanna. Entire
investigation in this case had been carried out by him,
by Mr. Ghorpade and by Mr.Gaonkar and the S.I.T. at the
instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The proof, the
decision about it were discussed with DCP Mr. Prasanna
and they took decision in consultation with him. The
decisive authority was DCP Mr.Prasanna, which included
recording of statements, recording of panchanama,
visiting places and arrests. The S.I.T. arrested total
22 accused persons. The witness denied that, no arrest
panchanamas of the arrests of these accused were
recorded. No arrest panchanamas were annexed to the
Charge-Sheet. The witness denied that, except his bare
verbatim there was nothing to show that arrest
panchanamas were recorded. The S.I.T. recorded 22
...998/-
Exh.1124 998 (J-SC 317/10)
arrest panchanamas. Arrest panchanama was an important
document showing time etc., of the arrest of a
particular accused. He could not assign any reason as
to why the arrest panchanamas had not been annexed to
the Charge Sheet and as to why the copies of the same
were not supplied to the accused persons. He saw
accused nos. 4 and 5 for the first time on 07/01/2010.
He knew as to who brought them to the S.I.T. office at
Powai. There was no diary maintained in the S.I.T.
office. Except his bare verbatim, he did not have
material to show as to who brought accused nos.4 and 5
to the S.I.T. Office, Powai. The witness denied that,
after 07/01/2010 he did not have an opportunity to
interact with accused nos.4 and 5.
959. The witness further deposed that, during the
course of police custody, if an accused was to be
interrogated by the I.O., the accused had to be taken
out from the lock-up and after interrogation was over
again he had to be put in the lock-up. The
investigating officer had to prepare a crime report.
The crime report had to be maintained on day to day
basis. The facts transpired during the day, had to be
mentioned in the crime report. It was to be mentioned
in a crime report as to who were called in the S.I.T.
office for the purpose of inquiry, how many accused
persons were taken out of lock-up for the purpose of
...999/-
Exh.1124 999 (J-SC 317/10)
interrogation, how many statements of the witnesses
were recorded, how many places were visited and how
many panchanamas were prepared. All these facts had to
be mentioned to show the progress of the investigation
on day to day basis. Out of 17 witnesses mentioned in
Exh.706, he served Summons to Mr.Mehmood Mahommadali
Shaikh.(P.W.96). Without perusal of record he could not
tell even approximately as to on how many witnesses out
of 106 witnesses, he served the Witness Summons. The
Summons were issued as per the orders of the Court. He
did not remember the date of issuance of Summons. There
was no mention on Exh. 706 showing that he served the
Summons on a particular witness. There was nothing in
Exh. 706 to show as to when the said Summons was served
to witness at Sr.No.7. There was no date below the
signature of the witness on Exh. 706. The witness on
his own deposed that, he told the witness to put the
date below signature, but he did not put the date.
There were Hawaldars in the S.I.T. on the date of
service of summons on witness of Sr. No.7. Most of the
time the work of delivery of letters and service of
summons was done by the Hawaladars. The witness denied
that, he did not serve Summons Exh. 706 on the witness
at Sr. No. 7 and that Exh. 706 did not bear signature
of the said witness. The witness further denied that,
the witness at Sr.No.7 never received Summons Exh. 706
and that, accused nos. 4 & 5 had been falsely
...1000/-
Exh.1124 1000 (J-SC 317/10)
implicated in this case without having any material on
record and without any base against them. He could not
tell as to when accused nos. 4 & 5 were picked up and
brought to the S.I.T. office and as to for how much
time they were in the S.I.T. office. The witness
denied that, accused no.9 had been falsely implicated
in this case.
960. The witness further deposed that, DCP
Mr.Prasanna recorded his statement on 19/12/2009. Prior
and after 19/12/02009 the S.I.T. did not record his
statement as regards to the investigation that he
carried out. Janardan Bhanage was arrested from the
place situated out of the premises of The City Civil
and Sessions Court, after his Anticipatory Bail was
rejected by the Sessions Court. He was on a stretcher.
He did not remember as to on how many occasions prior
to 22
nd
July did Jandardan Bhanage attend the Court for
hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application and that, as
to on how many dates he attended the Court before 22
nd
July and after filing A.B.A. On 22
nd
July he was
brought to the Court as per the directions of the
Court. During that period he was not in a position to
move out of the stretcher. He did not remember name of
relative of the said accused to whom information of his
arrest was conveyed and that, as to whether it was a
written or oral information. He could not tell as to
...1001/-
Exh.1124 1001 (J-SC 317/10)
who gave the said information.
961. The witness further deposed that, arrest
panchanama of Janardan Bhanage was recorded in Versova
Police Station. He did not remember as to which officer
prepared the said panchanama. The witness denied that,
no arrest panchanama was prepared in respect of accused
no. 14. At the time of pickup of accused no.14, he,
P.I. Mr. Gaonkar and API Mr.Ghorpade were present. He
did not remember as to how many constables were present
at the said time and that, the time at which he was
picked up. He had occasion to visit house of Bhanage
prior to 22
nd
July. He visited his house on one or two
occasions but he did not remember the dates. He and the
S.I.T. staff visited his house. He did not record
statements of anyone as regards to the said visits.
962. The witness further deposed that, When Anil
Bheda reported about the threats he along-with Mr.
Ghorpade were present in the S.I.T. office. The witness
was present for sometime when Mr. Ghorpade copied the
conversation in his Lap-Top. During the said process
no panchanama was recorded. No panchanama was recorded
as regards to call details in the mobile of Mr.Anil
Bheda. The said mobile was immediately returned to Anil
Bheda without seizing it. API Mr.Ghorpade prepared C.D.
from the Lap-Top. He did not remember the date on
...1002/-
Exh.1124 1002 (J-SC 317/10)
which the C.D. was prepared. Its panchanama was also
not recorded. No panchanama was recorded while he
prepared transcription form the C.D. after hearing it
again and again. He could not assign any reason as to
why panchanamas were not prepared of the said process.
The witness denied that, panchanamas were not prepared
as DCP Mr. Prasanna did not tell the S.I.T. to prepare
the panchanamas. He could not tell without perusing
record as to which advocate appeared for a particular
accused at the time of remand. The witness denied that,
he deposed false. Except his bare verbatim there was
no other proof to show that there was transcription
from Mobile to Lap-Top, Lap-Top to C.D. and C.D. to the
transcription in type writing.
963. The witness further deposed that, he could not
tell as to whether between 20/08/2009 to 03/09/2009 he
was ever asked to secure presence of Anil Bheda for the
purpose of investigation. He could not tell because he
could not remember it and he could not tell it without
perusal of investigation papers. The witness on his own
deposed that, those papers were not the part of Charge-
Sheet and were not before the Court. He did not feel
that, those papers were important papers and might be
required at the time of deposing before the court. He
recorded statement of Smt.Shashi Pramod Tiwari dated
27/08/2009, which he had typewritten as per the
...1003/-
Exh.1124 1003 (J-SC 317/10)
instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna. She was the owner of
Unique Security Services at Magnum Opus Building.
Statement of Rambabu Rajaram Dhanuk @ Lodh was recorded
on 27/08/2009. During the course of investigation
Rambabu Rajaram Dhanuk @ Lodh was not confronted to
complainant Ramprasad Gupta. Witness Summons were not
obtained for these witnesses though they were cited as
witnesses in the Charge-Sheet. The witness on his own
deposed that, witness summons were issued to the
witness at the instructions of ld. SPP for the state.
The witness denied that, both these witnesses were
against the prosecution therefore, witness summons to
these witnesses were not issued.
964. The witness further deposed that, he recorded
statement of Gangadhar Tukaram Sawant, the Finger Print
Expert, on 27/10/2009, which was typewritten at the
instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The Finger Print
Expert handed over a true copy of the report of his
visit dated 12/11/2006 to the spot, to the S.I.T. vide
Exh.284. Its xerox copy was given to the S.I.T. It was
made a part of Charge-Sheet. The witness also recorded
statement of Sandeep Vishwasrao, then P.S.I. of D.N.
Nagar Police Station. Sandeep Vishwasrao and Gangadhar
Sawant were called in the S.I.T. office and inquiry was
made with them. The inquiry made with Gangadhar Sawant
was in respect of his visit to the spot. It was in
...1004/-
Exh.1124 1004 (J-SC 317/10)
respect of the time of information that he received and
as regards to the time of his visit to the spot. At the
time of inquiry Mr. Gangadhar Sawant handed over a copy
of Exh.284 to the S.I.T. Sandeep Vishwasrao was called
in respect of inquiry as to whether Anil Bheda was
detained in D.N. Nagar Police Station between
intervening nights of 11/11/2006 and 12/11/2006. The
witness did not remember whether Sandeep Vishwasrao was
the reliever (S.H.O.) P.S.I. at D.N. Nagar Police
station at the relevant time. Without perusal of
record, he could not tell as to whether Sandeep
Vishwasrao was the reliever PSI as SHO at D.N. Nagar
Police station at the relevant time. He was second
relief officer for S.H.O. during night time at the
relevant time. Sandeep Vishwasrao stated before him in
his statement that, during the night on 11/11/2006
Anil Bheda was not in his custody. He personally did
not make inquiry with any staff, any police personnel,
any police officer from D.N. Nagar Police Station as to
whether Anil Bheda was brought to D.N. Nagar Police
Station during intervening night of 11/11/2006 and
12/11/2006. He did not make inquiry in respect of
green Colour Qualis, blue Colour Zen, white Colour
Innova. He did not remember whether the SIT had shown
any of the recovered vehicles to any of the staff,
police personnel or police officer from D.N. Nagar
Police Station. He personally also did not show any of
...1005/-
Exh.1124 1005 (J-SC 317/10)
the recovered vehicles to any of the staff, police
personnel or police officers from D.N. Nagar Police
Station. There was no reference in the Charge-Sheet as
regards to showing the said recovered vehicles to the
staff, police personnel or police officers from D.N.
Nagar Police Station.
965. The witness further deposed that, information
as regards to the person on duty at D.N. Nagar Police
Station during intervening night of 11/11/2006 to
12/11/2006 was collected by the S.I.T. The S.I.T. did
not show Anil Bheda or his photo to the staff on duty
in D.N. Nagar Police Station during the intervening
night of 11/11/2006 to 12/11/2006. He recorded
statement of Tanaji Maruti Daddikar on 17/08/2010,
which he typed at the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna.
He had also typewritten statement dated 10/11/2009 of
Vijay Dattatray Jadhav at the instructions of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. Vijay Jadhav was called by the S.I.T as
he was the officer from Versova Police station who
prepared inquest panchanama. Statements of panchas of
inquest panchanama were also recorded. The S.I.T. took
in its custody the said inquest panchanama, during the
course of investigation of this case. He had type-
written statement of Police Constable Buckle No. 960428
from Versova Police station at the instructions of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. He recorded panchanama dated 23/06/2010
...1006/-
Exh.1124 1006 (J-SC 317/10)
in his handwriting under which there was photography as
well as video-shooting of the articles seized under
inquest panchanama in CR No. 302/06 of Versova Police
station. The contents in panchanama were true and
correct. The true copy of panchanama was marked Exh.
764 (colly). The S.I.T. did not produce two Railway
Tickets bearing Nos. 94303 & 36825 mentioned in
panchanama dated 23/06/2010, along-with Charge-Sheet
before the Court, which were seized by the S.I.T.
Railway Tickets nos. 94303 and 36825, during his cross
examination, which he identified to be the same for
Sanpada to Mulund and Bombay Central to Jogeshwari
dated 11 November 14 and 11
th
November 16. They were
marked as Article No.116 (Colly). He knew that while
purchasing a ticket, 'date and time' of its purchase
was printed on ticket. No inquiry as regards to the
'Date and Time' printed on the said tickets was made by
the S.I.T. He did not remember as to whether he came
to know name of Tanaji Maruti Daddikar after receipt of
papers of CR.No. 302/06. He was a constable of Peter
Mobile of Versova Police station. Inquiry made with
Tanaji Daddikar was in respect of his visit to the spot
on 11/11/2006. The said inquiry was also in respect of
the acts that he did at the said spot on 11/11/2006.
966. The witness further deposed that, he recorded
statement of Yashoda Divakar Shetty on 09/11/2009,
...1007/-
Exh.1124 1007 (J-SC 317/10)
which he had type-written at the instructions of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. He had done certificate course in Marathi
Type Writing but did not remember its year, which he
passed from Laxmi Institute Bhavani Nagar, Marol. He
passed 30 w.p.m. Marathi typing. He did not remember
as to when name of Yashoda Divakar Shetty was
disclosed. Tanaji Daddikar and Yashoda Shetty were the
witness cited in the Charge-Sheet. As per police Manual
Standing Directions, movements of the seal had to be
entered into the Station Diary. Whenever the seal of
Versova Police Station was taken by the S.I.T., it was
taken after issuing a letter to Versova Police Station.
Each police station had one seal. The letter issued for
taking seal from Versova Police station and the entries
made in the Station Diary were not produced along-with
the Charge-Sheet. He had seen the Station Diary dated
10/12/2009 of Versova Police Station. The S.I.T.
obtained extract of the said Station Diary entry, which
he had seen. There was no mention in the extract in
respect of letter issued by the S.I.T. He did not tell
the officer who made the entry to make mention of the
letter issued by the S.I.T. in the said Station Diary
entry. The witness denied that, the S.I.T. did not
issue any letter to Versova Police Station for getting
the seal and that no Station Diary entry was made about
it in Versova Police Station and that, he deposed false
in respect of issuance of letter dated 10/12/2009 and
...1008/-
Exh.1124 1008 (J-SC 317/10)
also about Station Diary entry dated 10/12/2009. The
witness further denied that, no such letters were
issued by the SIT to Versova Police station and that no
such Station Diary entries were made therefore,
extracts of the Station Diary entries and the said
letters were not produced before the Court.
967. The witness further deposed that, he and
Mr.Gaonkar along-with each other went to Armory. API
Mr.Ghorpade and SIT staff were also with them. They
went to Armory at the instructions of DCP Mr. Prasanna.
The witness denied that, at that time DCP Mr. Prasanna
did not instruct them to take panchas with them and
that, therefore, they called panchas at the S.I.T.
office and took them to Armory with them. Panchas did
not accompany them. He saw panchas for the first time
when Mr.Gaonkar introduced panchas to him in the
Armory. At the time of introduction of panchas he came
to know that they were not from the vicinity of
Armoury. One panch was from Powai and another panch was
from Sakinaka. The witness denied that, panchas were
not called at the Armoury and that their signatures
were obtained on the false panchanama recorded at the
S.I.T. office and that, no such panchanama was recorded
at Armoury. On the next occasion also the S.I.T. did
not take panchas along-with them when they went to the
Armoury. The witness denied that, at that time he saw
...1009/-
Exh.1124 1009 (J-SC 317/10)
panchas for the first time when Mr.Gaonkar introduced
them to him. P.I. Mr.Gaonkar and staff were with him.
On that occasion he called panchas. Both panchas were
from Jogeshwari. He made inquiry to the effect that
both panchas were fit persons to act as panchas.
968. The witness further deposed that, he made
inquiry with Shamshuddin Mohammad Ansari (P.W.34), as
to how many cases were pending against him and that
whether he had any relations with police. Shamshuddin
informed him that cases were pending against him in
Jogeshwari Police Station and that police had arrested
him. The witness on his own deposed that, he informed
him that he was acquitted in all cases. The witness
did not make inquiry in Jogeshwari Police station about
the said information given by Mr.Shamshuddin. He asked
both panchas P.W.34 and the co-panch Feroz as to
whether previously they acted as panchas. The witness
denied that, both the panchas informed him that
previously they acted as panchas in seven to eight
cases. He had seen them acting as panchas when he
served in Meghwadi Police Station. The witness on his
own deposed that, they acted as panchas in one or two
cases investigated by him in Meghwadi Police Station.
He did not know whether both these witnesses carried on
any business in Naigaon area. Both panchas met him near
a hotel outside of the gate of Naigaon Police Head
...1010/-
Exh.1124 1010 (J-SC 317/10)
Quarters. He did not know as to why did they come at
the said place. He made inquiry as to why did they
come at the said place. The witness denied that, no
panchanamas were recorded by the S.I.T. on 10/12/2009
and on 17/12/2009 in Naigaon Armory and that those
panchanamas were prepared at the SIT office and also
that signatures of the panchas were obtained on the
said panchanamas in the S.I.T. office. Signatures of
the officers from Armoury were not obtained on
panchanamas Exhibits 232 & Exhibit 261. Copies of the
said panchanamas were also not given to the officers
from Naigaon Armoury.
969. The witness further deposed that, whenever a
panchanama was recorded or a statement was recorded in
absence of DCP Mr.Prasanna, the said statement or
panchanama would be placed before DCP Mr.Prasanna on
return to the S.I.T. office. Mr.Prasanna would not make
any endorsement on it stating, Verified and also
would not put his signature. On 10/12/2009 and
17/12/2009 they received instructions from DCP Mr.
Prasanna to take the Arm/s and Ammunitions in custody
from Naigaon Armory and to deposit the same in Versova
Police station. When on both these dates i.e.
10/12/2009 & 17/12/2009 when the S.I.T. returned the
seal to Versova Police Station, its entry was made in
...1011/-
Exh.1124 1011 (J-SC 317/10)
the Station Diary. The said Station Diary was not
placed before the Court along-with the Charge-sheet.
The Station Diary was made as per his say. He did not
remember whether there was mention of panchanamas in
the said Station Diary entry. Decision of recording
statements of witnesses u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was taken by
DCP Mr.Prasanna. The witness denied that, on many
occasions he accompanied the witnesses to the Court for
the purpose of their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. He did
not introduce them to the Magistrate but he introduced
them to the staff of the Court in the Court premises.
He did not make any entry anywhere in respect of his
leaving the Court after introducing the witness to the
court staff before recording statement of witnesses
u/s.164 Cr.P.C. They used to ask the witness as to
whether the witness was willing to give statement u/s.
164 Cr.P.C. He and other officers from the SIT used to
discuss as regards to recording or not recording
statements of witnesses as per section 164 Cr. P.C.
There was no record showing that any of the witnesses
were willing to give statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. The
witness denied that the S.I.T. gave threats to the
witnesses for recording their statements under 164
Cr.P.C. saying that they would be falsely implicated in
this case or other cases and they were forced to give
false statements before the Magistrate.
...1012/-
Exh.1124 1012 (J-SC 317/10)
970. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, at the time of arrest of the accused,
arrest memo was prepared. Entry of the articles seized
from the person of the arrested accused was prepared.
He did not remember whether any mobile was found with
any of the 22 accused persons at the time of their
arrests. Even after perusal of record before the Court
he could not tell it. The witness on his own deposed
that, the said record was not before the Court. He
could not assign any reason as to why the said record
was not brought to the court. Mohan Sankhe (P.W.39),
Udhani and Jeni were not arrested. A discussion about
these persons took place in the S.I.T. He did not
remember as to on how many occasions the discussions
took place. The discussions took place after statements
of these three persons were recorded. Statements of
Udhani and of Jeni were not produced before the Court.
It was the decision of DCP Mr. Prasanna to cite Mohan
Sankhe as a witness. Officers from the SIT did not
disagree with the decision of DCP Mr.Prasanna. He did
not remember as to whether there was any record showing
as to on how many occasions and on how many dates and
at what time these three persons were called to the
S.I.T. office. The witness on his own deposed that,
there was no sufficient evidence against Mr. Mohan
Sankhe. No report was submitted before the Court
stating that there was no sufficient evidence against
...1013/-
Exh.1124 1013 (J-SC 317/10)
Mohan Sankhe. He had deposed about it for the first
time before the court. He had not seen any record
anywhere stating that there was no sufficient evidence
against Mohan Sankhe. DCP Mr. Prasanna never told him
to bring names of the Police officers, police personnel
or staff working in D.N. Nagar Police station and
Versova Police station in November 2006. The witness
on his own deposed that, DCP Mr. Prasanna called
information of the Police officers, police personnel
and staff on duty on 11/11/2006 and 12/11/2006 in
Versova Police Station and in D.N. Nagar Police
Station. Letters were issued to Versova Police station
and D.N. Nagar Police station for furnishing the said
information. Those letters were not produced along-with
Charge-sheet. Those letters were not brought by him
before the Court. The witness denied that, no such
letters were issued by the S.I.T. He did not know as
to how many constables having surnames, Bhosale and
More were serving in D.N. Nagar Police station and
Versova Police Station on 11
th
and 12
th
November 2006.
He did not remember as to from where did the SIT pick
up names of Milind More and Madan More (P.W. 55 & PW-43
respectively). He did not remember even approximately
as to how and when their names were disclosed. He
could not exactly tell as to whether at the time of
recording statements of Milind More and Madan More by
the S.I.T. they were serving in D.N. Nagar Police
...1014/-
Exh.1124 1014 (J-SC 317/10)
station and that Mr. Prasanna was their DCP at the
relevant time.
971. The witness further deposed that, on
18.11.2009, he had typewritten statement of Mohd. Iqbal
Abdul Sattar Furniturwalla. His statement was recorded
in respect of panchanama dated 11.11.2006 (Exh.279).
He was cited as a witness, but no summons was asked for
the said witness. Name of accused no.7 did not appear
in the FIR. Accused no.7 was arrested on 19.01.2010.
He did not exactly remember as to whether any of the
witnesses mentioned his name in their statements till
19.01.2010 and that, as to what evidence was against
accused no.7 at the time of his arrest. He could not
tell as to when was the decision of arrest of accused
no.7 taken. The witness denied that, till 19.1.2010,
there was no statement against accused no.7 of any of
the witnesses. During the course of investigation of
this crime, statement of Sr.PI Ajendra Thakur was
recorded. He did not remember as to whether during the
course of investigation he came to know that, Vinayak
Shinde worked along with Ajendra Thakur. He knew that,
name of a police officer, who had done good work was
recommended for reward. He did not know whether
Ajendra Thakur was conferred any rewards for some
cases. He did not know whether name of Vinayak Shinde,
who worked along with Ajendra Thakur, was also
...1015/-
Exh.1124 1015 (J-SC 317/10)
recommended for reward. He could not tell as to
whether Sr. PI distributed the duties to the constables
and other staff in the police station or not. The
witness on his own deposed that, in some police
stations PI (Admn.) distributed the duties and in some
police stations Sr.PI distributed the duties. The
assignments were made in writing. The SIT made
correspondence with Versova police station and DN Nagar
police station as regards to assignment of duties to
the police Ammaldars in the said police stations in the
month of November, 2006. They received reply to their
correspondence. The SIT also seized duty registers.
They did not produce all registers that they seized
before the Court. The witness was concerned with
investigation from day one till date. He attended all
remands.
972. The witness further deposed that, arrested
accused were kept in different lock-ups. The SIT used
three general lock ups and one lock up from Powai
police station. The three general lock-ups were
Andheri, Santacruz and Bandra. Accused nos. 2 to 6
were kept in lock ups at Andheri and Santacruz.
Accused no.1 was kept in lock up at Bandra. He did not
remember as to in which lock up accused no.7 was kept
and that, as to in which lock ups accused nos.8 to 22
were kept. He visited lock ups for taking out and
...1016/-
Exh.1124 1016 (J-SC 317/10)
putting the accused in lock ups. There was video
surveillance in Powai lock up. He could not tell
whether there was video surveillance in Santacruz lock
up. There was video surveillance in Bandra Lock up. He
did not know whether there was video surveillance in
Andheri lock up. The video surveillance in the lock
ups were as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Finger prints and photographs of arrested
accused were taken. The witness denied that,
photographs were taken only by the digital cameras.
The witness on his own deposed that, the photographs
were taken by the cameras which were available. The
photographs taken by both these processes could be
downloaded in the computer. DCP Mr.Prasanna gave
directions to him in relation to conducting test
Identification Parades. He and the SIT staff called
panchas for T.I. Parade which was held on 28.06.2010.
For remaining T.I. Parades, including T.I. Parade of
30.01.2010 and 17.08.2010, he did not call panchas. He
did not carry panchas with him from the SIT office and
to the Arthur Road Central Prison. Both the panchas
were not residing in the vicinity of Arthur Road
Central Prison. He did not know about their occupation
or business. The witness denied that, he did not make
inquiry as to whether they acted as panchs or whether
any cases were pending against them and that, during
inquiry he came to know that they were the stock
...1017/-
Exh.1124 1017 (J-SC 317/10)
panchas. Ammaldars from the SIT called panchas. He did
not remember names of the said Ammaldars. After he
reached at Arthur Road Central Prison, he sent
Ammaldars to call panchas. It did not happen that, SMM
brought panchas.
973. The witness further deposed that, identity of
the accused who were to be put in the TI Parade was not
to be disclosed. He did not remember whether photos of
all accused were published in the newspapers prior to
conducting Test Identification Parades. During the
course of investigation and prior to conducting TI
Parade, he came to know that, photos of the accused in
this case were published in the newspapers. He did not
make inquiry as to who furnished photographs to the
newspapers. The witness admitted that, photograph of
accused no.7 appeared in the page of the newspaper
Samana dated 23.01.2010 Exh.765. Marathi newspaper
'Samana was a daily newspaper. He knew that,
Navbharat Times was a Hindi daily newspaper.
Mahanagar was the edition of Navbharat Times. T.I.
Parades of accused Shailendra Pandey, Akhil Khan,
Ratnakar Kamble, Hitesh Solanki and Tanaji Desai were
conducted. He did not remember whether their
photographs appeared in the newspapers prior to
conducting their test Identification Parades.
...1018/-
Exh.1124 1018 (J-SC 317/10)
974. The witness further deposed that, he, along
with DCP Mr.Prasanna, attended the Hon'ble High Court
during pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble
High Court. He did not remember whether DCP Mr.
Prasanna filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble High
Court stating that, photographs of the accused who were
to be put in test Identification Parade were published
in the newspapers. The witness denied that, at the say
of Anil Bheda, the SIT visited some places. The SIT did
not tell Anil Bheda to show the places where he was
taken or the place from where he was kidnapped and then
was separated. The SIT visited Bhandup Complex. There
was water pipeline. The general public had no access to
the said place, as it was a restricted area. There was
security staff at the entrance. He did not remember
whether enquiry was made with any of the security
staff. He visited the said place only once. The SIT
did not record statement of anyone when the SIT visited
Trisha Collections. They made inquiry at the said place
but no one came forward to give useful information.
For recording panchanama in continuation, panchas were
first called at Trisha Collection. The panchanama was
concluded at about 9 to 9.30 pm. On 19.03.2010, he
visited Bhandup Complex. He visited Trisha Collection
on 19.03.2010 and thereafter. The witness denied that,
he did not go anywhere and did not carry out any
investigation and that he had only typewritten
...1019/-
Exh.1124 1019 (J-SC 317/10)
panchanamas and statements and that, all panchanamas
were false and that, he had shown photographs of the
accused to the witnesses prior to Test Identification
Parades. The witness also denied that, he did not make
any station diary and therefore, those were not
produced before the Court. He followed the legal orders
of his superior officer in the SIT being a junior
officer. He did not receive any illegal orders at any
point of time. He could not assign any reason as to
why he had given above voluntary clarification suo
moto. He being the junior most officer, he, on his
own, could not investigate therefore, he followed the
orders of his superior officers during the course of
investigation.
975. The witness further deposed that, he
personally did not do anything in relation to Ratnakar
Kamble(accused no.3). The witness denied that, he
deposed false that, he did certain acts during the
course of investigation relating to Ratnakar Kamble and
that, he was deposing false at the say of his superior
officers and that, he did not arrest Ratnakar
Kamble(accused no.3). The witness further denied that,
he did not carry out any investigation relating to
accused no.3 and that, he was supposed to implement the
orders of the superiors in relations to accused no.3
Ratnakar Kamble. He personally did not have any
...1020/-
Exh.1124 1020 (J-SC 317/10)
information as regards to Ratnakar Kamble (accused no.
3).
976. The witness further denied that, at the time
of arrest of accused no.13, the SIT did not record his
arrest panchanama. At the time of his arrest, personal
search was affected. No separate panchanama was
recorded as regards to the belongings found on the
person of accused no.13 at the time of his arrest. The
witness on his own deposed that, it was mentioned in
arrest panchanama. The witness denied that, at the
time of his arrest, he did not know what evidence was
there against accused no.13 and that, he came to know
about it only after the information given to him by his
superiors after the arrest of accused no.13. Arrest
panchanama of accused no.16 was recorded at the time of
his arrest. A separate panchanama of the belongings of
accused no.16 was not recorded. The witness on his own
deposed that, it was mentioned in arrest panchanama.
The witness further denied that, at the time of arrest
of accused no.16, he did not know what evidence was
available against accused no.16 and that, he was
informed about it by his superiors after the arrest of
accused no.16. At the time of arrest of accused no.19
arrest panchanama was recorded by the SIT. A separate
panchanama of the belongings of accused no.19 was not
recorded. Witness on his own deposed that, it was
...1021/-
Exh.1124 1021 (J-SC 317/10)
mentioned in arrest panchanama.
977. The witness further deposed that, at the time
of arrest of accused no.19, he did not know what
evidence was available against accused no.19 and that,
he was informed about it by his superiors after the
arrest of accused no.19. The witness admitted that, at
the time of recording his evidence in Examination in
chief he referred his personal notes and then he
deposed date-wise before the Court. The SIT recorded
statement dated 26.03.2010 of Ashok Atmaram Pimple. It
was recorded as per the say of the witness and it was
true and correct as per his say. He was cited as a
witness in this matter. The witness denied that,
accused nos.13,16 and 19 had been falsely implicated in
this case as per orders of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The witness
further denied that, accused nos.11 and 18 had been
falsely implicated in this case by the orders of DCP
Mr.Prasanna.
978. The witness further deposed that, the SIT
received the address of accused no.22 from Aaray Sub
Police station. It was taken from personal details of
accused no.22. Permanent address of native place of
accused no.22 was also available in the said record.
During the course of investigation of this case,
Mr.Sarvankar was called for inquiry in the SIT office.
...1022/-
Exh.1124 1022 (J-SC 317/10)
The SIT recorded his statement. The witness denied
that, the SIT did not make efforts to go to his native
and to search the accused. He did not remember as to
whether the SIT came to know that, two brothers of
Mr.Sarvankar were serving in police department. The SIT
did not record panchanama of its visit to native of Mr.
Sarvankar. Statements of persons who visited native of
Mr.Sarvankar were recorded by the SIT. The witness
denied that, he had deposed false that the SIT visited
native of Mr.Sarvankar. When the SIT visited house of
Mr.Sarvankar, it entered into the house and searched it
with prior permission of the wife of Mr.Sarvankar. The
SIT did not record statement of his wife. There were no
other persons present in the said house. The SIT did
not record statements of persons from adjacent houses
to the house of Mr. Sarvankar. The last posting of Mr.
Sarvankar was at Aaray Sub police station. The SIT did
not record statement of any officer from Aaray Sub
Police Station. The witness denied that, the SIT did
not record arrest panchanama of Mr.Palande (accused no.
15) and that, he deposed false that orders of
proclamation were promulgated and were executed. The
witness further denied that, he had deposed false that
the SIT tried to trace out the absconding accused no.22
and that, the SIT did not record panchanama but just
obtained signatures of the panchas in office of the SIT
on the false panchanama. The witness denied that, the
...1023/-
Exh.1124 1023 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT falsely implicated these accused in this case.
979. The witness further deposed that, during the
course of investigation, it was revealed that, accused
no.17 was on day duty on 11.11.2006. As per his order
book, he was assigned duties at 5 to 6 places on that
day. On that day, he was attached to Beat Chowki No.2,
but he did not know whether he was in-charge of the
said Beat Chowki No.2 on that day. The SIT came to know
that, he resumed his duty at 11 am on 11.11.2006 after
enjoying six days sick leave. It was also revealed
during investigation that, accused no.17 left at 12.05
pm for investigation at Versova Village. The SIT
recorded arrest panchanama of accused no.17. Said
arrest panchanama was not annexed to the charge sheet.
The witness denied that, arrest panchanama was not
recorded therefore, it was not annexed to the charge
sheet and that, the SIT falsely implicated accused no.
17 in this case.
980. It has come during cross examination of Mr.
Vinay Baburao Ghorpade (PW-108), API, Exh.771 that,
after arrest of accused nos. 1 to 6, he participated in
investigation relating to these accused persons. He was
attending their remands. During the period of police
custody remand, accused no. 1 was kept in the lock-up
of Bandra Police Station, accused nos. 2 & 3 were kept
...1024/-
Exh.1124 1024 (J-SC 317/10)
in the lock-up of Santacruz Police station and accused
nos.4,5 & 6 were kept in the Lock-up of Andheri Police
Station. Sometimes, he and sometimes PSI Mr. Chalke
would take out the accused persons from the lock-ups
and would put the accused persons in the lock-ups for
the purpose of interrogation and investigation. They
would take accused nos.2 to 6 to the SIT Office at
Powai for the purpose of interrogation and
investigation. The SIT would make inquiry and
interrogation with accused no.1 in the lock-up at
Bandra Police Station. He did not remember as to
whether accused no.1 was in Bandra Police Station lock-
up only till he was remanded to Judicial Custody. He
was not aware as to whether there was a Video
Surveillance in Santacruz Police station Lock-up and
Andheri Police station Lock-up. Santacurz Police
Station Lock-up and Andheri Police station Lockup were
general Lockups where accused persons from various
Police stations were kept during the period of their
police custody. Photographs and finger prints of the
accused were taken by the I.O. after arrest of the
accused. He did not know whether one set of photographs
was kept in a file and another was kept in record. The
witness denied that, full data of the arrested accused
was fed in the Computer and that, they maintained a
record in the Computer as regards to the name, age,
occupation, address etc. Photographs were kept in a
...1025/-
Exh.1124 1025 (J-SC 317/10)
file. The photographs were affixed to the accused
statement. That was the only file maintained by them.
Information of arrest was submitted to the Commissioner
of Police if a police personnel was arrested. They did
not send any record pertaining to accused persons from
this case to the Commissioner of Police. He did not
know as to whether, other investigating agencies made a
request to the police to furnish information of the
accused persons arrested by them. He had been attached
to the S.I.T. for the last three years. The witness
denied that, there had been co-ordination between the
SIT and other investigating agencies by sharing the
information as regards to the antecedents of the
accused persons, which included taking finger prints,
photographs, names, addresses, age, occupations, etc.,
The SIT made inquiry with many police stations as
regards to antecedents of the victim and the witnesses
in this case. He did not remember whether the SIT made
inquiry with many police stations as regards to
antecedent of Lakhan Bhayya. Finger prints and the
photographs were essential for identification of the
accused persons. The witness denied that, he had
deliberately avoided to answer the above questions as
those answer would have damaged the case.
981. The witness further deposed that, he had not
seen as to whether news of the arrests of accused
...1026/-
Exh.1124 1026 (J-SC 317/10)
persons came to be published in newspapers at the time
of their arrests. He was shown English NewspaperDNA
dated 12/01/2010. One article and some photographs in
connection with this case appeared in the newspaper.
Those photographs were of 1) Tanaji Desai 2) Ratnakar
Kamble 3) Shailendra Panday 4) Hitesh Solanki 5) Akhil
Khan. Those were passport size single photographs. On
12/01/2010, all above named persons were in police
custody. T.I. Parade of those accused was not conducted
till 12/01/2010. The DNA was a Mumbai Publication. The
'DNA Newspaper' was marked Exh.782 (Colly) Page nos.1
to 24) to the extent of identification of photographs
only.
982. The witness further deposed that, accused no.7
Vinayak Shinde was arrested on 19/01/2010. The witness
was shown Marathi 'Dainik Samana Newspaper' dated
23/01/2010. Photograph of Vinayak Shinde appeared on
page no.7 of 'Dainik Samana Newspaper' dated 23/01/2010
in connection with his arrest in this case. It was
marked as Exh.765 (A) to the extent of identification
of photograph of accused Vinayak Shinde. It was a
passport size photograph of accused Vinayak Shinde.
Accused Vinayak Shinde was in police custody till the
date of publication of the said article on 23/01/2010.
His T.I. Parade was not conducted till 23/01/2010.
...1027/-
Exh.1124 1027 (J-SC 317/10)
983. The witness further deposed that, on
14/01/2010, all accused nos. 1 to 6 were remanded to
Judicial Custody for fourteen days. He did not remember
as to whether there was no mention in the remand papers
of Judicial Custody of accused nos. 1 to 6 that they
were veiled, while producing from J.C. before the
Court. He was aware as to whether prior to 30/01/2010,
accused no.7 Vinayak Shinde was produced before the
Court from his Judicial Custody. He did not remember as
to whether there was no mention in the remand papers of
Judicial Custody of accused no.7 that he was veiled,
while producing from J.C. before the Court. He brought
panchas at the instructions of SMM Mr.Satish Rane and
then he selected panchas. He called panchas after he
met SMM Mr.Satish Rane at the Jail. He introduced
identifying witness to SMM Mr. Satish Rane when he came
to Thane Central Prison. He did not say anything to
SMM Mr. Satish Rane so as to make inquiry with
identifying witness as to whether identifying witness
had any occasion to see the suspect. On 23/03/2010, he
again contacted SMM Mr.Satish Rane. On 23/03/2010, he
met SMM Mr.Satish Rane at Thane Central Prison. At the
instructions of SMM Mr. Satish Rane, he brought
panchas. He did not make inquiry with panchas as to
whether previously they acted as panchas. SIT constable
called the panchas. He was not in a habit use to stock
panchas. If no fresh panchas were available, he would
...1028/-
Exh.1124 1028 (J-SC 317/10)
have produced panchas who acted as panchas on earlier
occasion. The witness denied that, he knew that those
panchas were used as panchas on earlier occasion and
that, it was his duty as the I.O. from the SIT team to
prepare list of witnesses at the initial stage as and
when required. The witness on his own deposed that, he
prepared list at the end. The witness denied that, as
the I.O. he must remember names of Panchas who had been
already used and that, he must remember at least face
of panchas and that, on 30
th
& 31
st
January and on 1
st
February he did not have any record of T.I.Parade. The
witness further denied that, he used services of stock
panchas and that T. I. Parades were conducted in the
SIT office Powai.
984. The witness further deposed that, he was
attached to Sakinaka Police Station and at that time he
was on deputation at Zone-X office, prior to joining
the SIT. He was reader to DCP Zone-X. There was a
written order of his deputation as a Reader to DCP Zone
- X. The said order was as per the procedure of Mumbai
Police. As per their case Mr. Vinayak Shinde was on
deputation at D.N. Nagar Police Station. If Vinayak
Shinde was deputed for a specific purpose by the orders
of Superior Officer then he was not supposed to follow
the orders of the Sr. PI from DN Nagar police station.
He did not remember as to whether there was mention of
...1029/-
Exh.1124 1029 (J-SC 317/10)
specific purpose of deputation in the order of Vinayak
Shinde. The witness denied that, he was avoiding to
answer this as there was no such order, mentioning
specific purpose of deputation. If a constable did the
work of the police station, on deputation, then its
entry was made in the station diary. He did not know
exact order as to whether Mr.Vinayak Shinde was deputed
to D.N.Nagar police station. The witness denied that,
he was deliberately trying to avoid the answer. He did
not record statement of Mr. Ajendra Thakur on
21.07.2010 or at any point of time. The witness denied
that, accused no.7 was not connected in any way with
this crime. He did not remember as to whether
Ramprasad Gupta came to him and that he came for
recording statement after he had seen the photograph of
accused no.7 Vinayak Shinde in 'Dainik Samana'. As per
their case P.W. 1 handed over one C.D. to the SIT. He
made investigation to know as to from where did P.W.1
get the said C.D. copied. It was the C.D. of news item
relayed on Sahara News. He did not make investigation
as to whether Sahara News handed over the C.D. to Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta. He did not investigate as to after
preparing how many copies the C.D. was prepared and
also who prepared the said copies. He also did not
investigate as to how many occasions it was re-edited
and as to on how many occasions, the capsule was
prepared. The conversation, which was in the C.D., was
...1030/-
Exh.1124 1030 (J-SC 317/10)
not audible. He did not seal the C.D., which was handed
over by P.W.1 to the SIT. He knew that contents in the
C.D. could be downloaded in the Computer. The witness
denied that, the contents in the Computer could be
edited and then could be loaded on another blank C.D.
He did not remember as to whether P.W.1 for the first
time raised suspicion against accused no.7 at the time
of handing over the C.D. to the SIT. Prior to
23/01/2010, name of accused no.7 did not appear in the
FIR. He could not tell as to whether name of accused
no.7 appeared in any of the statements prior to
23/01/2010. The witness denied that, accused nos. 6 & 7
had been falsely implicated in this case and that, the
SIT fabricated evidence against accused nos.6 & 7 after
their arrests and that, accused nos.6 & 7 had been
falsely shown as associates.
985. The witness further deposed that, description
of Qualis MH-04-AW8824 as on record was blueish silver.
The SIT visited house of Mr. Mhatre in connection with
this vehicle. The witness on his own deposed that, the
SIT visited house of Mhatre at the instance of accused
Sunil Solanki. They did not record any panchanama to
the effect that the SIT visited house of Mr.Mhatre at
the instance of accused Sunil Solanki. The witness
denied that, he had deposed false that the SIT visited
house of Mr. Mhatre at the instance of accused Sunil
...1031/-
Exh.1124 1031 (J-SC 317/10)
Solanki. He did not remember date and month' on which
the SIT visited the house of Mr. Mhatre. As per their
investigation record vehicle MH-04-AW8824 stood in the
name of Ashok Shah as on 11/11/2006. During
investigation it was revealed that Ashok Shah did not
give the said vehicle to any of the accused persons. It
was a private vehicle. He was not aware as to whether
as per Motor Vehicle Rules only registered Taxis or
private Taxis could be hired. A Tourist Permit was
issued for the Taxis. If any one was involved in an
illegal act, the police were authorized to take action
against such person. He was not aware as to whether the
person having permit could only let the vehicle on
hire. The witness further deposed that, their
investigation revealed that, Mr. Mhatre was using the
said vehicle on hire basis. Initially Mr. Mhatre did
not have permit in his name but subsequently the permit
stood in his name. The permit of the vehicle stood in
the name of the person who became registered owner of a
vehicle. He could not tell as to for which period the
permit did not stand in the name of Mr.Mhatre. He also
could not tell as to since what period the permit stood
in the name of Mr.Mhatre. He was not aware as to
whether the permit of the said vehicle did not stand in
the name of Mr. Mhatre since 09/11/2006 to 12/11/2006.
They asked for the permit to Mr. Mhatre during the
course of investigation. During the period since
...1032/-
Exh.1124 1032 (J-SC 317/10)
09/11/2006 to 12/11/2006, the permit did not stand in
the name of Mr. Mhatre. The SIT asked Mr. Mhatre to
produce R.C. Book of the said vehicle to show that he
was the registered owner of the said vehicle. He did
not remember as to whether Mr. Mhatre produced the R.C.
Book before the SIT. Mr.Mhatre stated before the SIT
that, he did not have permit of the said vehicle till
the year 2007. Mr. Mhatre was not the owner of the said
vehicle till December 2006. The witness on his own
deposed that, he was not the owner but he was in
possession of the said vehicle. He did not feel it
necessary to report the said fact to the R.T.O., as Mr.
Mhatre had already sold the said vehicle. The witness
further deposed that, he was aware of the fact that the
person plying a vehicle without permit was liable to
pay a fine and also was required to face prosecution.
The witness denied that, the SIT secured a got-up
witness by giving threats to Mr.Mhatre of prosecution
and that, Mr. Mhatre was not having possession over the
vehicle MH-04-AW8824 and that, the SIT had fabricated
evidence so as to falsely implicate accused no.10 in
this case.
986. The witness further denied that, the SIT made
demand of certified copies of all documents relating to
CR.No.302/06 of Versova Police Station. The SIT made
demand of the FIR, panchanama of empties of accused no.
...1033/-
Exh.1124 1033 (J-SC 317/10)
9 dated 11/11/2006, Spot Panchanama dated 11/11/2006,
inquest panchanama dated 11/11/2006 and panchanama of
the empties of accused Sarvankar and Palande dated
12/11/2006. Those were ordinary copies. He had
personally gone through all those copies. He had not
seen DCP Mr.Prasanna, P.I. Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr.
Chalke reading the said copies in his presence. Accused
no.9 in this case lodged FIR against the deceased and a
crime bearing no.302/06 u/s.307 of the IPC was
registered against the deceased.
987. The witness further deposed that, statement of
photographer Mr.Shekhar Sharma was typewritten by him
on Computer and it was recorded by DCP Mr.Prasanna.
Statement of photographer Mr.Vinayak Bharat Raudal was
was typewritten by him on Computer and it was recorded
by DCP Mr.Prasanna. Statement of Mr.Manohar Pandurang
Kulpe was typewritten by him on Computer and it was
recorded by DCP Mr. Prasanna. Statement of Mr.Ramrajpal
Ramjidas Singh was typewritten by him on Computer and
it was recorded by DCP Mr. Prasanna. All these four
persons had been cited as witnesses by the prosecution
in Five D-FORM of Charge-Sheet in this case. He did
not know whether witness summons were asked for by the
prosecution to these witnesses. Statements u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. of Ramrajpal Singh and of Manohar Pandurang
Kulpe were recorded. Their statements were recorded by
...1034/-
Exh.1124 1034 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT on 02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011.
988. He did not state in his statements dated
02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011 before the SIT that,DCP
Mr.Prasanna had directed him and Mr. Chalke to report
him on 20/08/2009 at Versova Police Station. He along-
with PSI Mr. Chalke went to Versova Police station and
reported to DCP Mr. Prasanna. When they reported to DCP
MR. Prasanna, complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta was also
present at Versova Police Station. Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
met DCP Mr.Prasanna. Thereafter as per instructions of
DCP Mr.Prasanna he started recording statement of Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta on a Computer. During the course of
recording statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta, he produced
one letter. Along-with letter Ramprasad Gupta also
produced copy of complaint dtd. 14/11/2006 addressed to
then Commissioner of Police Mumbai and Five copies of
Telegrams, One copy of a Fax, Two Fax delivery reports
and receipts of Telegrams concerned. After the
statement was typewritten, he took out the printouts.
He read over the statement to the complainant. The
complainant confirmed the statement to be true and
correct. The complainant put his signatures on each
page of the statement. Then DCP Mr. Prasanna also put
his signatures on each page to the effect that the
statement was recorded in his presence. Thereafter, by
the orders of DCP Mr. Prasanna, API Mr.Bhandalkar
...1035/-
Exh.1124 1035 (J-SC 317/10)
Registered a Crime on the basis of statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta.
989. At the instructions of API Mr.Bhandalkar, PSI
Mr.Chalke started filling in the forms of FIR.
Simultaneously API Mr. Bhandalkar started taking entry
in the Station Diary. After FIR forms were filled in,
signatures of the complainant were obtained on the FIR
forms. Thereafter, API Mr. Bhandalkar also put his
signatures on the FIR forms. Thereafter photocopies of
the FIR forms were prepared and one copy of the FIR
forms was furnished to the complainant without fees.
Its acknowledgment was taken from the complainant. One
copy of the FIR form was sent to the Court concerned.
The crime which was registered was bearing no. 246/09
u/s. 309, 364, r/w. 34, IPC. PSI Mr. Chalke made an
entry in Crime Register Book as regards to registration
of CR No.246/09. Copies of the FIR were also sent to
the superior police officers and its information was
also sent to Main Control Room and Western Region
Control Room. After 20/08/2009 he had discussion with
DCP Mr.Prasanna as regards to further investigation of
CR. No. 246/09. On 20/08/2009 P.I. Mr. Gaonkar reported
in the office of the SIT.
990. On 21/08/2009 the SIT visited the alleged
place of offence at Nana-Nani Park Versova. Complainant
...1036/-
Exh.1124 1036 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr. Ramprasad Gupta was also present at the said place.
DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded panchanama at the said place
in presence of two panchas . At the instructions of DCP
Mr. Prasanna he prepared a sketch Map of the spot. The
panchanama was reduced into writing by PSI Mr.Chalke.
He had shown the said sketch to the panchas and PSI
Mr.Chalke had shown the panchanama to the panchas. The
panchas confirmed the panchanama and the sketch to be
true and correct and then they put their signatures on
the panchanama. Then DCP MR. Prasanna put his
signatures on the sketch and on the panchanama.
991. On 25/08/2009 DCP Mr.Prasanna and the SIT
visited Trisha Collections, Lakashydeep Hospital Road,
Sector No.9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Complainant Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta was also present at the said place. The
SIT visited the said spot to verify the facts from the
FIR. On 28/08/2009 DCP Mr.Prasanna and the SIT visited
Trisha Collections, Lakashydeep Hospital Road, Sector
No.9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Witness Dhiraj Mehata from
this crime was also present at the said place. At the
said place DCP Mr.Prasanna made inquiry and recorded
further statement of witness Dhiraj Mehata. He did not
state in his statements dtd. 02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011
before SIT that, On 26/09/2009 he and one SIT Ammaldar
went to Hotel Majestic at Royal Plaza Building situated
at Dabholkar in Corner in Kolhapur. He took the
...1037/-
Exh.1124 1037 (J-SC 317/10)
assistance of Local police and went to the said hotel.
He seized two Passengers Daily Registers under
panchanama recorded in presence of two panchas,
pertaining to November 2006. Besides this he recorded
statement of the Manager of the said house by name Mr.
Vivek Desawale. He also secured a xerox copy of the
license of said Hotel. He visited the said Hotel to
make inquiry as regards to the stay of witnesses Anil
Bheda and Aruna Bheda in the said Hotel. On 10/12/2009
by the orders of DCP Mr. Prasanna, he, P.I.Mr. Gaonkar,
and the SIT team went to Naigaon Armory Building. PSI
Mr. Chalke met them at the said building. P.I. Mr.
Gaonkar seized, Seven Arm/s and Fifty rounds of
different batches under panchanama recorded at the
first floor of Armory Building. During the course of
recording panchanama, he wrapped the Arm/s and
Ammunitions and affixed Labels and seals on the
wrappers wherein Arm/s and Ammunitions, were wrapped.
P.S.I. Mr. Chalke handed over the Arm/s to me. He put
the Arm/s in polythene bags, then he wrapped a brown
paper on each of the Arm/s. Then he affixed Label on
the wrapped brown paper. The label was prepared by PSI
Mr.Chalke. The Label had signatures of panchas and that
of Mr. Gaonkar. Thereafter he affixed the seal on it.

992. PSI Mr.Chalke handed over fifty rounds batch
wise. Those were ten each. PSI Mr.Chalke put ten rounds
...1038/-
Exh.1124 1038 (J-SC 317/10)
in one box. Each box was wrapped in a paper. He affixed
the label on it which was prepared by PSI Mr.Chalke.
Then he affixed the seal on it. After seizure of the
Arm/s and Ammunitions under panchanama, he, P.I.
Mr.Gaonkar, PSI Mr.Chalke along-with seized Muddemal
Articles came to Versova Police Station. The panchas
dispersed from the Armory Building. After reaching at
Versova Police Station a detail entry was made in the
Station Diary. PSI Mr.Chalke made entry in the Muddemal
Register of Versova Police Station of the Muddemal
Articles. The Muddemal Articles were handed over to
Muddemal Karkun of Versova Police Station, for safe
custody.
993. On 30/12/2009 statement of witness Anil Bheda
was to be recorded in Andheri Court No.22
nd
, therefore,
he was instructed to remain present at the said Court.
Earlier Anil Bheda had given consent for recording his
statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, a letter bearing
signature of DCP Mr. Prasanna was issued to then CMM.
Then CMM passed an order in the name of the Court
concerned was to record statement of Anil Bheda u/s.
164 Cr.P.C. The said order was forwarded to the Court
concerned along-with a letter of DCP Mr. Prasanna. The
Court concerned fixed a date and time for recording
statement of witness Anil Bheda. The SIT informed the
Date & Time' in advance to Anil Bheda. On 30/12/2009,
...1039/-
Exh.1124 1039 (J-SC 317/10)
he went in the premises of the Court. Anil Bheda met me
in the premises of the Court at the ground floor. He
took him to Court No.22
nd ,
Andheri. He introduced him
to the Court staff. He told the Court staff that, the
Court had fixed the date and time for recording
statement of Anil Bheda and thereafter he left the
Court.
994. On 07/01/2010 accused Tanaji Desai, Shailendra
Panday @ Pinky, Hitesh Solanki@ Dhabbu, Akhil Khan @
Bobby were apprehended from J.B. Nagar, Andheri. They
were taken to the SIT office at Powai. PSI MR. Chalke
along-with Ratnakar Kamble @ Rattu came to SIT office.
Inquiry was made with these five persons. Thereafter
all those five persons were taken to Versova Police
station as per the orders of DCP MR. Prasanna and those
five persons were arrested at Versova Police Station.
All those five persons were arrested on 08/01/2010 at
00.25 hours. All Five accused were informed the reasons
of their arrest and their respective relatives were
also informed of their arrests. Its entry was made in
the Station Diary of Versova Police Station. Its entry
was also effected in the Lock-up Book and arrest
Register of Versova Police Station. Thereafter, all the
five accused were sent for Medical examination and
their Medical examination was carried out. In all six
accused persons were produced for remand before Railway
...1040/-
Exh.1124 1040 (J-SC 317/10)
Mobile Court, Andheri. Out of six accused, five accused
were produced in veil before the Court. The sixth
accused arrested at Bandra Police Station was Mr.
Pradeep Sharma. Mr.Pradeep Sharma was not taken in
veils, while he was produced before Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri. All accused were remanded to police
custody. Again there was a remand on 14/01/2010. All
accused were remanded to Judicial Custody.
995. Prior to 20/01/2010 the SIT issued a letter to
Railway Mobile Court seeking permission for conducting
T.I. Parade. The Court granted permission in the name
of Superintendent of Thane Central Prison. Then the
SIT issued a letter to the then SMM Mr.Satish Rane for
conducting T.I. Parade. The then SMM fixed the date on
20/01/2010 for T.I.Parade. The Test identification
parade was to be carried out of accused 1) Tanaji
Desai, 2) Shailendra Panday @ Pinky, 3) Hitesh Solanki
@ Dhabbu, 4) Akhil Khan @ Bobby, 5) Ratnakar Kamble @
Rattu.
996. As the date was fixed for conducting T.I.
Parade on 20/01/2010, Witnesses Anil Bheda and Aruna
Bheda were accordingly informed to remain present at
Thane Central Prison. On that day he went to Thane
Central Prison. Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda met him
outside of the Prison. SMM Mr. Satish Rane also met him
...1041/-
Exh.1124 1041 (J-SC 317/10)
outside of the prison. At the instructions of SMM
Mr.Satish Rane he told the SIT Ammaldar working under
me to bring two panchas. Then the panchas and the
witnesses were introduced to SMM Mr. Satish Rane. Then
he, the SMM, the panchas and the witnesses entered into
the Jail through its Main Gate. Then they went to The
Reception Center. An entry was made in a Register at
The Reception Center mentioning the time at which they
entered in the Jail. He reported to the Jailer on
duty. He introduced the SMM, the witnesses and the
panchas to the said Jailer. He handed over order of
Railway Mobile Court along-with letter from the SIT to
the said Jailer. Then he stayed at the Reception
Center. The duty Jailer took the SMM, the panchas and
the witnesses inside the Jail, through a Gate. After
sometime the SMM, the panchas and the witnesses came to
the Reception Center. Then they made entry in the
Register and came out of the Jail. Then the SMM kept
the Memorandum in an envelop and closed it. It was
addressed to DCP MR. Prasanna. It was handed over to
him. The SMM told him to hand over it to DCP
Mr.Prasanna. Thereafter the SMM and the panchas went
away. He recorded supplementary statements of both the
witnesses out side of the Jail. Anil and Aruna Bheda
also went away. Then he went to Zone - IX office
Bandra and handed over the said envelop to DCP MR.
Prasanna. He met Mr Khawanekar in Forensic Science
...1042/-
Exh.1124 1042 (J-SC 317/10)
Laboratory. Mr.Khawankar made endorsement at the left
upper side of the letter, === + '== ==+ |=+|- Mr.
Khawanekar affixed a stamp and put his signature on the
letter, in his presence.
997. Mr.Khawanekar sent him along-with the said
letter to the Ballistic Section. He met Mr.Ghadage in
Ballistic Section. Mr.Ghadage showed me the Muddemal
Articles from Cr.No.246/09. Thereafter, Mr.Ghadage
checked and put the Muddemal Articles in wrappers and
sealed the said Muddemal in my presence. Mr. Ghadage
took acknowledgment from me for receipt of the Muddemal
Articles and the reports. He did not state in his
statements dtd. 02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011 before SIT
the that, (Para nos.54 to 80) On 09/03/2010, as per
the orders of DCP Mr.Prasanna, he went to Godhra,
Gujarat. On 09/03/2010, with assistance of Local
police, he apprehended accused Sunil Solanki from this
crime. On 10/03/2010 he was brought to Versvoa Police
Station and was arrested at Versova Police Station. The
accused was informed the grounds of his arrest and
information of his arrest was conveyed to his
relatives. Its entry was taken in the Station Diary, in
arrest register and in Lock-up Book. Medical
Examination of the accused was also carried out. On
16/03/2010 he recorded statement of Mr.Bipin Bihari
then Additional C.P. West Region, Mumbai.
...1043/-
Exh.1124 1043 (J-SC 317/10)
998. On 19/03/2010, DCP Mr. Prasanna he and the SIT
team visited the place at Trisha Collections, Sector
No.9, Lakashydeep Hospital Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
Witness Anil Bheda was present at the said spot. As per
the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna spot panchanama was
recorded at the said place, in presence of two panchas.
It was the spot from where deceased Ramnarayan Gupta @
Lakhan Bhayya and witness Anil Bheda were abducted. At
the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna he prepared a
sketch of the spot. He showed the sketch to the
panchas. The panchas confirmed that the sketch was true
and correct and then they put their signatures on the
sketch. DCP Mr. Prasanna put his signature on the
sketch. PSI Mr.Chalke who reduced the panchanama into
writing, mentioned the sketch in the said panchanama,
at the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna. From there DCP
Mr. Prasanna, he, the SIT, panch and witness Anil Bheda
went through a vehicle to Bhandup Complex. Witness Anil
Bheda told to stop the vehicle at a distance of one to
two kilometers from Main Gate of Bhandup Complex from
Mulund side. Again in-continuation of the previous
panchanama, a panchanama was recorded at the said place
at the instructions of DCP Mr. Prasanna.
999. From Bhandup Complex they all went to D.N.
Nagar Police station at its backside. A panchanama was
...1044/-
Exh.1124 1044 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded at the instructions of DCP Mr.Paranna as
regards to the backside of the police station and the
Backside compound. One Detection Room, One Passport
Room and One more room for an officer of P.I. rank was
situated at the backside of D.N.Nagar Police Station.
At the instructions of DCP Mr. Prasanna he prepared a
sketch of the Police station. The backside of the
police station was prominently shown in it. He also
prepared another sketch wherein the police station, one
adjacent Building and two Buildings from backside of
the police station, were shown in it. He showed the
sketch to the panchas. They confirmed those to be true
and correct and put signatures on the sketch. DCP
Mr.Prasanna put his signature on the sketch. PSI
Mr.Chalke, who reduced the panchanama into writing,
mentioned the sketches in the panchanama, at the
instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna. Thereafter, DCP
Mr.Prasanna, the SIT, the panchas and witness Anil
Bheda came to Andheri (W) S.V. Road. They went to Hotel
Midtown opposite to Railway Station. Witnesses Milind
More and Madan More from this crime were also present
at the said place. Witness Anil Bheda was kept at the
said place for some days. The witnesses were present at
the Second floor of Hotel Midtown. They, along-with
Anil Bheda, went to the second floor of Hotel Midtown.
A panchanama of Room No.202 & Room No.204 was recorded.
He prepared sketch at the say of DCP Mr. Prasanna. He
...1045/-
Exh.1124 1045 (J-SC 317/10)
showed the sketch to the panchas. The panchas put their
signatures on the panchanama. DCP Mr. Prasanna put his
signature on the sketch. At the instructions of DCP MR.
Prasanna, PSI Mr. Chalke mentioned the sketch in the
panchanama.
1000. From there DCP Mr.Prasanna, he, the SIT,
panchas and witness Anil Bheda went to Muktabai
Hospital, Bhatwadi, Barve Nagar, Ghatkopar. They went
to the house of Ramji Nanji Sangoi. It was Room No. 2-
F-7 Ramji Nanji Sangoi was father-in-law of witness
Anil Bheda. In-continuation with earlier panchanama,
further panchanama was recorded at the said place. He
prepared a sketch, showed it to the panchas and the
panchas found it to be true and correct. The panchas
put their signatures on the sketch. DCP Mr.Prasanna
also put his signature on sketch. At the instructions
of DCP Mr.Prasanna, PSI Mr.Chalke mentioned the sketch
in the panchanama. At this place the panchanama was
concluded. The panchas were asked to go. Then they
returned to SIT office. On 20/03/2010 witness Sujit
Mhatre was called at Court No.21, Bandra for the
purpose of recording his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The
procedure as before was followed for recording the
statement of this witness. He introduced the witness to
the Court staff and he left the Court.

...1046/-
Exh.1124 1046 (J-SC 317/10)
1001. On 22/03/2010 he instructed one Ammaldar from
the SIT to go to Versova Police Station and bring seal
and sealing material to Dharavi Police Station. He
along-with PSI Mr. Chalke and SIT staff reached at
Dharavi Police Station. He and PSI Mr.Chalke handed
over a letter to Sr.P.I. of Dharavi Police Station with
a request to hand over Six rounds of a Revolver which
were in the name of Mr. Pradeep Sharma. The letter was
issued by DCP Mr. Prasanna. Sr.P.I.Mr.Patil informed
them that those six rounds would be handed over to them
therefore, he and PSI Mr. Chalke came out of the cabin
of Sr. P.I. Mr. Patil .
1002. Then he told the Ammaldar working under him to
bring two panchas. Meantime, the Ammaldar, who had been
to Versova Police station, came along-with seal and
sealing material from Versova Police station. He
informed the panchas about W.P.No. 2473/06 and Crime
No. 246/09 of Versova Police Station and also asked
them as to whether they were ready to act as panchas.
The panchas gave their consent to act as panchas. He
instructed PSI Mr. Chalke to reduce panchanama into
writing. Then, he, PSI Mr.Chalke and the panchas
entered into the cabin of Sr. P.I. Mr. Patil. He
introduced the panchas to Sr. P.I. Mr.Patil. Then, Sr.
P.I. Mr.Patil told his Ammaldar to bring six rounds of
...1047/-
Exh.1124 1047 (J-SC 317/10)
the revolver belonging to Mr. Pradeep Sharma. As per
instructions of Sr. P.I. Mr Patil the Ammaldar brought
the six rounds and handed over those rounds to Sr. P.I.
Mr.Patil. Then, Sr.P.I. Mr.Patil handed over those
rounds to him. He inspected those rounds. He saw
manufacturing mark at the base of each of the rounds
and also showed those marks to the panchas. Those six
rounds were of 0.38 bore Revolver. Thereafter he handed
over those rounds, one by one, to PSI Mr.Chalke. PSI
Mr.Chalke inspected those rounds and details of those
rounds were mentioned in the panchanama. Those rounds
were-One round was of the year 1996, Two rounds were of
the year 1998 and Three rounds were of the year 2001.
After recording details of the rounds in the
panchanama, PSI Mr.Chalke handed over the rounds to
him.

1003. Then he put those rounds in a plastic bag.
Then he wrapped the said plastic bag containing rounds
in a brown envelop. PSI Mr. Chalke prepared a label
containing description of the rounds. He obtained his
signature and that of the panchas on the label and
handed over the label to me and then he affixed the
label on the brown envelop. He affixed seals on the
envelop. Then the panchanama was concluded. The
panchanama was read over to the panchas, who confirmed
it to be true and correct and then the panchas put
...1048/-
Exh.1124 1048 (J-SC 317/10)
their signatures on the panchanama. He also put
signature on the panchanama. Then the Ammaldar from
Dharavi Police Station was directed to brings some
Xerox Copies of the said panchanama. The Ammaldar
brought the xerox copies. One of the Xerox copies was
handed over to the said Ammaldar at the instructions of
Sr. P.I,. Mr Patil and signature of the said Ammaldar
was obtained on the original panchanama with an
endorsement, + '===|. After panchanama was
concluded, the panchas were discharged.

1004. He recorded statement of Sr. P.I Mr. Patil at
Dharavi Police Station. Then, he, PSI Mr.Chalke and SIT
Ammaldar went to Versova Police Station. He informed
Mr. Chalke to hand over the seized Muddemal in the safe
custody of Muddemal Karkun (===) and make necessary
entries. Accordingly , PSI MR. Chalke handed over the
Muddemal property for safe custody to Muddemal Karkun
and made its entry in Muddemal Register and also in The
Station Diary of Versova Police Station. The Ammaldar
from the SIT deposited the seal and sealing material in
Versova Police Station.
1005. On 23/03/2010, T.I. Parade of accused Manoj
Mohan Raj @ Mannu & Sunil Solanki & Dhabbu was carried
out by following the same procedure as stated before.
Witness Anil Bheda and SMM Mr.Satish Rane met him
...1049/-
Exh.1124 1049 (J-SC 317/10)
outside of the Thane Central Jail. At the instructions
of SMM Mr. Satish Rane, he told the SIT Ammaldar to
bring two panchas. After arrival of panchas, he
introduced the panchas and the witness to the SMM. Then
he, the SMM, the panchas and the witnesses went inside
the Jail through The Main Gate. They reached at
Reception Counter. He handed over the order of Railway
Mobile Court, along-with covering letter of DCP
Mr.Prasanna, for conducting T.I. Parade, to the duty
Jailer. All of them made entries in the relevant
register at Reception Counter. He introduced the SMM,
the panchas and the witness to the duty Jailer. Then
the duty Jailer, the panchas, the SMM and the witness
went inside the Jail through the inner gate. He stayed
at the Reception Counter. After sometime, the SMM, the
panchas, the witness came out of the Jail at the
Reception Counter. Then they made entries in the
Register and came out of the Main Gate of the Thane
Central Prison.
1006. After coming out of the Thane Central Prison,
the SMM handed over to him T.I. Parade Memorandum,
which was kept in an closed envelop. Then the SMM and
the panchas went away. Thereafter, he recorded
statement of witness Anil Bheda outside of the Jail.
Then, he carried the Memorandum to DCP MR. Prasanna at
Zone - IX office and handed it over to him. Anil Bheda
...1050/-
Exh.1124 1050 (J-SC 317/10)
also went away after recording his statement. On
26/03/2010, he and the SIT Ammaldars left for Kolhapur
for the purpose of investigation. Witnesses Anil Bheda
and Aruna Bheda were already informed to come to
Kolhapur on 27
th
March 2010. On 27/03/2010, they took
assistance of Local Police from Kolhapur. They
reached at Royal Plaza Building, Dabholkar Corner,
Kolhapur. At the said spot, witnesses Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda met him. They took him to Hotel Majestic
situated in Royal Plaza Building. After reaching
there, he told the SIT Ammaldar to bring two panchas.
After arrival of the panchas, he informed them in brief
the facts of CR No.246/09. He also informed them the
purpose of recording panchanama. After the panchas gave
their consent to act as panchas, he started recording
panchanama.
1007. He recorded panchanama of Room No.102 & Room
No.103 from the first floor and Room No.116 from the
second floor of Hotel Majestic, in presence of the two
panchas. At the time of recording the said panchanama,
witnesses Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda were present. He
also prepared sketch of all the three rooms. He showed
the sketch to the panchas. He obtained signatures of
the panchas on the said sketch. He put signature on
the sketch. Then, the panchanama was completed and then
he took the printout of the panchanama. He read over
...1051/-
Exh.1124 1051 (J-SC 317/10)
the panchanama to the panchas. The panchas confirmed
the panchanama to be true and correct and then they put
their signatures on the panchanama. He put his
signature on the panchanama. At the said place, he
recorded supplementary statements of Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda. He recorded statement of the manager
Vivek Desawale. Then the witnesses were discharged.
Thereafter they returned to Mumbai on the same day.
1008. On 29/03/2010, he went to Central Telegraph
Office, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai and met Mr.Shaligram
Wankhede, the Sub-Divisional Engineer G-II. He handed
over a letter to Mr.Shaligram Wankhede for furnishing
to the SIT the original Five Telegram Booking FORMS,
which were filled in by complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta
(Cr.No.246/09), on 11/11/2006 from Matunga and Dadar
Telegram office. After receipt of letter Exh.159, Mr.
Shaligram Wankhede handed over to him five original
Telegram Booking Forms along-with a covering letter.
On 20/08/2009, Complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta filed
xerox copies of Exhibits 114 to 118. After handing over
Exhibits 114 to 118 to him, Mr. Shaligram Wankhede
obtained acknowledgment from him for receipt of the
said documents. He recorded statement of Mr. Shaligram
Wankhede. On 30/03/2010, statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of
witness Shankar Dalsingh was recorded by following the
same procedure, as stated before. On 30/03/2010, the
...1052/-
Exh.1124 1052 (J-SC 317/10)
witness had come to the SIT office Powai. From there he
brought the witness to Andheri Court No. 22
nd
,
introduced him to the Court staff and he then left the
Court Hall.
1009. He did not state in his statements dated
02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011 before the SIT that, On
13.04.2010, he and PI Mr. Gaonkar, apprehended Nitin
Sarttape from SB-II Office, Mumbai and took him to
Versova police station and arrested him there. He was
informed the grounds of his arrest and the information
of his arrest was conveyed to his relatives. Entries
of his arrest were made into the Station Diary, Lock-up
Book and Arrest Register. Medical examination of the
accused was carried out. On 21.04.2010, Statement of
witness Mr.Mohandas Sankhe as per provisions of Section
164 Cr.P.C was recorded in Court No.10, Andheri by
following the same procedure as stated above. The
witness met him at the ground floor of the Court
premises. He took him to Court no.10 and introduced
him to the court staff and then he left the court.
During the course of investigation, he collected
information as regards to CDR, SDR, tower locations,
cell IDs in the form of soft copies and hard copies
from the relevant offices of Mobile Service Providers.
The SIT had called information of CDRs and SDRs from
Vodafone Company. On 26.03.2010, the SIT issued a
...1053/-
Exh.1124 1053 (J-SC 317/10)
letter to Vodafone Company for furnishing information
as regards to the tower locations of the cell
IDs. On 29.03.2010, Vodafone Company replied the said
letter. After receipt of information to the SIT vide
reply (detailed addresses of cell ID). The SIT checked
it and found that, different addresses of towers were
mentioned against same cell ID. On analyzing the CDR,
he found that, the location of the user at a particular
time and the location of the same user within a few
minutes were far apart, which was not logically
possible.
1010. He again visited the office of Vodafone
Company on 22.04.2010. He carried the copy of letter
issued by the SIT as well as the reply sent by Vodafone
Company. He met Nodal Officer Mr. Godse. He showed him
the letter and the reply. He verified the letter and
the reply with the information in the computer and told
him that, there were some errors in the information
supplied. Thereafter, he furnished a copy to him of the
cell ID having correct information in it. On 01/06/2010
he recorded supplementary statement of Mr.Godse, from
'Vodafone' Mobile Company. He recorded statement of
Mr.Yogesh Rajapurkar from 'Airtel' Mobile Company. He
also recorded statement of Mr.Rakesh Prajapati from
Loop Mobile Company. On 28/06/2010, test Identification
Parade of accused Devidas Sakpal and accused Mohd.
...1054/-
Exh.1124 1054 (J-SC 317/10)
Shaikh @ Mohd Takka Moiddin Shaikh was conducted by
following the procedure as stated before. He along-with
SIT Ammaldar reached at Aurthur Road Central Prison.
SMM Mr. Satish Rane and witness Anil Bheda met him at
the said prison. At the instructions of SMM Mr. Satish
Rane he told the SIT Ammaldar to bring two panchas.
Thereafter he introduced the witness and the panchas to
SMM Mr. Satish Rane. Then he, the SMM, the panchas and
the witness entered into the Jail through its Main
Gate. There he handed over order of the Railway Mobile
Court in respect of conducting T. I. Parade, along-with
covering letter from the SIT to the duty Jailer. He
introduced the SMM, the panchas and the witness to the
duty Jailer. Thereafter the SMM, the panchas and the
witness entered through the inner door after it was
opened. He stayed at the Reception Counter. After
sometime all of them came out. Then he, the SMM, the
panchas and the witness came out of the Main Gate of
the Jail. The panchas were discharged. The SMM handed
over T.I.P. Memorandum through a closed envelop to him.
Then SMM went out. Then he recorded supplementary
statement of Anil Bheda outside of the Jail. Then the
witness was discharged. Then he carried the envelop
containing Memorandum to DCP MR. Prasanna at Zone IX
office. On 01/07/2010 he handed over Qualies Vehicle
Bearing No. MH-04-AW-88242 Mr. Mrugesh Negandhi in
pursuance to the order of the Sessions Court , on his
...1055/-
Exh.1124 1055 (J-SC 317/10)
executing Indemnity Bond. The said vehicle was seized
by the SIT as it was revealed during investigation that
on 11/11/2006 deceased Lakhan Bhayya and witness Anil
Bheda were abducted through this vehicle . The entry of
handing over the vehicle to the owner was made in the
Station Diary and in IPC Muddemal Register.
1011. On 06/09/2010, the proclamation against wanted
accused Mr. Arvind Sarvankar was executed. The
proclamation was earlier promulgated by Railway Mobile
Court Andheri. On 06/09/2010 as per the orders of DCP
Mr.Prasanna, he, PSI Mr.Chalke and SIT Ammaldar left
the SIT office for execution of said proclamation. They
went to Kandiwali Police Station. They met duty officer
in the cabin of the S.H.O. They told the duty officer
to make arrangement of two panchas, upon which the duty
officer ordered his Ammaldar to bring two panchas. The
Ammaldar brought two panchas. He stated in brief the
facts of CR.No. 246/09 to the panchas and also asked
them as to whether they were ready to act as panchas.
The panchas gave their consent. Then he told PSI
Mr.Chalke to record the panchanama. He showed original
proclamation issued by the Court, to the panchas. He
read over and explained, the contents in the
proclamation to the panchas.

1012. Then, he, PSI Mr.Chalke, SIT Ammaldar, the
...1056/-
Exh.1124 1056 (J-SC 317/10)
Ammaldar from Kandiwali Police station and the panchas
went to Room No.10, in type-III Building, situated
within the compound of Kandiwali Police Station. He
rang the door bell of room No. 10 . One woman opened
the door from inside the room. On inquiry she told her
name to be Mrs. Anushree Sarvankar, who was the wife of
Mr. Arvind Sarvankar. He informed her about the
proclamation. As per her demand a copy of the
proclamation was shown to her. She read it and returned
it to him. Thereafter, he instructed the SIT Ammaldar
to affix a True Copy of the proclamation on the Wall
between room nos.9 and 10. The True copy of the
proclamation was affixed on the wall between Room No.9
& 10. Then, he, instructed PSI Mr.Chalke to enter the
said fact in the panchanama. PSI Mr.Chalke recorded
this fact in the panchanama.
1013. From there they came to ground floor. A True
copy of the proclamation was affixed by the Ammaldar on
left wall near staircase at the entrance of the
building. He, PSI Mr.Chalke SIT Ammaldar and two
panchas were present at that time. At his instructions
PSI Mr.Chalke recorded this fact in the panchanama.
Then they reached near the Main Gate of the compound of
Kandiwali Police Station. The SIT Ammaldar affixed a
True Copy of the proclamation on left side wall at
entrance of Main Gate of the compound of Kandiwali
...1057/-
Exh.1124 1057 (J-SC 317/10)
Police Station. At his instructions PSI Mr. Chalke
recorded this fact in the panchanama. From there they
went to Kamla Nehru Road Police Chowki Beat No.-I. He
instructed the SIT Ammaldar to make a public
announcement of the proclamation. The SIT Ammaldar
loudly read over in Hindi and Marathi, contents from
the Proclamation. At his instructions the SIT Ammaldar
affixed a True Copy of Proclamation on the visible
portion of outer wall of the Chowki of Beat No.-I. At
his instructions PSI Mr. Chalke recorded this fact in
the panchanama. From there they all went to Ticket
Booking Center at Kandiwali(W) Railway Station. The SIT
Ammaldar loudly read over in Hindi & Marathi, contents
from the Proclamation to people gathered there. Then at
his instructions the SIT Ammaldar affixed a True copy
of the proclamation at conspicuous part of wall near
the Ticket Booking Center. At his instructions PSI Mr.
Chalke recorded this fact in the panchanama. At this
place the panchanama was concluded. The panchanama was
read over to the panchas. The panchas confirmed the
contents to be true and correct and then they put their
signatures on the panchanama. He also put signatures on
the panchanama.
1014. Then the panchas were discharged. Then he
instructed the SIT Ammaldar to affix a True Copy of the
proclamation in Andheri Court and then to return to
...1058/-
Exh.1124 1058 (J-SC 317/10)
Versova Police Station. He and PSI Mr.Chalke went to
Versova Police Station. At his instructions PSI
Mr.Chalke made an entry in the Station Diary in respect
of execution of the proclamation. On 08/09/2010
statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Mr. Anil More was
recorded by following the procedure as stated before.
The witness was called at Bandra Court No.58
th
. He
introduced him to the Court staff and then he left the
court. On 16/09/2010 statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of
witness Mr.Mahendra Tatkare was recorded by following
the procedure as stated before. The witness was called
at Bandra Court No.58
th
. He introduced him to the Court
staff and then he left the court. On 18/09/2010
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of witness Mr.Umesh Rewandkar
was recorded by following the procedure as stated
before. The witness was called at Bandra Court No.58
th
.
He introduced him to the Court staff and then he left
the court.
1015. Complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta had handed over
a C.D. and Invoice of Isha News Monitoring Services,
Pvt. Ltd., of the News which was relayed on Sahara,
Mumbai on 12/11/2006. On 25/09/2010 he took the said
C.D. and invoice to the office of Isha News Monitoring
Services Pvt. Ltd., at Chembur. He met Administrative
Director Smt. Jyoti Babar and showed her the said C.D.
and the Invoice. He recorded her statement. On
...1059/-
Exh.1124 1059 (J-SC 317/10)
28/9/2010 he, along-with the orders of the Sessions
Court passed in respect of taking specimen signatures
and handwriting of accused Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu who
was in Thane Central Prison, went to Thane Central
Prison. He entered through the Main Gate of the prison
and went to the Reception Counter. He met the duty
Jailer and showed the orders of the Sessions Court and
Letter from the SIT to him. Then the duty Jailer took
him to Sr. Jailer Raisingh Chavan. He handed over the
letter and the order to Sr. Jailer Mr. Raisingh Chavan.
Then, the Sr. Jailer ordered his Ammaldar to bring
Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu. Then Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu
came there. Then he showed him order of the Court. He
told him to give his specimen signatures and
handwriting. Then, Hitesh Solanki @ Dhabbu told him
that he could not write. He could not write even
Gujarati language, saying this he refused to give
specimen signatures and handwriting. Then he took him
before Sr. Jailer Mr. Raisingh Chavan. Again he told
him to give his specimen signatures and handwriting.
Again he told him that, he could not write. He could
not write even Gujarati language. Saying this he
refused to give specimen signatures and handwriting. At
the say of Sr. Jailer Mr. Raisingh Chavan he made an
endorsement in Marathi on the letter issued by the SIT
to the Sr. Jailer. The remark was,.=| 'r+ ===|
= -+ = = '='r+ + =r| == = += += = + =+| r| '='r+ + =r| == =+= r- -
...1060/-
Exh.1124 1060 (J-SC 317/10)
--| === = == '= . The Sr. Jailer put signature and
stamp below the endorsement.
1016. Thereafter he came out of the Jail. Then he
rang to duty officer of Versova Police station and
instructed him to make a detail entry in the Station
Diary as regards to the above stated facts. He
furnished details to the duty officer. On 29/09/2010 he
went to Versova Police Station. He called the Diary
entry dtd. 28/09/2010 which was entered as per his
instructions by the duty officer and confirmed it to be
true and correct. On 29/09/2010 he PSI Mr. Chalke, the
SIT Ammaldar went to Versova Police station for
execution of Proclamation promulgated by Railway Mobile
Court Andheri, against wanted accused Sandeep Hemraj
Sardar. At his instructions the SIT Ammaldar brought
two panchas. He told the panchas in brief the facts of
cr. No. 246/09 and also asked them as to whether they
were ready to act as panchas at the time of execution
of the proclamation. The panchas gave consent to act as
the panchas. Thereafter, he told PSI Mr. Chalke to
write down the panchanama. Then he showed to the
panchas the original proclamation and also read over
and explained to them, the contents therein. From there
he, PSI Mr. Chalke, the SIT Ammaldar and two panchas,
went through a vehicle to Seven Bungalows, Aram Nagar,
Police Quarters, Versova. They reached at Room No.131
...1061/-
Exh.1124 1061 (J-SC 317/10)
in building no.4. He rang the door bell. One old woman
opened door from inside. The old woman was Jijabai
Sardar, the mother of Sandeep Sardar. He told her about
the proclamation and read over and explained the
contents to Jijabai Sardar. Then the SIT Ammaldar at
his instructions, affixed a True Copy of the
proclamation on wall between Room No. 131 and Room No.
132. At his instructions, PSI Mr.Chalke recorded this
fact in the panchanama.
1017. From there, by the staircase, they came down
to ground floor. At his instructions the SIT Ammaldar
affixed a True Copy of the proclamation on left side
wall, near staircase, at the entrance. At his
instructions PSI Mr.Chalke recorded this fact in the
panchanama. From there he, PSI Mr.Chalke, SIT Ammaldar
and two panchas, went to Seven Bungalow, Police Chowki
Beat No.I. At his instructions the SIT Ammaldar made
announcement of the proclamation to public. The SIT
Ammaldar read over and explained the contents in Hindi
& Marathi loudly to the public gathered there. At his
instructions the SIT Ammaldar affixed a true copy of
the proclamation at outer wall of the said Chowki. At
his instructions PSI Mr. Chalke recorded this fact in
the panchanama. From there they went to Nana-Nani Park
and reached near main entrance of Nana-Nani Park. At
his instructions the SIT Ammaldar made announcement of
...1062/-
Exh.1124 1062 (J-SC 317/10)
the proclamation to the public. The SIT Ammaldar read
over and explained contents in Hindi and Marathi loudly
to public gathered there. At his instructions the SIT
Ammaldar affixed a True Copy of the proclamation at
staircase wall at main entrance of Nana-Nani Park. At
his instructions PSI Mr.Chalke recorded this fact in
the panchanama. Distance between Seven Bungalow and the
Northern end of Nana-Nani Park on J.P. Road was 70-75
meters. From there they went to Versova Police Station.
At his instructions the SIT Ammaldar affixed a True
copy of the proclamation on wall at main entrance of
Versova Police Station Compound. At his instructions
PSI Mr.Chalke recorded this fact in panchanama . The
panchanama was read over to the panchas . The panchas
confirmed the contents in panchanama to be true and
correct and then they put their signatures on the
panchanama. He also put signatures on the panchanama.
Then, the panchas were discharged. He, PSI Mr.Chalke,
the SIT Ammaldar went to Versova Police Station. At his
instructions PSI Mr.Chalke made entry in the Station
Diary. On 06/11/2010 he recorded additional statement
of Mr.Bipin Bihari, then Additional C.P. West Region,
in the year 2006. On 11/11/2010, he prepared a letter
addressed to Sub- Divisional Engineer (FETEX) Ghatkopar
Telephone Exchange, Ghatkopar(W) with a request to
furnish information regarding subscriber detail of PCO
Land Line number of subscriber by name Ramji Nanji
...1063/-
Exh.1124 1063 (J-SC 317/10)
Sangoi. He obtained signature of DCP Mr. Prasanna on it
and sent the said letter through SIT Ammaldar. On
12/11/2010 they received the reply furnishing required
information.

1018. On 18/11/2010 he and the SIT apprehended
accused Suresh Shetty from Mira Road, Thane. He was
brought to Versova Police Station. He was arrested at
Versova Police Station in this crime. He was informed
the grounds of his arrest and also the information of
his arrest was conveyed to his relatives. Its entry was
taken in the Lock-up Book, Arrest Register and in the
Station Diary. Medical examination of this accused was
carried out. On 19/11/2010 and and P.I. Mr.Gaonkar
apprehended accused no.22 Arvind Sarvankar from near
Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (W). They brought him to Versova
Police Station. He was brought to Versova Police
Station. He was arrested at Versova Police Station in
this crime. He was informed the grounds of his arrest
and also the information of his arrest was conveyed to
his relatives. Its entry was taken in the Lock-up Book,
Arrest Register and in the Station Diary. Medical
examination of this accused was carried out. On
12/03/2011 witness Anil Bheda called him and P.I. Mr.
Gaonkar therefore, he and P.I. Mr.Gaonkar went to
Nahur, Mulund. They met Anil Bheda. Meantime again
there was a call from unknown person on the mobile of
...1064/-
Exh.1124 1064 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil Bheda. At their instructions, Anil Bheda did the
speaker on and started talking to the unknown person.
He, P.I.Mr.Gaonkar, PSI Mr.Chalke and the SIT staff
personally heard the conversation from the mobile
between Anil Bheda and the said unknown person. After
sometime again the unknown person called Anil Bheda on
his mobile. Again at our instructions Anil Bheda did
the speaker on and started talking to the unknown
person. He, P.I. Mr.Gaonkar, PSI Mr.Chalke and the SIT
staff personally heard the conversation mobile from
between Anil Bheda and the said unknown person. He did
not state in his statements dated 02/02/2010 &
22/03/2011 before the SIT that,The conversions in the
last two sound clips that I along-with P.I. Mr.
Gaonkar, PSI Mr. Chalke and the SIT staff heard were as
follows :-
1019. Considering the total conversions between Anil
Bheda and the unknown person it was revealed that the
movements of the witness were being tracked or were
under surveillance.
The unknown person said ,
+= ==:|= = == = :+= = = .
= -=|= = =+ + r , += ++ = = .
Anil Bheda said,
-=|= = =+
The unknown person gave him a Mobile Number
...1065/-
Exh.1124 1065 (J-SC 317/10)
beginning with 9892...
Anil Bheda asked ,
+ == += -=|= =+ = .
The unknown person said,
==+= t
Anil Bheda asked ,
== = + +=
The unknown person said ,
+= == + -r == += = == =t:=: == == '==
Anil Bheda said ,
= = == += + == = =+ = == +== -+ +
The unknown person said
=+ =r|
Anil Bheda asked ,
= = == r= +
The unknown person said ,
+-r == += = += =| +-= == r =
=t:=: == '== = .
The unknown person again said,
+= '= = '= , +|= '= = '= =- = '=== ==
Anil Bheda said ,
=+ r , ==|= =-=| =+| r , ==| =r| r
The Unknown person said,
t+== =-+ r
...1066/-
Exh.1124 1066 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil Bheda said ,
r=|r| +r+ == = = == = == ++= + r
The Unknown person said,
'=== '= r , += ==
The unknown person said,
+= == '= = '= +|+| += = == '=== == The unknown
person said,
+= =|= : r== '=== , = == = == += .
=|+ + + = =r| +
The unknown person said,
+-r = -+ r
= + ==:| = = =- =r| + = |= = = ==
Anil Bheda said,
== =|= , == =|=
Thereafter some other new person talked to
Anil Bheda on the said Mobile.
t =+ = +|= '= = '= r= '=== ==
+= -=|= =+ = == = == == '==
== == ++= +-r == '=== '=== = '=
=+ = = '== r+ r +
==|= +| '= =t r
+= r= '=== ==
Anil Bheda said,
== '=== =+ r
The other person said,
...1067/-
Exh.1124 1067 (J-SC 317/10)
=| = =| += == '=== ==
Anil Bheda said,
r '=== =+ r
1020. The witness did not state in his statements
dated 02/02/2010 & 22/03/2011 before the SIT that,On
22/03/2011 at the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna, he
Prepared three C.D.'s of those sound clips from my Lap-
Top. The C'D's were correctly copied and he confirmed
the sound clips by tallying with that in the C.D's.
Those were correct. The said crime was registered in
Vashi Police Station as regards to abduction of Anil
Bheda as on 13/03/2011. It was registered u/s.363 IPC.
One case of murder of unknown person was registered in
Manor Police Station. Both these cases were amalgamated
and the investigation was handed over to state CID.
1021. He did not state in his statements dated
02/02/2010 and 22/03/2011 before the SIT that, On
28/06/2011 he recorded statement of Sr.Jailer,
Mr.Raisingh Chavan of Thane Central Prison. On
01/07/2011 he recorded statement of Smt. Asthatumana
Aarya from Telephone Exchange Sub-Divisional Engineer
(FETEX), Ghatkopar in relation to the letter dtd.
11/11/2006 issued by the SIT and the reply dtd.
12/11/2010 given by her to the SIT. He recorded
statement of Asthatumana Aarya after showing her
...1068/-
Exh.1124 1068 (J-SC 317/10)
letters Exh.269 & Exh.270. On 26/08/2011, he carried a
letter from SIT to The Chief Telegram Officer
Prabhadevi Telegram Office, Prabhadevi Telephone
Exchange. The SIT required the information in respect
as to who issued the receipts dated 11/11/2006 vide
which complainant Ramprasad Gupta sent three Telegrams
from Matunga Telegraph office and two Telegrams from
Dadar Telegraph Office. The said office replied the
letter of the SIT and furnished requisite information
along-with, True Copies (='+ =+) of Telegram Masters
Diary of Matunga and Dadar Telegram offices. They
obtained his acknowledgment. He recorded statement of
Vasudev Chindhoji Channe. On 27/08/2011 he recorded
statement of Arjun Satam who retired as Telegram Asst.
from Dadar Telegram Office. He showed him the Telegram
receipts dtd. 11/11/2006 from Dadar Telegram Office of
the Telegrams sent by the Complainant on 11/11/2006. He
also showed him Xerox of Telegram Masters Diary.
(T.M.D.). On 02/09/2011 he went to the C.P. Office
Mumbai. He visited Ravindra Kulkarni who happened to be
the P.A. of the then C.P. Mumbai in November 2006. He
showed him a Photo Copy of Telegram dtd. 11/11/2006
addressed to the then C.P. Mumabi. He recorded his
statement. The telegram was seized from Vashi Police
Station by the SIT. On 03/09/2011 he issued a letter to
ACP Control Room New Mumbai, with a requisition to
furnish photo copy of the Fax Register and the action
...1069/-
Exh.1124 1069 (J-SC 317/10)
taken in pursuance to the Fax in Station Diary about
the Fax sent by Aruna Bheda on 11/11/2006.
1022. On 14/09/2011 The ACP Control New Mumbai sent
a reply to the said letter. He also furnished photocopy
of Fax Message Register and that of Station Diary
entry. On 07/09/2011, he sent a letter to Deputy R.T.O.
APMC Market, Vashi Navi Mumbai calling information of
the ownership of Toyota Qualies MH-04AW8824 as on
11/11/2006, the details of the vehicle and the transfer
of the vehicle after 11/11/2006 and as to who was the
present owner as on 07/09/2011. The witness further
deposed that, the particulars of the vehicle were
called for as it was revealed during the investigation
that the said vehicle was used for abduction of witness
Anil Bheda and deceased Ramnarayan Gupta@ Lakhan
Bhayya. On 01/11/2011 SIT received the reply from
Deputy R.T.O. Navi Mumbai. On 13/10/2011 he recorded
statement of Rajesh Gaikwad, the Nodal Office from
Reliance Tele-communications Ltd. On 15/10/2011 he
recorded supplementary statement of Nodal Office Yogesh
Rajapurkar of Airtel Mobile Company. On 18/10/2011 he
recorded statement of Nodal Office Mr.Shekhar Palande
of TATA Tele Services'. On 02/11/2011 he seized the
office order dtd. 21/08/2006 of accused no. 13 Dividas
Sakpal from D.N. Nagar Police Station, stating that he
would work under Mr.Pradeep Sharma and Mr.Pradeep
...1070/-
Exh.1124 1070 (J-SC 317/10)
Suryawanshi. On 14/11/2011 he recorded supplementary
statement of Mr.Changdeo Godse from Vodafone Mobile
Company. On 15/11/2011, he recorded supplementary
statement of Mr.Rakesh Chandra Prajapati from Loop
Mobile Company. He did the correspondence with Nodal
Officer. He prepared the said letters. DCP Mr.Prasanna
put his signatures on the said letters prepared by him.
All above letters were addressed to Vodafone Company'.
He prepared all letters which were addressed to 'Loop
Mobile Company'. All these letters bore signatures of
DCP Mr.Prasanna. He could identify his signature. He
prepared letter Exh.536. It bore signature of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. He could identify his signature. Its
contents were true and correct. The witness was shown
letters Exh.534, Exh.538, Exh.542, Exh.545, Exh.547,
Exh.549, Exh.551, Exh.553, Exh.555, Exh.557, Exh.559,
Exh.561, Exh.563, Exh.544 and letters Exh.544 & Exh.
542. Exh.544 was the reminder of letter Exh.542. He
sent these two E-mails. These were sent in the name of
DCP Mr.Prasanna to 'Loop Mobile Company'. All
correspondence to 'Bharati Tele-venture Ltd' was done
by him. He did the correspondence with 'Reliance
Communication Ltd'. He prepared the contents in letter
Exh.680. These were true and correct. It bore signature
of DCP Mr.Prasanna. He could identify his signature. He
did correspondence with TATA Tele Services Ltd'. The
witness denied that, the SIT has falsely implicated
...1071/-
Exh.1124 1071 (J-SC 317/10)
accused no. 9 in this case.
1023. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not know exact numbers and
descriptions of papers as to how many panchanamas,
statements etc., were in the documents of CR No. 302/06
of Versova Police Station that the SIT collected from
the Hon'ble High Court. He did not remember as to
whether he had gone through the said documents. The
witness admitted that, before proposing that a witness
was to give statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. the witness must
give consent. The police would not propose his name for
recording statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. to the authority
concerned till the witness gave his consent. He did not
know whether the date of recording statement u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. was having importance related to the first time
at which the witness showed his willingness for
recording his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The date on
which the witness gave consent for recording his
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. was mentioned in the letter
addressed to the Magistrate. They made applications to
the Magistrate concerned for recording statements of
witnesses u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and its record was with the
SIT. Only after perusal of the Charge-Sheet, he could
tell about the letters sent to the Magistrate. He could
not tell the exact number of witnesses that he took to
the Court for recording statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. He
...1072/-
Exh.1124 1072 (J-SC 317/10)
arrested accused nos.3,4 & 5 by the orders of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. He completed the formalities at the time
of arrests of these accused. DCP Mr.Prasanna also
arrived at Versova Police Station while the formalities
of the arrests of these accused were being completed.
Other officers and staff of the SIT and he were present
at the time of arrests of these accused. He did not
remember names of relatives of accused nos.3,4 & 5, who
were informed of the arrests of these accused. Separate
arrest panchanamas of these accused were prepared.
These separate arrest panchanamas were not part of the
Charge-Sheet. He did not file said panchanamas with the
Charge-Sheet as there was no issue about it and it was
a procedural part. He did not remember name of the
hospital in which Medical Examinations of accused nos.
3,4 & 5 were carried out and that, name of the officer
who took these accused persons to the hospital for
their Medical Examination.
1024. The witness further deposed that, he and the
SIT had gone through all documents in the Charge-Sheet
before filing the Charge-Sheet in the Court. He could
not tell whether Cooper Hospital was the nearest
hospital to Versova Police Station. He might have
visited Versova Police Station on hundred occasions in
connection with this case. He might not have visited
Versova Police Station on 100 occasions in connection
...1073/-
Exh.1124 1073 (J-SC 317/10)
with this case. He ordered the SIT Ammaldar to call
only two panchas at the instructions of the SMM. He
visited Thane Jail for T.I. Parade on three occasions.
On all these three occasions each only two panchas were
called at Thane Central Prison. The SMM accepted them
to act as panchas on all the three occasions.
1025. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, when order of the Hon'ble High Court
as regards to forming the SIT was passed he was not
reader of Mr.Prasanna. Till 18/08/2009 he did not know
that the SIT was formed. On 18/08/2009 he reported to
DCP Mr.Prasanna at Zone-I office. Approximately the
office at Powai was alloted to SIT on 19/08/2009. PSI
Mr. Chalke reported to DCP Mr. Prasanna at Zone-I
office after sometime of his joining on 18/08/2009. DCP
Mr. Prasanna had shown him the order of the Hon'ble
High Court. He did not remember whether on 18/08/2009
and 19/08/2009 DCP Mr. Prasanna informed him as regards
to the mode and manner of investigation of the SIT. On
19/08/2009 the SIT took possession of the office at
Powai. On 18/08/2009 and 19/08/2009 DCP Mr.Prasanna did
not tell him to contact Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. On
18/08/2009 and 19/08/2009 he did not see Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta. DCP Mr. Prasanna had called Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
to Versova Police Station but the witness did not know
as to when did he communicate to Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He
...1074/-
Exh.1124 1074 (J-SC 317/10)
did not know how did he communicate to Mr. Ramprasad
Gupta.
1026. The witness further deposed that, Powai Police
Station was situated at the ground floor and at the
first floor. Powai Police Station was a full fledged
police station therefore, it had a Station Diary and a
Seal. The SIT did not make any entry in the Station
Diary of Powai Police Station. He did not remember as
to whether the SIT made any entry in the Station Diary
of Powai Police Station. Entry to the effect of use of
the Lockup of the Powai Police Station by the SIT was
made in the Station Diary of Powai Police Station.
Except this, no other entry was made in the Station
Diary of Powai Police Station. Seal of Powai Police
Station was never used by the SIT. The SIT had not
produced before the Court the entry in the Station
Diary as regards to use of the Lockup of Powai Police
Station. The SIT had made the entries in the progress
report submitted to the Hon'ble High Court. Some
important entries as regards to arrest of accused and
seizer of Articles and as regards to search of the
house of absconding accused were made in Versova Police
Station.
1027. The witness further deposed that, the reports
submitted to the Hon'ble High Court were not the
...1075/-
Exh.1124 1075 (J-SC 317/10)
contemporary record of the movements of the SIT
officers and that it was prepared later on. DCP Mr.
Prasanna would decide as to which entry was to be made
and which entry was not to be made. Entry as regards
to their visit to Versova Police Station on 20/08/2009
was not made in the Station Diary of Versova Police
Station. The SIT did not seize Station Diary dated
20/08/2009 of Versova Police Station, during the course
of investigation. Statements of officers from Versova
Police Station had not been recorded as regards to
Station Diary entry dated 20/08/2009. The witness
denied that, whenever the accused kept in Lockups at
Santacruz, Andheri and Bandra were brought to the SIT
office for inquiry/ investigation, they were kept in
the Lockup of Powai Police Station. The SIT had not
seized copies of the entries in Lockup Register from
Powai Police Station and from any other police Station.
A Memo-| was given to the Police Station concerned for
taking out the accused from the Lockup and its copy was
kept with the SIT. The SIT had not produced any such
copies before the Court. The SIT had used seal of
Versova Police Station only. He personally did not make
entry in the Station Diary regarding movement of the
seal from Versova Police Station. The witness on his
own deposed that, the SIT Ammaldar, who brought the
seal, was instructed to make entries in the Station
Diary and he made entries in the Station Diary.
...1076/-
Exh.1124 1076 (J-SC 317/10)
Statement of the said Ammaldar, who brought the seal
and who made the entries, was not recorded by the SIT.
He had not personally seen the said entries. The SIT
had taken the extracts of the said entries but those
were not produced before the Court. The SIT issued
letters for taking seal from Versova Police Station.
Copies of the said letters were not produced before the
Court. He had not taken entry in any Station Diary in
respect of his visit to Majestic Hotel, Kolhapur, on
26/09/2009 & 27/03/2010. Shahupuri Police Station was
situated at a distance of five minutes from Hotel
Majestic. He made entry in Station Diary of Shahupuri
Police Station. The said Station Diary was not produced
before the Court. He did not record statement of any
officer from Shahupuri Police Station. On 26/09/2009,
Anil Bheda did not accompany him to Kolhapur. On
27/03/2010, Anil Bheda accompanied him to Kolhapur. On
26/09/2009 he did not take Anil Bheda with him to
Kolhapur at the say of DCP Mr. Prasanna. On 26/09/2009,
he did not feel it necessary to take Anil Bheda with
him to Kolhapur so that he might point out the rooms
and the hotel where he stayed. On 26/09/2009 he did not
feel it necessary to confront Anil Bheda, his wife and
children to the witnesses from hotel Majestic. On
26/09/2009 & 27/03/2010, he recorded two statements of
the same person i.e. Manger of Mr. Vivek Desawale.
There were receptionists and waiters in the said hotel.
...1077/-
Exh.1124 1077 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not see whether there were security persons in
the hotel. No person working during 2006 in the said
hotel met him. He made inquiry with Mr. Desawale in
respect of the staff working in the year 2006. He did
not issue any letter to Mr.Desawale, calling
information about the staff working during 2006. The
witness on his own deposed that, he made oral inquiry
with Mr. Desawale. Mr. Desawale called his staff when
the witness recorded his statement. The receptionist
was not present. He did not remember whether name of
the receptionist was Pravin Prabhakar Teli, Hindu, Age-
28 years. On 26/09/2009 he recorded statement of Vivek
Vithalrao Desawale. He mentioned name of the person
who was called by Mr.Vivek Vithalrao Desawale. He
asked Vivek Desawale to produce passenger Register
since 12/11/2006 till for a period of next seven days.
He asked Mr. Desawale as to whether entry of name of
Anil Bheda was there in the Register of the hotel. The
witness referred the statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of Mr.
Vivek Desawale. Mr.Vivek Desawale called Mr. Pravin
Prabhakar Teli while the witness recorded statement of
Mr. Vivek Desawale. He made the same inquiry with
Pravin Prabhakar Teli that he made with Mr.Vivek
Desawale. The said inquiry with them was as to whether
Anil Bheda stayed in the said hotel Majestic. He did
not get any information from those two persons as to
whether Anil Bheda stayed in hotel Majestic or not.
...1078/-
Exh.1124 1078 (J-SC 317/10)
1028. The witness further deposed that, accused no.5
was arrested on 08/01/2010 i.e. prior to his second
visit to hotel Majestic on 27/03/2010. Mr.Vivek
Desawale did not give description of accused no.5 in
his statements dated 26/09/2009 and 27/03/2010. On his
both visits to Hotel Majestic, he did not come across
any person who had seen accused no.5 in hotel Majestic.
He did not call Manager Vivek Desawale for T.I. Parade.
The witness on his own deposed that, Vivek Desawale was
not serving in Hotel Majestic in 2006. He also did not
come across any witness who could have identified Anil
Bheda, Aruna Bheda and their son Parth. The witness on
his own deposed that, there was no witness available
from the year 2006. The entry as stating that he did
not come across any witness from 2006 who could have
identified Anil Bheda, Aruna Bheda and their son Parth
was taken in the progress report submitted to the
Hon'ble High Court and besides this the said entry did
not reflect in any other record. The witness again
deposed that, the said entry was not taken even in the
progress report submitted to the Hon'ble High Court.
1029. The witness further deposed that, on
26/09/2009 when he visited Hotel Majestic, he did not
come to know as to in which room of Hotel Majestic did
Anil Bheda and his wife stay. On 26/03/2009 nothing was
...1079/-
Exh.1124 1079 (J-SC 317/10)
revealed during investigation as to whether Anil Bheda
and his wife stayed in Hotel Majestic. He did not
visit Court at Battis-Shirala and did not see any
record of the Court in respect of Anil Bheda attending
the said Court during his stay at Kolhapur. When he
visited Kolhapur on two occasions, he knew that Anil
Bheda visited Battis-Shirala during his stay at
Kolhapur. DCP Mr.Prasanna did not give directions to
him therefore he did not go to Battis-Shirala to
collect record of attendance of Anil Bheda. He
personally felt that it was necessary. Whatever
investigation he carried out was carried out only after
asking permission of DCP Mr. Prasanna. He did not
remember as to whether he told Anil Bheda and Aruna
Bheda to show him the Telephone Booth from where they
used to call their family members and relatives. He
again deposed that, he did not tell Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda to show him the Telephone Booth from where
they used to call their family members and relatives.
The witness denied that, the SIT did not make inquiry
with the officers from Vashi Police Stations as to
whether they had seen Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda. He
did not record statements of the officers/ staff from
Vashi police station as no useful information was
revealed. Except his bare verbatim, there was no other
proof to show that, he made inquiry with the officers/
staff from Vashi police station. He made inquiry with
...1080/-
Exh.1124 1080 (J-SC 317/10)
Konduskar Travels regarding traveling of Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda. He did not record statements of any one
from Konduskar Travels, as no useful information was
revealed. Except his bare verbatim, there was no other
record to show that, he made inquiry with Konduskar
Travels. He did not submit written report to DCP Mr.
Prasanna in respect of inquiry made with Konduskar
Travels and officers/ staff from Vashi police station.
The witness on his own deposed that, he made oral
report. He did not make any entry anywhere in respect
of the oral report. He had not seen any entry made by
DCP Mr. Prasanna.
1030. The witness further deposed that, no entry was
made in respect of witness showing his willingness for
recording his statement u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C. He could
not tell the date on which a particular witness showed
his willingness for recording his statement u/s.164 of
Cr.P.C. The SIT did not issue letter or maintain any
record as regards to the communication of date of
recording his statement before the Magistrate. He or
Mr.Chalke or a constable from the SIT would go to the
Court to introduce the witness to the staff of the
Court. The SIT received copy of statement u/s.164 on
the date on which the statement was recorded. DCP
Mr.Prasanna decided names of the witnesses of whose
statements u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C were to be recorded. The
...1081/-
Exh.1124 1081 (J-SC 317/10)
witness on his own deposed that, Nodal Officers,
Medical Officer, Experts, related to the telegrams were
exempted from recorded statements u/s.164 of the
Cr.P.C. There was no record that witnesses had shown
their willingness for recording statements u/s.164 of
Cr.P.C and that, he communicated that to DCP
Mr.Prasanna.
1031. The witness further deposed that, he did not
go to Hotel Mid-Town to make inquiry. PI Mr.Gaonkar and
PSI Mr.Chalke went to Hotel Mid-Town to make inquiry.
He did not know whether witnesses from the year 2006
from Hotel Mid-Town were available to them or not.
After showing para 59 of Examination in chief, the
witness deposed that, on 19.3.2010, he along with the
SIT visited Hotel Mid-Town. He did not make inquiry in
respect of witnesses of 2006 from Hotel Mid-Town. He
did not know whether other officers from the SIT made
such inquiry or not. He did not ask members of the SIT,
during the course of investigation, as to whether they
came across any witness of the year 2006 from Hotel
Mid-Town. He personally did not feel it necessary to
make inquiry of the witnesses of the year 2006 from
Hotel Mid-Town, as the other officers from the SIT were
making the said inquiry. The DCP did not restrain him
him from making the said inquiry. The DCP also did not
tell him to make inquiry. On being asked, did he not
...1082/-
Exh.1124 1082 (J-SC 317/10)
feel it necessary to make inquiry with other SIT
officers as to whether they made inquiry of the
witnesses of the year 2006 from Hotel Mid town, the
witness answered that, he might have discussed with
them but he did not remember. The witness further
deposed that, he went to Hotel Mid-Town only for the
purpose of making sketches on 19.3.2010. Except that,
he did not visit the said hotel for any other purpose
during the course of investigation. The owner or the
employee from Hotel Mid-Town did not meet him during
the course of investigation except that on 19.3.2010.
1032. The witness further deposed that, Bhoiwada
police station was situated at a distance of 2 to 3
minutes from Naigaon Armory. The SIT did not take seal
from Bhoiwada police station, as the seal from Versova
was taken. When he visited Naigaon Armory, he knew
that, PI Mr. Gaonkar had to record panchanama. He knew
that, a panchanama was to be recorded at Naigaon
Armory. There was no discussion between him and Mr.
Gaonkar as regards to taking panchas along with them to
Naigaon Armory. The witness denied that, initially the
seal came from Versova police station to the SIT office
and then, it was taken to Naigaon Armory. The purpose
behind using the seal was to send the muddemal articles
to the C.A in a sealed condition. The SIT did not send
the muddemal articles to the C.A on the same date as
...1083/-
Exh.1124 1083 (J-SC 317/10)
one more weapon was to be seized. The weapon that was
to be seized was of accused No.1. It was the decision
of DCP Mr.Prasanna to deposit the said muddemal in
Versova police station. The witness did not go along
with letter of DCP Mr.Prasanna to Versova police
station to take the muddemal for sending the same to
the C.A. The witness denied that, he had not seen the
said muddemal after it was seized under panchanama. The
witness on his own deposed that, he saw the said
muddemal when he went to receive the muddemal from FSL
on 02.02.2010.
1033. The witness further deposed that, DCP
Mr.Prasanna had told him as to which weapons were to be
taken charge of from Armoury. Accordingly, DCP
Mr.Prasanna handed over an authority letter to PI
Mr.Gaonkar to receive the weapons from Armoury. There
was a mention in the letter as to which weapons were to
be taken charge of. The witness was shown letters Exhs.
493 and 494. These letters were dated 12.11.2009 and
24.11.2009, which were sent 15 days or a month prior to
visit of the SIT to the Armory. The witnss was shown
letter Exh.495. The said letter was dated 04.12.2009
which was sent to Armoury prior to visit of the SIT to
the Armory. The witness was shown letter dated
09.12.2009 at Exh.496. On 10.12.2009, the SIT made
demand of the revolver mentioned in Exh.495. On
...1084/-
Exh.1124 1084 (J-SC 317/10)
10.12.2009, the said revolver was not seized under
panchanama. The witness on his own deposed that, the
said revolver was not available, therefore it was not
seized under panchanama. On 10.12.2009, statements of
witnesses from Armory were not recorded. The Armory
did not submit any report in writing stating that the
revolver was not available with them. The witness on
his own deposed that, it was informed orally. No entry
was recorded as regards to the oral information given
by the Armoury.
1034. The witness further deposed that, on
22.03.2010, he visited Dharavi police station for the
first time after he joined the SIT on 18.08.2009. He
did not know whether the SIT issued any letters to
Dharavi police station prior to 22.03.2010. He did not
feel it necessary to visit Dharavi police station in
pursuance to letter Exh.495 as DCP Mr. Prasanna did not
tell him to visit Dharavi police station. The SIT did
not send muddemal articles to the C.A till the revolver
mentioned in Exh.495 was seized by the SIT. He did not
know whether on 10.12.2009 the SIT came to know that,
revolver mentioned in Exh.495 was in Dharavi police
station.
1035. The witness further deposed that, immediately
after registering the crime, DCP Mr.Prasanna directed
...1085/-
Exh.1124 1085 (J-SC 317/10)
the SIT to collect information in respect of CDRs, SDRs
and cell IDs. The SIT collected information of Cell
Numbers of the policemen who were accused in this case,
prior to their arrests and that of other accused
persons after their arrests. The Cell no. of accused
No.7 was traced during CDR analysis. After receipt of
CDRs, DCP Mr. Prasanna directed the SIT to collect
information of cell IDs. The SIT received reports of
CDRs, SDRs and cell IDs within a period of a month or
two from the date of requisition by the SIT. After
making analysis by the SIT again the CDRs, SDRs and
cell IDs of the cell Companies were called by the SIT.
The witness on his own deposed that, hard copies of the
CDRs, SDRs and cell IDs were called again by the SIT.
At the time of analysis done by the SIT, hard copies of
all CDRs, SDRs and cell IDs were not available. Before
starting analysis of the SDRs, CDRs and the cell IDs,
SIT did not record statement of any Nodal Officer.
During analysis the SIT found some discrepancies in the
cell IDs. The witness on his own deposed that,
discrepancies were found in the cell IDs of Vodafone
Company only. After analysis, it was found that
information given by the Company was wrong. The SIT
recorded statement of the Nodal Officer concerned as to
how the discrepancies occurred. There was no mention in
statement dated 22.04.2010 of Changdeo Haribhau Godse
as regards to how the discrepancies occurred. No Mobile
...1086/-
Exh.1124 1086 (J-SC 317/10)
Company issued a letter to the SIT stating that,
information earlier supplied by the said Company was
incorrect. The SIT did not issue any letter to any of
the Mobile Companies stating that, information
furnished by the said Companies was incorrect.
1036. The witness was shown para no.91 of
Examination in Chief.usersreferred in para 91 were
the accused persons and witnesses. He did not remember
name of the witness. Even after perusal of record, he
could not tell names of the witnesses. The SIT did not
record further statements of witnesses for
discrepancies found during analysis regarding the
movements as reflected in the Cell IDs. DCP Mr.
Prasanna had taken decision as to when the accused were
to be arrested. Accused nos.1 to 6 were not kept under
surveillance till their arrests. At the time of
arrests, the accused were having mobiles with them.
CDRs, SDRs and Cell IDs or its prints were not taken
from the mobiles found with the said accused at the
time of their arrests. The witness on his own deposed
that, the said mobiles were handed over to relatives of
the accused persons immediately therefore, the CDRs,
SDRs and cell IDs or the prints were not taken. The
mobiles were immediately handed as the relatives of the
arrested accused were available. The SIT did not take
entry of the said mobile numbers anywhere in the
...1087/-
Exh.1124 1087 (J-SC 317/10)
record. He did not feel that, the SIT might get some
clue on the basis of IMEI Number though the Sim Cards
might have changed. The SIT did not issue any letters
to the relatives of the said arrested accused as
regards to use of said mobiles. He could not say as to
whether names of accused Nos.2 to 6 were disclosed in
the month of September, 2009.
1037. The witness further deposed that, the SIT did
correspondence as regards to deputation of some of the
accused persons to DN Nagar police station and
assignment of duties to them in D.N.Nagar police
station. DN Nagar police station sent a reply to the
SIT in respect of accused no.7. No other reply, except
this, was received from DN Nagar police station,
regarding deputation and assignment of duties. He did
not remember as to whether prior to 12.3.2011 Anil
Bheda informed the SIT as regards to any threats
received by him from any persons. Anil Bheda did not
issue any letter to the SIT till he was reported
missing, stating that his life was endangered and that,
he received threats. After the witness heard recording
from the mobile of Anil Bheda, immediately, he informed
the said fact to DCP Mr. Prasanna. DCP Mr. Prasanna
directed him to ask Anil Bheda as to whether he wanted
protection and if he wanted protection, then protection
be given to him. On that day, Anil Bheda and DCP did
...1088/-
Exh.1124 1088 (J-SC 317/10)
not have talks with each other. On 12.3.2011, he did
not play the recording in the mobile of Anil Bheda to
DCP Mr. Prasanna. The witness on his own deposed that,
DCP Mr. Prasanna was not present in the SIT office on
that day. He contacted him on phone. Prior to that, he
had heard the recording in the said mobile. The
witness also told the DCP on phone as regards to
gravity of the said recording. The DCP informed him to
record statement of Anil Bheda. The DCP did not tell
him to record complaint of Anil Bheda. PI Mr. Gaonkar
recorded statement of Anil Bheda. He and Mr. Gaonkar
brought Anil Bheda to the SIT Office. When they came
to the SIT office, PSI Mr. Chalke was present in the
office. He did not make any efforts to put the mobile
of Anil Bheda under surveillance. The printouts of the
said mobile number were taken. The said information by
way of printouts was taken for a period since
01.02.2011 to 14.03.2011. It was a soft copy. The said
printouts (hard copies-Exh.444)) were annexed with the
charge sheet (Vol.X). On 14.03.2011 or on 15.03.2011,
the SIT received the said information in the form of
soft copies.
1038. The witness further deposed that, when he
asked Anil Bheda as to whether he wanted protection,
Anil Bheda declined to have protection for time being.
The SIT, on its own, did not provide protection to Anil
...1089/-
Exh.1124 1089 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda as he declined to have protection for time being.
On 13.03.2011, the SIT tried to contact Mr. Anil Bheda,
but his mobile was found not reachable. Probably, he
did not talk on phone to Anil Bheda since he received
the recording in his mobile till 13.03.2011. On
13.03.2011, between 11.30 to 12 noon when wife of Anil
Bheda informed the SIT on phone that, Anil Bheda was
missing, then the SIT came to know that, Anil Bheda was
missing. Immediately, he informed that to DCP Mr.
Prasanna.
1039. The witness further deposed that, the SIT
called the Cell I.D. of Exh.444 in respect of the
number and location I.D. There was mention of Cell I.D.
in Exh.444. The SIT called for the addresses of the
Cell I.D. mentioned in Exh.444. Those were annexed with
the Charge-sheet. The SIT did the analysis of the said
Cell I.D's. 9322266769 was his mobile number.
9702053191 was the mobile number of complainant
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. Mobile nos.9322266769 and mobile
no.9702053191 were in contact with mobile no.9833676351
which was the mobile number of Anil Bheda. Statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta in relation to the contacts between
the said mobile numbers was not recorded by the SIT.
The last call on the mobile of Anil Bheda was from the
mobile of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not make inquiry
with Mr.Ramprasad Gupta as regards to the alleged
...1090/-
Exh.1124 1090 (J-SC 317/10)
threats received by Anil Bheda. Mr.Ramprasad Gupta
never told him that, Anil Bheda received alleged
threats.
1040. The witness further deposed that, on
12/03/2011 at about 04.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m. Anil Bheda
met him at Nahur, Mulund. The said meeting was not
prearranged. Anil Bheda was not residing at Nahur. He
did not go to Nahur for official work. He went to Nahur
as Anil Bheda had called him. Anil Bheda had given him
a missed call. Then he called him back. He did not
remember its time. He called Anil Bheda at 02.43 p.m.
on 12/03/2011. There were two more calls between him
and Anil Bheda on the same date. The missed call was
not reflected in Exh.444. He brought Anil Bheda to the
SIT office between 05.30 p.m. to 05.45 p.m. Anil Bheda
stayed at the SIT office till 10.00 p.m. Anil Bheda
received a call on his mobile at 20.45 hours on
12/03/2011 from the same number from which he received
the last call recorded by him. At that time Anil Bheda
was in the SIT office. He did not know as to why Anil
Bheda did not tape the said call. He did not remember
whether, he heard the said call and that, Anil Bheda
told him about the call that came on his mobile at
20.45 hours. Before coming to the SIT office, it was
the decision of Anil Bheda as to which call should be
recorded that he received on his mobile. After coming
...1091/-
Exh.1124 1091 (J-SC 317/10)
to the SIT office, Anil Bheda recorded two calls at the
say of the SIT.
1041. The witness further deposed that, on
12/03/2011 between 05.45 p.m. to 10.02 p.m., while in
the SIT office, Anil Bheda received 40 to 45 calls on
his mobile. The witness had referred Exh.444.
Whenever, Anil Bheda received that particular call from
the particular person he would inform the SIT and then
he would record the said call by doing the speaker on.
The witness transferred the recording done previously
by Anil Bheda by means of blue-tooth in his mobile. He
also transferred the last two recorded calls in his
mobile. Anil Bheda did not previously receive calls
from the mobile from which he received the last two
calls on 12/03/2011 while he was in the SIT office. On
hearing the voice, Anil Bheda would come to know that
the call was of the same person. After recording of
the last call, Anil Bheda did not inform the SIT that
again he received call from the same mobile and from
the same person.
1042. The witness further deposed that, on
12/03/2011 he did not record any panchanama. He also
did not record panchanama of the C.D. prepared by him.
Anil Bheda was not present when he prepared the C.D. He
prepared the C.D. on 22/03/2011. The witness denied
...1092/-
Exh.1124 1092 (J-SC 317/10)
that, he transferred the recording from his mobile to
his lap-top. According to him, he prepared the C.D.
from the hard-disc of his lap-top. On 22/03/2011, he
did not record any panchanama of making the C.D. from
the Hard-Disc of his Lap-top. He did not produce the
said Hard-Disc before the SIT. On 22/03/2011 he
prepared three C.D's. He handed over one C.D. to DCP
Mr.Prasanna after 22/03/2011. The witness on his own
deposed that, DCP Mr.Prasanna instructed him to keep
the C.D. along-with papers. There was no record to show
that, he handed over one C.D. to DCP Mr.Prasanna.
Except his bare verbatim there was no other proof to
show that he prepared the C.D's. He did not seal the
C.D.s.
1043. The witness further deposed that, on
21/08/2009 when he visited the spot at Nana-Nani Park
he did not have papers of Cr.No.302/06 of Versova
Police Station. He did not have papers of Cr.No.302/06
of Versova Police Station when he visited Trisha
Collections on 25/08/2009. On 28/08/2009 he did not
have the said papers with him when he visited
Lakashydeep Hotel. Complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta had
shown the spot at Nana-Nani Park and the spot at Trisha
Collections. Witness Mr.Dhiraj Mehata had shown the
spot at Lakashydeep Hotel. Except drawing the sketch,
he did not do anything at Nana-Nani park on 21/08/2009.
...1093/-
Exh.1124 1093 (J-SC 317/10)
He did not remember as to whether the SIT made efforts
to search for any witnesses on 21/08/2009 when it
visited the spot at Nana-Nani park. He did not try to
search for any witnesses from Nana-Nani park during the
course of investigation. P.I. Mr.Gaonkar and PSI
Mr.Chalke made efforts to search for witnesses from
Nana-Nani park during the course of investigation. He
did not know whether, they succeed in getting any
witness or not. The panchanamas and the statements from
Cr.No.302/06 were read by the SIT but no analysis of
the panchanamas and the statements was done by the SIT.
The witness admitted that statements of eye witnesses
Manohar Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh were recorded in
Cr.No.302/06. The SIT also recorded their statements in
this case. DCP Mr. Prasanna recorded the statement. He
had typewritten the said statements. The SIT sent these
two witnesses for recording their statements u/s.164
Cr.P.C. The witness deposed that, Manohar Kulpe &
Ramrajpal Singh were not the eye witnesses of the
exchange of fire at Nana-Nani Park on 11/11/2006.
Names of these two witnesses were disclosed from the
papers of Cr.No.302/06. Statements of these two
witnesses were also recorded before the S.L.A.O.-IV
Their statements were also recorded before the
Magistrate during the Magisterial inquiry. He did not
remember whether the SIT made inquiry with these two
witnesses as to in what contexts they were called for
...1094/-
Exh.1124 1094 (J-SC 317/10)
statement in Cr.No.302/06, before the SLAO-IV and
before the Magistrate. The SIT called them for inquiry
as they were the witnesses in Cr.No.302/06. The witness
denied that, statements of these two witnesses were
recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. as they were important
witnesses. The witness on his own deposed that, as he
stated here in before, as per the orders of DCP
Mr.Prasanna statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of the
witnesses, other than the C.A., The Nodal Officer, The
Medical office, Expert and related to Telegraph office
were to be recorded. He did not read the statements of
these witnesses which were recorded before the SLAO-IV
and before the Magistrate. He had seen the statements
of these witnesses u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. He did not read the
said statements. He did not remember as to whether he
read the statements of other witnesses from Cr.No.
302/06. He read statements of some witnesses from the
inquiry before the SLAO-IV and before the Magistrate.
He read some statements of other witnesses u/s.164
Cr.P.C. He read only those statements which came before
him during the course of his work. He could not tell
the time at which Mr.Manohar Kulpe and Mr.Ramrajpal
Singh came to the SIT office on 05/10/2009. DCP
Mr.Prasanna would put questions to the witness to which
the witness would reply and accordingly he would
typewrite it. While recording statements the witnesses
Mr. Manohar Kulpe and Mr.Ramrajpal Singh had given
...1095/-
Exh.1124 1095 (J-SC 317/10)
their mobile numbers to the SIT. DCP Mr.Prasanna
directed him to collect the CDR's and locations of the
said mobile numbers as on 11/11/2006 between 08.00 p.m.
to 09.00 p.m. Accordingly, the SIT called for the CDR's
and Cell I.D,'s of the said mobile numbers. The witness
on his own deposed that, CDR's and Cell I.D.'s of
Ramrajpal Singh were received but that of Manohar Kulpe
were not received by the SIT.
1044. The witness further deposed that, the Cell
I.D. of Ramrajpal Singh was analyzed by him. The
purpose behind doing the said analysis was to find out
as to whether he was present near Nana-Nani park on
11/11/2006 between 08.00 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. The witness
on his own deposed that, the analysis was done to
verify that he received call from Police station on
12/11/2006. As per record on 12/11/2006 statement of
Ramrajpal Singh was recorded by Versova Police Station.
He did not remember as to whether DCP Mr.Prasanna asked
Ramrajpal Singh and Manohar Kulpe on 05/10/2009, as to
where they were present between 08.00 p.m. to 09.00
p.m. on 11/11/2006. Even after perusal of the said
statements he could not tell as to whether DCP Mr.
Prasanna put questions to the said witness as to where
they were present on 11/11/2006 between 08.00 p.m. to
09.00 p.m. The witness denied that, he could not tell
as to in what contexts did DCP Mr. Prasanna put
...1096/-
Exh.1124 1096 (J-SC 317/10)
questions to the witnesses and what he had typewritten.
The witness on his own deposed that, it was in respect
of statements given by the said witnesses in Cr.No.
302/06. He did not visit the spot after recording
statements of these witnesses, for the purpose of
recording sketch and also to ascertain as to whether
those witnesses were in a position to see the incident.
It was necessary for him in the capacity of the I.O. to
visit the spot after recording statements of these
witnesses so as to ascertain the truth or falsity in
the statements of these witnesses. He did not remember
as to whether he told the said witnesses to show the
spot at which they were present. If there was
suspension as regards to the statement of an eye
witness then there was no necessity to visit the spot.
Such visit could be done if the statement of the eye
witness was found to be truthful.
1045. The witness further deposed that, on
05/10/2009 statements of Dattatray Koyate and Rohidas
Dattu Shinde were recorded. Both of them were witnesses
in Cr.No.306/06 therefore, their statements were
recorded in this case. Their statements were also
recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. On 14/11/2009 the SIT received
papers of judicial inquiry. The papers included witness
statements and affidavits of witnesses. He did not
remember as to whether after going through the said
...1097/-
Exh.1124 1097 (J-SC 317/10)
papers he came to know that one inquiry was held before
the SLAO-IV. The witness referred the above mentioned
papers and deposed that, an inquiry was held before the
SLAO-IV. He had read the report of the judicial
inquiry. The SIT tendered the report to the Court. He
received a xerox copy of the report from the Hon'ble
High Court. The SIT filed an application for certified
copies in the Hon'ble High Court. The SIT did not get
certified copies. The state should have received
certified copies free of charge but the SIT was told to
deposit charges. The charges were not deposited
therefore, they could not get certified copies. Except
his bare verbatim there was no other proof to show that
the SIT was asked to deposit charges for certified
copies. The SIT did not make any correspondence with
anyone stating that charges for certified copies were
asked for to the SIT. He felt that, the papers of
inquiry by the SLAO-IV and that of Judicial inquiry
were important for investigation of this crime. The
witness deposed that, on perusal of the file it
appeared that original report was not in the said file.
After perusal of the said file, he again stated that,
the file of investigation was not before the Court. He
had perused the Charge-Sheet. Xerox copy of the report
was not along-with the Charge-sheet. He had been
deposing before the Court since 12/09/2012 without the
original papers of investigation being with him. He did
...1098/-
Exh.1124 1098 (J-SC 317/10)
not feel it necessary to bring the original papers of
investigation with him to the Court. The witness on
his own deposed that, he was not relying on those
papers.
1046. The witness was shown page nos.53,54 & 55 from
the file of Judicial inquiry, which was received from
the Hon'ble High Court. The witness was shown page nos.
423 to 427 from the papers received by the Registrar,
Sessions Court from the SLAO-IV. The witness remembered
he had seen the report. He did not remember as to
whether the documents related to it were collected or
not and that, as to whether the report of Judicial
inquiry and that of the SLAO-IV was placed before the
DCP or not. The Hon'ble High Court did not admit the
report of the SLAO-IV. Therefore, he did not feel it to
be important. The report of Judicial inquiry was
important. He felt it necessary to place the Judicial
inquiry report before the DCP. The documents along-with
judicial inquiry report were also necessary to be
placed before the DCP. The witness on his own deposed
that, he did not put up papers before the DCP. It was
necessary to read the papers before the said papers
were put up before the DCP. He did not put up the
papers before the DCP. He could not tell whether he
felt it necessary or not. He did not remember as to
whether even after going through the judicial inquiry
...1099/-
Exh.1124 1099 (J-SC 317/10)
report, he came to know that Manohar Kulpe and
Ramrajpal Singh claimed to be the eye witnesses.
1047. The witness further deposed that, he did not
know as to whether, the DCP made inquiry as regards to
the cases of encounter. He came to know that, DCP
Mr.Chaube submitted report to the Human Rights
Commission. He knew that, the DCP submitted report of
encounter to various authorities. He did not remember
whether he tried to get the said report during the
course of investigation. During the course of
investigation statement of DCP Mr. Chaube was recorded
by the SIT. He could not tell as to whether DCP Mr.
Chaube was asked to produce the said report as the
witness did not go to him and as he did not record his
statement. As it was a formal report, the witness did
not feel it to be an important report. He did not know
as to whether Government of Maharashtra accepted the
report submitted by the SLAO-IV. He came to know that,
report was submitted to the Government. He did not know
what happened to the said report thereafter. He did not
know whether on 23/06/2008 Government of Maharashtra
(Home Department) accepted the said report. He did not
feel it necessary to know about it as it was not
admitted by the Hon'ble High Court.
...1100/-
Exh.1124 1100 (J-SC 317/10)
1048. The witness further deposed that, it was
necessary to know as to whose statements were recorded
during Judicial inquiry. He did not remember whether
the SIT received the statements. On 04/12/2009 the SIT
informed Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi, Dilip Palande,
Arvind Sarvankar, Nitin Sartape, Anand Pattade, Ganesh
Harpude, Pandurang Kokam, Prakash Kadam, Ratnakar
Kamble, Sandeep Sardar, Tanaji Desai, Dividas Sakpal to
remain present at Nana-Nani park without fail at 10.00
a.m. on 07/12/2009. On 07/12/2009, he went to Nana-Nani
park. All above mentioned 12 persons were present at
Nana-Nani Park. DCP Mr.Prasanna, P.I. Mr.Gaonkar and
PSI Mr.Chalke were also present there. DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded panchanama. The witness could not tell as to
who had written the panchanama. He did not remember as
to whether the said officers were called at Nana-Nani
Park to tell to the SIT their respective positions at
Nana-Nani park on 11/11/2006. He could not tell the
purpose behind calling these persons at Nana-Nani park.
All those persons were the alleged members of encounter
team. He did not remember as to whether he asked any of
the members of the SIT as to why those persons were
called at Nana-Nani park. They all were present at
Nana-Nani park for about three hours. He did not
remember as to in what context the panchanama was
recorded at Nana-Nani park. He had no occasion to see
the said panchanama after it was recorded. He did not
...1101/-
Exh.1124 1101 (J-SC 317/10)
know whether the said panchanama was placed before the
Court or not along-with the Charge-Sheet. After perusal
of the charge sheet the witness deposed that, the said
panchanama was not placed before the Court. The witness
denied that, on that day Ballistic Expert Mr. Gautam
Natha Ghadge was called at the spot and that he
submitted a report and that, statement of Mr. Gautam
Natha Ghadge was recorded to that effect and that the
said statement was placed on record before the Court.
Photographs were taken. He did not know whether video
recording was done. The said photographs were not
produced before the Court. He did not remember as to in
which context the said photographs were taken. The
witness denied that, Ballistic Expert Mr.Ghadge was
called to the spot and he was present at the spot on
07/12/2009. The witness knew that making a false
statement on oath amounts to perjury and that Court
could punish a witness for deposing false. The witness
had not recorded statement of Mr.Gautam Natha Ghadge
(P.W.86). He did not know whether more than one
statements of Mr.Gautam Natha Ghadge were recorded in
this case.
1049. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, probably letters were not issued by
the SIT to the witnesses for conducting T.I. Parades.
He made arrangements of the witnesses for T.I. Parades.
...1102/-
Exh.1124 1102 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness on his own deposed that, he made
arrangements of the witnesses for T.I. Parades at the
say of the SMM. Letters were issued to the SMM for
conducting T.I. Parades. The SMM did not issue letters
to the SIT for making arrangement of panchas for T.I.
Parades. The witness on his own deposed that, oral
instructions were given by him. There was no entry /
record showing that oral request was made by the SMM to
make arrangement of the panchas. The SIT contacted the
panchas only on the day on which the T. I. Parades were
conducted. The witness denid that, at his instance the
Ammaldar called two panchas after reaching at the Jail
and those panchas acted as the panchas for the T.I.
Parades on each T.I. Parades dated 20/01/2010,
30/01/2010, 23/03/2010, 28/06/2010, 17/08/2010 and
26/11/2010. The witness on his own deposed that, he was
not present at the time of conducting T.I. Parade of
accused no. 16 on 17/08/2010. The panchas were called
when he reached at the Jail. He could not tell whether
the panchas were not from the vicinity of the Jail. He
did not ask anything to the panchas when the Ammaldar
used to bring the panchas to him. He did not confirm as
to whether the panchas were related to the police and
that they were fit to act as panchas. He did not know
antecedents of the said panchas till date. On five
occasions of conducting T.I. Parades, he entered in the
Jail. His name was entered in the register of the Jail
...1103/-
Exh.1124 1103 (J-SC 317/10)
while he entered into the Jail. The witness on his own
deposed that, only entry of the SIT was made. The SIT
issued letters to the Jail authorities for conducting
T.I. Parades, on the day on which the T.I. Parades were
conducted. Names of witnesses were also mentioned in
the said letters addressed to the Jail authorities. The
witnesses also entered into the Jail along-with him. He
would introduce the witnesses to the Jail authorities
after entering into the Jail. On all the five days he
entered into the Jail only once on every day. He did
not remember as to whether, he put signatures in the
register of the Jail. The panchas and the SMM entered
the Jail along-with him. He did not tell names of the
panchas to the Jailer. He did not issue any letter
containing names of the panchas to the Jailer. The
panchas, the witnesses and the SMM entered their names
in the register. The SIT mentioned in the letter issued
to the SMM that T.I. Parade of a particular accused was
to be conducted. The SMM was not informed through the
said letter as to which witnesses were to remain
present for the T.I. Parade. The witnesses were
introduced to the SMM outside of the Jail. The SMM and
the witnesses had come at the Jail prior to arrival of
panchas. Panchas were introduced to the SMM outside of
the Jail. The SMM made inquiry with the panchas in his
presence. He did not remember whether the SMM made
inquiry with the panchas as to whether any criminal
...1104/-
Exh.1124 1104 (J-SC 317/10)
cases were filed against them and whether they had any
relations with the police.
1050. The witness further deposed that, Anil Bheda
did not meet him till 03/09/2009. The witness tried to
get his mobile number. He could not get his mobile
number. Dhiraj Mehata met him on 27/08/2009. He could
not say confirmatively whether mobile number of Dhiraj
Mehata was 9224394910. On 24/08/2009 he might have
called Dhiraj Mehata on phone. His mobile number was
9322266769. On 04/09/2009 statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of
Dhiraj Mehata was recorded. He was in contact with
Dhiraj Mehata till 04/09/2009 on phone. He asked Dhiraj
Mehata as to whereabouts of Anil Bheda. Dhiraj Mehata
did not give him mobile number of Anil Bheda. The SIT
did not make analysis of Cell I.D's of Dhiraj Mehata
and Anil Bheda.
1051. The witness further deposed that, the SIT did
not maintain any record as regards to accused who were
called to the SIT office for inquiry. He did not know
whether it was written in the crime report or not. He
had never seen the crime report. He could not go
through all investigation papers prior to deposing
before the Court. Statements of accused were recorded
prior to their arrests. Whenever accused came to the
SIT, he, P.I. Mr.Gaonkar, PSI Mr.Chalke and DCP
...1105/-
Exh.1124 1105 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Prasanna made inquiry with them. Statements of
witnesses were being recorded and simultaneously
inquiry was being made with accused persons. A thought
did not enter in his mind to conduct the T.I. Parade at
the earliest opportunity, prior to arrest of accused.
He did not feel that, T.I. Parade could not be
conducted unless accused were arrested. He did not
remember whether there was no record in Powai office as
regards accused attending the said office whenever they
were called for inquiry after their arrest. There was
no record in the Charge-Sheet. He did not remember as
to whether he saw such record. He did not know whether
it was mentioned in the crime report or not. He might
have written one or two letters for taking out accused
from the Lockups. He did not remember as to in whose
context the said letter was written by him and that,
the date and the lockup to which it was addressed. The
witness on his own deposed that, the letters were
addressed to Santacruz or Andheri Lockups. He did not
go to the SIT office taking T.I. Parade memo with him.
He had received the memo prior to recording their
subsequent statements. He recorded subsequent
statements of witnesses outside of the Jail. There was
no record of recording subsequent statements or of
T.I.P. Panchanama except the said statements and the
said panchanamas. There was no record even of the other
statements except that statements. The witness on his
...1106/-
Exh.1124 1106 (J-SC 317/10)
own deposed that, it was mentioned in progress report
submitted to the Hon'ble High Court.
1052. The witness further deposed that, on
25.08.2009 and on 28.8.2009, visit was made to Trisha
Collections. He made efforts to find out witnesses at
Trisha Collections. On 25.08.2009, he could not get any
witness. He did not record statements of the shop
keepers from the said vicinity. On 28.08.2009, he did
not record statements of the shopkeepers from the said
vicinity. The witness on his own deposed that, DCP
Mr.Prasanna recorded further statement of witness
Dheeraj Mehta on 28.08.2009. At the relevant time,
Dheeraj Mehta did not have his shop near Trisha
Collections. There was no record with the SIT to show
that, the SIT made inquiry with the people from the
vicinity of Tisha Collections. Besides 21.08.2009 and
07.12.2009, again he visited Nana Nani Park. Besides
25.08.2009 and 28.08.2009, again he visited Trisha
Collections. He could not get any eye witness from
Tisha Collections. He went to Nana Nani Park only for
promulgation of proclamation. He did not go to Nana
Nani park to find out any eye witnesses. Mr.Chalke and
Mr.Gaonkar were assigned the duty to find out eye
witnesses from Nana Nani Park. He did not know whether
they could find out any eye-witnesses from Nana Nani
Park. He had recorded statements dated 22.4.2010,
...1107/-
Exh.1124 1107 (J-SC 317/10)
01.6.2010 and 14.11.2011 of Mr.Changdeo Haribhau Godse
(PW-54), who did not state in his statement before the
witness that, To obtain these information we feed 4 to
5 digits, if five digits instead of four digits and
vice a versa are fed, wrong location would be shown.
He had recorded statement of Rakeshchandra Rambuz
Prajapati (PW-62). He recorded Portion MarkedAin his
statement dated 15.11.2011 as per his say, Exh.788. The
witness also recorded statement of Mr.Yogesh
Shrikrishna Rajapurkar (PW-65) including Portion Marked
A Exh.789. He also recorded statement of Mr.Bipin
Mangalaprasad Singh Bihari (PW-78), who did not in his
statement dated 16.03.2010 before him that,He did not
have any information regarding the incident dtd.
11/11/2006 prior to actual taking place of the
incident. He recorded Portion Marked A in his
statement dated 16.03.2010 as per his say, Exh.790.
Mr.Bipin Mangalprasad Bihari (PW-78) did not state in
his statement dated 16.3.2010 and 6.11.2010 before him
that,his RTPC informed him about the incident dated
11.11.2006.
1053. The witness further deposed that, he visited
DN Nagar police station on many occasions in relation
to investigation of this crime. He did not make inquiry
as to on what basis letter Exh.668 was written. The
witness on his own deposed that, it was bearing
...1108/-
Exh.1124 1108 (J-SC 317/10)
signature of accused No.9, therefore he did not make
inquiry. He did not see any record in connection with
this letter. The witness denied that, Mr.Prasanna did
not record any statements and that, he, PI Mr.Gaonkar
and PSI Mr.Chalke prepared false statements and that,
he, PI Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr.Chalke threatened the
witnesses to give statements in a particular way
otherwise they would be falsely implicated in this case
or in some other cases.
1054. The witness denied that, he and PI Mr.Gaonkar
called Mr.Amit Jayantilal Patel from Ahemadabad and met
him at Hotel Avion and extorted a sum of Rs.5 lacs from
him by giving threats to him and thereby also obtained
a false statement of the said witness and that, after
receiving Rs.5 lacs they did not harass him. The
witness further denied that, he threatened Mr.A.T.Patil
(PW-104) to give a statement in a particular way and
when he refused, he threatened him to implicate in this
case or other case and that, he spoke to him in a rude
manner for which he also complained to DCP Mr.
Prasanna. The witness denied that, he forced to give a
false statement and that, he was compelled to give a
false statement before the Magistrate and also that, he
had kept the witnesses under constant pressure,
surveillance and made to give false statements and were
threatened in the name of the High Court inquiry. The
...1109/-
Exh.1124 1109 (J-SC 317/10)
witness further denied that, he was deliberately
suppressing material facts from the Court and that, he
had deliberately not produced vital documents before
the Court and had suppressed the station diary entries
of Pawai Police Station, Shahupuri Police Station and
that of the movements from the Court. The witness
denied that, he, PI Mr. Gaonkar and PSI Mr. Chalke had
shown the accused to the witnesses in the lock up of
Powai Police station prior to conducting the Test
Identification Parades and that, he had also
pressurized SMM Mr.Satish Rane to prepare false T.I.P.
Memos. The witness denied that, the SMM prepared these
false documents of TIP Memos at the say of the SIT
officers and that, he had falsely deposed that Manohar
Panduran Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh were not eye
witnesses to the incident dated 11.11.2006. After going
through the police statements in CR No.302/06 and in CR
No.246/09, affidavit before SLAO-IV and the Magisterial
Enquiry as well as their statements recorded in CR No.
246/09, he came to know that Mr. Ramrajpal Singh and
Manohar Kulpe were eye witnesses to the incident dated
11.11.2006 and that, they were the only eye witnesses
and they would destroy the prosecution case, therefore,
they were not examined as prosecution witnesses. The
witness denied that he was deposing false.
...1110/-
Exh.1124 1110 (J-SC 317/10)
1055. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that, he went to Kolhapur and seized the passenger
register of Hotel Majestic at Kolhapur and that, he did
not seize the said register and that, he prepared the
said false document. The witness denied that, a person
by name Anil Bheda never went to Hotel Majestic at
Kolhapur and that, the said person never showed him
Hotel Majestic at Kolhapur and that, Anil Bheda did not
show him Trisha Collections or Hotel Mid-Town. The
witness also denied that, the SIT did not prepare
running panchanama and a false panchanama was prepared
at the SIT Office, Powai. The witness denied that, he
had deposed false that, he did not know as to in which
context/ purpose the accused had come to the spot on
07.12.2009 and that, SIT had called the accused at the
spot to show as to how did the incident occur and that,
during the period of three hours, the accused had shown
as to how did the incident take place and their
respective positions at the time of the incident dated
11.11.2006. The witness denied that, panchanama
regarding this fact had been deliberately not produced
before the Court to suppress the fact and that,
photography and video shooting was also suppressed from
the Court and that, the SIT has suppressed the report
prepared by Mr.Gautam Ghadge (PW-86) from the Court.
The witness also denied that, the SIT recorded false
statements of Dheeraj Mehta, Anil Bheda and other
...1111/-
Exh.1124 1111 (J-SC 317/10)
witnesses at a belated stage after they had succumbed
to pressure of the SIT and that, those were recorded at
the instance of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta (PW-1) and that, he
personally took the witnesses to depose falsely before
the Magistrate.
1056. The witness also denied that, the SIT got
false cell IDs prepared from Nodal Officers and that,
initially, the cell IDs furnished by the Nodal Officers
did not suit to their case and therefore, the SIT
prepared the said Cell IDs and got it prepared on plain
papers of the said respective Companies and that, those
reports were false therefore, those were not prepared
on letter heads and no signatures were put on those
reports. The witness denied that, SIT prepared false
CDRs and SDRs and that, the Nodal Officers prepared
false SDRs and CDRs at the say of the SIT. The witness
denied that, on 12.3.2011, Anil Bheda did not record
any conversation on his mobile and that, he prepared a
false C.D. and also that, deposed false that Anil Bheda
received two calls while he was in the SIT office and
that, he heard those calls as the speaker was on. The
witness denied that, on 12.03.2011, he did not prepare
any panchanama as the said record was false and that,
the record was false therefore, DCP Mr. Prasanna did
not take the C.D in his custody.
...1112/-
Exh.1124 1112 (J-SC 317/10)
1057. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, in the year 2008, he was attached to
Sakinaka Police station as Police Sub-Inspector and a
woman had filed a complaint against him alleging that,
her son was falsely implicated in a theft case and
that, he made a demand of Rs.20,000/- from her to
release her son. The said woman made allegation of rape
against him. The witness denied that, he never
hesitated to prepare false document and that, he was
rescued of the said allegations due to then DCP Mr.
Prasanna. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that a panchanama was recorded at Armory in presence of
panchas and that, he took the panchas to the Armory and
that, no panchas were present in the Armory on
10.12.2009. The witness denied that, on 10.12.2009, no
articles were sealed and that no panchanama was
recorded at Armory and that, he deliberately did not
seize the Arm of Accused No.1 from Dharavi police
station on 10.12.2009 and that, the reason was that,
the said Arm was unauthorizedly, unofficially with the
SIT. The witness denied that, the SIT did not send the
articles on 10.12.2009 to the C.A as the SIT wanted to
tamper the Arm of Accused No.1 and that, he deposed
false that, on 10.12.2009, the articles were deposited
in Versova police station and that, a false record was
prepared in Versova police station as regards to
muddemal by him, Mr.Gaonkar and Mr.Chalke. The witness
...1113/-
Exh.1124 1113 (J-SC 317/10)
denied that, he prepared a false panchanama of six live
cartridges Exh.486 and that, these six cartridges were
not related to this case, therefore, these were not
sent to the C.A. The SIT did not feel it necessary to
send these cartridges to the C.A. The witness denied
that, the SIT did not seize any cartridges from Dharavi
police station and that, he planted the said
cartridges.
1058. The witness further deposed that, an
application was filed by the SIT with signature of DCP
Mr.Prasanna and he carried the said application to
Andheri Court. The application along-with returned
warrants was submitted before the court. Except these
warrants no other documents were annexed to the said
application. The witness denied that, copy of the said
letter was not filed along-with the Charge-Sheet. Copy
of the warrants was not annexed with the Charge-Sheet.
The witness on his own deposed that, the original
warrants were returned to Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri. Its copies were sent along-with the R & P by
the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. Prior to filing
this application, the SIT did not record statements of
any witnesses to the effect that the accused was not
traceable. Address of native place of Sandeep Sardar
was available on police record. He did not visit native
of Sandeep Sardar to know as to whether he was present
...1114/-
Exh.1124 1114 (J-SC 317/10)
at his native or not. The SIT did not seize any record
as regards to attendance of Sandeep Sardar at D.N.Nagar
Police Station. He personally took in his custody the
proclamation against Sandeep Sardar. He read the
proclamation. At that time, he did not come to know
that there were some shortcomings in the said
proclamation. He knew that the accused was required to
remain present within 30 days from the date of issuance
of proclamation. The date, month and the year on which
the accused was to attend the court was required to be
mentioned in the proclamation. The date on which
accused was to attend the court was not mentioned in
Exh.240. At that time, he did not bring it to notice of
the Magistrate that date of attendance of the accused
was not mentioned in the proclamation. He had shown the
said proclamation to DCP Mr.Prasanna. DCP Mr.Prasanna
saw the proclamation. DCP Mr.Prasnana also did not tell
him that the date, month, and the year was not
mentioned in the proclamation.
1059. The witness further deposed that, on
29/09/2010 at about 11.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. he went to
Versova Police Station. PSI Mr.Chalke and one constable
were also with him. DCP Mr.Prasanna had told him to go
to Versova Police Station. He did not remember as to
who was SHO at Versova Police Station on 29/09/2010. At
that time, he or PSI Mr.Chalke were not attached to
...1115/-
Exh.1124 1115 (J-SC 317/10)
Versova Police Station. They did not tell any officer
or staff from Versova Police Station that they required
two panchas. Approximately at 12.00 noon to 12.15 p.m.
panchas came to Versova Police Station. He did not ask
the panchas as to from where did they come and as to
who called them. He knew that panchas should be
independent and any cases should not be against them
and they should not have acted as panchas prior to it.
He asked panchas their names and addresses and as to
whether they acted as panchas prior to the said
occasion and as to whether any crimes were registered
against them. Both panchas told him that previously
they did not act as panchas and that no crimes were
registered against them. He did not ask any officer or
staff from Versova Police station as to whether those
two persons previously acted as panchas. He did not ask
panchas as to what was meant by recording panchanama as
per the knowledge of the said panchas. It was an
important aspect to ask the panchas as to whether
previously they acted as panchas. The witness denied
that, this being an important aspect it was necessary
to mention this in the panchanama. This fact was not
mentioned in the panchanama. Except his bare verbatim
there was no other proof to show that he asked the
panchas as to whether previously they acted as panchas.
1060. The witness further deposed that, he read over
...1116/-
Exh.1124 1116 (J-SC 317/10)
the proclamation to the panchas. He did not realize
that there was no day, month and year mentioned in the
proclamation Exh.240. He informed panchas about the
propose time required for recording panchanama. The
panchas did not refuse to remain present for the
panchanama on the count of the proposed time required
for recording panchanama. He did not remember whether
he made an entry in Station Diary of Versova Police
station to the effect that he along-with panchas were
leaving the police station for the purpose of recording
panchanama. He did not tell the SHO to make such an
entry in the Station Diary. He could not tell as to
whether he visited the police quarters at Aram Nagar
for the first time on 29/09/2010 and that, as to
whether he visited the said quarters prior to
29/09/2010 and as to when did he visit the said
quarters. He might have visited the said quarters only
once.
1061. The witness further deposed that, he did not
record statement of Smt.Jijabai Sardar stating
whereabouts of Sandeep Sardar. He did not record her
statement to know whether Sandeep Sardar had gone to
his native place. He also did not make inquiry with the
persons residing in adjacent quarters. He did not
record statement of any one from the said adjacent
quarters. He and PSI Mr.Chalke entered in the quarters
...1117/-
Exh.1124 1117 (J-SC 317/10)
to search for Sandeep Sardar. The panchas were standing
at the door. Taking search of Sandeep Sardar was an
important fact. This fact was not mentioned in the
panchanama. There was no plain place on the door
therefore the proclamation was not affixed on the door.
The door was made of wood. There were planks to the
door and the proclamation might fall while opening the
door therefore, the proclamation was not affixed on the
door. He did not remember as to whether the said door
was of one plank or of two. The witness denied that,
after reading over the proclamation to Smt.Jijabai
Sardar and affixing the proclamation to the wall would
mean that one part of proclamation was over. Only after
conclusion on the panchanama the execution of the
proclamation came to an end and that there were steps
till conclusion. The witness denied that, panchanama
was written at the time of conclusion. They did not
make any note on the proclamation affixed on the wall,
stating that the proclamation was affixed on a
particular date on their visit to the said place. This
was not mentioned on the proclamation which were
affixed at Nana-Nani Park and near the staircase or at
Versova Police Station. The fact that he had visited
the house of Sandeep Sardar and affixed the copy of
proclamation and recording of this fact in the
panchanama that it was done at that place were
mentioned in the panchanama.
...1118/-
Exh.1124 1118 (J-SC 317/10)
1062. The witness further deposed that, he did not
read over the proclamation to people residing near the
said building and in the building. There were many
other buildings around the building in which Sandeep
Sardar was residing. He did not obtain signatures of
the panchas after getting down from the said building.
Sandeep Sardar resided within the jurisdiction of Beat
No.-I of Versova Police Station. Staff from Beat No.- I
was present when he visited Beat No.-I. He did not
record statement of the staff from Beat No.-I or of any
other persons regarding execution of proclamation and
affixing it at Beat No.-I. A True Copy of proclamation
was pasted at Beat No.-I. Only original was brought
from the Court. The original proclamation was filed
along-with the Charge-Sheet. He could differentiate
between original and carbon copy. The witness denied
that, Exh.240 was a carbon copy. The witness on his own
deposed that, it was original proclamation. The
handwriting in the proclamation was in carbon
impression. The witness on his own deposed that, the
stamp and the signature were original and it was the
proclamation given by the Court. He did not tell the
Court or the J.C. that the handwriting in the
proclamation was in carbon impression. He did not affix
Exh. 240 at the house of Sandeep Sardar. He did not
remember whether, previously he had promulgated
...1119/-
Exh.1124 1119 (J-SC 317/10)
proclamation or not.
1063. The witness further deposed that, he was at
Nana-Nani Park for about 10 to 15 minutes. He could not
tell as to whether area of Nana Nani park was big. He
did not know whether there was always a crowd of people
in Nana-Nani Park. There was only one gate to Nana-Nani
Park. He could not tell as to on how many occasions did
he visit Nana-Nani Park prior to 29/09/2010. He visited
the said park more than once prior to 29/09/2010. From
Nana-Nani Park he went to Versova Police Station.
Compound wall at the entrance of Versova Police station
was three to four feet high. There was entry to Versova
Police station but he did not remember as to whether
there was a gate to Versova Police Station. PSI Mr.
Chalke read over the panchanama to the panchas at the
place where proclamation was affixed at Versova Police
Station. After reading over the panchanama, signatures
of the panchas were obtained on the panchanama. PSI
Mr.Chalke read over the panchanama in Marathi language.
It did not happen that, the panchanama was handed over
to the panchas and that the panchas read the
panchanama. The witness denied that, the panchanama
was handed over to the panchas and that the panchas
read the panchanama. It was mentioned in the panchanama
that it was read over to the panchas but it was not
mentioned as to who read over it to the panchas. The
...1120/-
Exh.1124 1120 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that, it was not mentioned in the
panchanama that it was read over to the panchas. It was
not mentioned in the panchanama that it was read over
to the panchas. It was mentioned in the panchanama that
the panchas read the panchanama. This fact mentioned in
the panchanama was true and correct. The signatures of
the panchas were obtained on the panchanama near the
gate of Versova Police station after they came from
Nana-Nani Park.
1064. The witness denied that, on 29/09/2010 in the
morning he did not call the panchas at Versova Police
station and that he, PSI Mr.Chalke and the panchas did
not go to the house of Sandeep Sardar at Aram Nagar and
did not meet his mother, did not affix the proclamation
on the wall between room nos.131 & 132 and that did not
affix proclamation at the wall near the staircase of
the building, and that they did not go to Nana-Nani
Park and did not affix proclamation on the wall at the
staircase and that people were not called and
proclamation was not read over to them. The witness
denied that, announcement of the proclamation to the
public was not made at anytime and that, the copy of
proclamation was not affixed to the wall at the
entrance of Versova Police station and that, on
29/09/2010 in the night time he called the panchas in
Versova Police station and obtained their signatures on
...1121/-
Exh.1124 1121 (J-SC 317/10)
ready made panchanama. The witness denied that, he knew
that the said panchas were the regular panchas of
Versova Police station and that, he prepared a false
panchanama.
1065. The witness further deposed that, it was a
general procedure that if a police officer wanted to
make an entry in respect of investigation of a crime in
another police station then he had to tell the SHO to
make such an entry as regards to the crime pertaining
to other police station. He told PSI Mr.Chalke to take
entry in the Station Diary. He did not tell PSI.
Mr.Chalke to take entry in his handwriting. He did not
tell SHO to allow PSI Mr.Chalke to take the entry as
per his say. When PSI Mr.Chalke made the entry the
witness was outside of the Station house. The witness
denied that, PSI Mr.Chalke had recorded false entry
Exh. 756 and that, accused nos.2 to 6 were not produced
in veils before the Court. He did not remember as to
whether, Sandeep Sardar was assigned duties in passport
section of D.N. Nagar Police Station. He personally did
not make inquiry as regards to the duties assigned to
Sandeep Sardar while he was attached to D.N. Nagar
Police Station. He personally did not make inquiry as
to what duty was assigned to Sandeep Sardar on
11/11/2006. The witness on his own deposed that, he
was on day duty. He did not have personal knowledge as
...1122/-
Exh.1124 1122 (J-SC 317/10)
regards to the duty of Sandeep Sardar on 11/11/2006.
He personally did not record statement of anyone from
D.N.Nagar Police station as regards to assignment of
duties to Sandeep Sardar on 11/11/2006. The witness
denied that, accused nos.2,8,12,20 & 21 were falsely
implicated in this case and that, he deposed false.
1066. The witness further deposed that, Mrs.Aruna
Anil Bheda stated Portion Marked-A Exh.792 in her
further statement dated 20/01/2010 before him and it
was correctly recorded as per her say. Mrs.Aruna Bheda
(P.W.40) did not state in her statement dtd. 20/01/2010
before him that, I and Anil reached Thane Jail at
3.00p.m. And met the officer of the SIT, Shri Ghorpade
outside Thane Jail and that he introduced us to
Magistrate, Satish Rane and that Magistrate took us
inside the Jail. Mr.Ghorpade was waiting outside and
that Magistrate made us sit in a room and introduced
two panchas and that I was asked if police had shown us
the accused and I answered in negative and that my
husband was also asked the same and he also denied.
they stated that one of the panchas would come and
call us and they left and after some time, one of the
panchas returned to call my husband, Anil Bheda and the
said pancha, after some time, came back with my husband
and then he took me along with him to another room.in
the said room, myself, Magistrate and two panchas were
...1123/-
Exh.1124 1123 (J-SC 317/10)
present and along with us there were 12-15 persons
standing in a line.
1067. The witness further deposed that, Mrs.Aruna
Anil Bheda did not state in her statement dated
20/01/2010 before him that, I had stated that Pancha
took me outside the room and took me to the place where
we were earlier sitting and thereafter, again the same
pancha came and my husband accompanied him and after
some time, he left my husband back to the said room and
thereafter took me along with him and I was taken in
the said other room and in the said room myself,
Magistrate Rane, two panchas and 22-23 other persons
were present. Mr.Arun Gangaram Satam (P.W.44) did not
state in his statement dtd. 27/08/2011 before him
that,I informed Shri. Ghorpade that 'X' in Ex.117 and
Ex.118 indicates express telegram.I had informed Shri
Ghorpade that receipt is dated 11/11/2006 and time is
18:28 hours and that it show X indicating Express
telegram and Rs.53 is the amount.
1068. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he could not tell the date on which
he met Mr.Shankar Dalsingh for the first time. The
witness on his own deposed that, he met him for the
first time when his statement was recorded. The witness
was present at the time of recording his statement. He
...1124/-
Exh.1124 1124 (J-SC 317/10)
did not ask questions to him and so he did not answer.
DCP Mr.Prasanna recorded his statement. He did not
assist DCP Mr. Prasanna in recording his statement. He
did not know whether more than one statements of Mr.
Shankar Dalsingh were recorded. He had not questioned
him at any point of time prior to or after recording
his statement. He could not tell as to how did
Mr.Shankar Dalsingh come to DCP Mr.Prasanna and at
whose instance he came to the deceased. The witness
could not tell whether Mr.Shankar Dalsingh came to the
SIT on his own or that he was summoned by the SIT. The
witness denied that, he did not know as to which mobile
number did Mr.Shankar Dalsingh have on 11/11/2006.
Information was called from Reliance Mobile Company.
The witness could not tell as to when did he come to
know about the said mobile number for the first time.
He could not tell as to whether he came to know it
prior to or after recording statement of Shankar
Dalsingh. SDR of the said number was called. The SIT
could not get CDR of the said mobile number. Without
perusal of record the witness could not tell the dates
of activation and deactivation of the mobile number of
Mr.Shankar Dalsingh.
1069. The witness could not tell as to when before
recording statement of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh the SIT
decided to record his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The
...1125/-
Exh.1124 1125 (J-SC 317/10)
witness on his own deposed that, it was decided after
recording his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. and after
getting consent from him. Mr.Dalsingh did not file a
written application to the SIT for recording his
statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Mr.Dalsing did not give his
consent in writing. The witness could not tell as to
when did the SIT took decision to record his statement
u/s.164 Cr.P.C. after recording his statement u/s. 161
Cr.P.C. Shankar Dalsingh came to the SIT on 30/03/2010
at about 01.45 p.m. to 02.00 p.m. The witness along-
with Shankar Dalsingh reached the Court at about 02.30
p.m. on 30/03/2010 he did not make any application to
the Magistrate. On 30/03/2010 the witness did not give
any application or document to the staff of the Court.
1070. The witness further deposed that, he could not
tell the date on which the SIT made application to the
Magistrate for recording statement of this witness u/s.
164 Cr.P.C. He personally did not make the application.
He did not remember as to whether he had an opportunity
to meet and question the said witness after his
statement was recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. till recording
of his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The witness did not
remember as to whether the witness expressed his desire
on the day of recording his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.
that his statement be recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. At the
say of DCP Mr. Prasanna, he took the witness to Andheri
...1126/-
Exh.1124 1126 (J-SC 317/10)
Court for recording his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. He
did not remember on which date the SIT received SDR's
of the mobile of the said witness. He could not tell as
to when was the letter sent for calling the SDR's.
After receipt of report of SDR, he came to know as to
when the said mobile number was activated and as to
when it was deactivated. He did not remember as to
whether call details were called by the SIT. He
remembered that, the SIT did not receive call details.
The SIT did not receive call details therefore, call
details were not submitted along-with the Charge-Sheet.
Even after perusal of record, he could not tell the
dates of activation and deactivation of the mobile
number of Mr. Shankar Dalsingh. The witness on his own
deposed that, there was a record showing that the said
mobile number was in existence in the year 2006 in the
name of Mr. Shankar Dalsingh. He was saying this on the
basis of the SDR's received by the SIT. The SIT did
correspondence with Reliance Mobile Company on two
occasions in respect of mobile number of Mr.Shankar
Dalsingh. The SIT did not feel it necessary to call
further details even after receipt of SDR's Exh.677.
Letter Exh.677 was written by the Reliance Mobile
Company to the SIT in pursuance to the letter dated
03/03/2010. The SIT came to know about the mobile
number 9323459998. He did not remember as to who from
the SIT came to know this number for the first time and
...1127/-
Exh.1124 1127 (J-SC 317/10)
that, whether prior to 03/03/2010 he came to know the
said mobile number. He did not know as to on which date
their office came to know about the said mobile number.
The witness on his own deposed that, the date was not
03/03/2010 but it was 03/03/2011. As per their
procedure they made demand of soft copy of the SDR and
for that purpose the SIT might have sent a letter to
the Reliance Mobile Company. He did not remember as to
whether a letter prior to 03/03/2011 was sent or not.
1071. The witness was shown Exh.676 the letter under
which the SIT received the SDR of mobile no.
9323459998. As per letter Exh.676 and reference in it,
the SIT had received the information as regards to this
phone number vide letter dated 09/02/2011 of Reliance
Mobile Company. He could not tell exact date on which
the SIT sent letter to Reliance Mobile Company prior to
09/02/2011. Letter sent by the SIT prior to 09/02/2011
and the letter sent by Reliance Mobile Company on
09/02/2011 to the SIT were not the part of Charge-
Sheet. As those were soft copies those were not
submitted along-with Charge-Sheet. Printout of soft
copy could be taken. The printout was called as hard
Copy. The witness on his own deposed that, it had not
no authenticity. Computer generated copy required
authentication. Hard copy of soft copy of the letter
sent by the SIT prior to 09/02/2011 was not placed on
...1128/-
Exh.1124 1128 (J-SC 317/10)
record as the SIT called the hard copy form Reliance
Mobile Company and it was placed on record. The SIT did
not make requisition of CDR's from Reliance Mobile
Company after 09/03/2011 as already the Reliance Mobile
Company had communicated to the SIT that the old CDR's
of 2006 were not available with it. It was communicated
orally and in writing in the form of Hard Copy and soft
copy. Said hard copy was not placed before the Court.
It did not happen that the said CDR's were not
convenient to the prosecution therefore, they had
suppressed those CDR's. There was no other document on
record as regards to mobile number 9323459998 stating
that, CDR details of the said mobile were not available
with the Reliance Mobile Company. Letter dated
09/02/2011 sent by Reliance Mobile Company to the SIT
was a soft copy. Except his bare verbatim there was no
other proof to show that the said letter dated
09/02/2011 was a soft copy.
1072. The witness was shown letter Exh.676 written
by his office to Reliance under signature of DCP
Mr.Prasanna. There was a reference in the said letter
of the letter dated 09/02/2011 sent by the Reliance
Mobile Company with O.W.1153010 to the SIT. There was
not mention in Exh.676 that the said letter dated
09/02/2011 was a soft copy. The second para of letter
Exh.676 mentioned that the Reliance Communication Ltd.
...1129/-
Exh.1124 1129 (J-SC 317/10)
had already furnished CDR of 9323459998 along with
letter dated 09/02/2011. The witness on his own deposed
that, the CDR was wrongly mentioned it should have been
SDR. He had typewritten this letter. He had realized
the said mistake while deposing before the court. The
letter bore signature of DCP Mr.Prasanna. Generally he
applied mind while typewriting a letter. Before
obtaining signature of DCP Mr.Prasanna he read the
contents but it was done in hurry. DCP Mr.Prasanna
might have read the letter before putting signature on
it. Since the commencement of the trial he had been
handling the documents, remaining present in the Court
and assisting the prosecution. Even then he did not
come across the said mistake. He had written the
reference in Exh.676 after perusal of soft copy. The
witness denied that, he gave false explanation to
suppress the CDR details. He recorded supplementary
statement of Subhash Lefty. He was one of the important
witnesses in this case. Statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C of the
said witness was also recorded. The witnsess took him
to the Court of the Magistrate for recording his
statement.
1073. Cross examination of the witness further
discloses that, he could not definitely state as to
whether he recorded his further statement prior to or
after recording his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. He knew
...1130/-
Exh.1124 1130 (J-SC 317/10)
that Subhash Lefty anticipating his arrest, moved
Anticipatory Bail Application before the Sessions
Court. The said Anticipatory Bail Application was moved
by him after his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and
supplementary statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
He, along-with then prosecutor, attended the said
Anticipatory Bail Application. He attended the Court
only once. A copy of the application was furnished to
the prosecutor on the same day in the Court but no copy
was furnished to the SIT. He did not remember as to
whether the prosecutor gave copy to the SIT or to him
or not on that day. He did not know as to after how
many days of filling, the application was disposed off.
The SIT did not submit written reply to the
application. He did not have occasion to read the said
application till date. He did not remember as to what
order was passed on the said application. Besides him,
P.I.Mr.Gaonkar and PSI. Mr.Chalke also attended the
court for the said application. He did not remember as
to what submissions were made by the prosecution to the
Court. The advocate appearing for Subhash Lefty argued
for him before the Court. He did not remember as to
what submissions did the prosecution make in reply. The
SIT had informed the prosecutor that Subhash Lefty was
cited as a witness. The SIT expressed its desire not to
arrest Subhash Lefty. An application as per provisions
of Section 438 Cr.P.C was to be filed along-with an
...1131/-
Exh.1124 1131 (J-SC 317/10)
affidavit.
1074. The witness further deposed that, he was not
aware as to whether Subhash Lefty had made serious
allegations against the SIT of threats, inducement,
threat of arrest in this case and long illegal
detention in police custody. He did not remember as to
whether, brother (Advocate) of the deceased was present
during the hearing of the said application. He did not
remember as to whether then prosecutor informed the SIT
that a written reply to the application was required to
be filed. The witness denied that, the SIT gave threats
of arrest of Subhash Lefty in this case and that
Subhash Lefty made allegations against the SIT
therefore, the SIT made a statement before the Court
that it would not arrest him and that under the said
context the application was disposed off accordingly.
The witness further denied that, it was the reason of
allegations against the SIT made by Subhash Lefty,
therefore the SIT had not examined him as a witness.
The witness denied that, the SIT received copies of
A.B.A. of Subhash Lefty and that he knew contents of it
even then he had deposed false about it. He did not
remember whether he gave suggestion to then prosecutor
that the SIT wanted to file reply to A.B.A.
1075. The witness further deposed that, he
...1132/-
Exh.1124 1132 (J-SC 317/10)
personally did not call and did not make inquiry with
Urmish Udhani. During the course of investigation of
this case, he and Urmish Udhani met only once in the
office of DCP Mr.Prasanna. He could not tell the date.
He did not remember as to whether, he asked any
questions to Urmish Udhani pertaining to this case.
Name of Urmish Udhani appeared as an accused in the
FIR. The FIR was registered on 20/08/2009. As a
responsible officer, he felt it necessary to call
Urmish Udhani for the purpose of investigation. He felt
it necessary to make inquiry with Urmish Udhani in
respect of 24 plots at Airoli belonging to Anandibai
Deshmukh. He did not feel it necessary to make inquiry
with Anandibai Deshmukh. He personally did not call
Urmish Udhani but DCP Mr.Prasanna called him. He acted
with prior permission of DCP Mr.Prasanna. He on his own
did not do anything. He did not remember whether, he
had any knowledge during the course of investigation
that Lakhan Bhayya gave threats to Urmish Udhani. The
SIT did not arrest Urmish Udhani in this case as it
could not get evidence against him. The SIT did not
make efforts to call record of the property of
Anandibai Deshmukh either from her or from her
relatives or from anyone else.
1076. The witness further deposed that, the SIT
called for SDR and CDR details of Mobile no.9833886791.
...1133/-
Exh.1124 1133 (J-SC 317/10)
He could not tell the date of activation of this mobile
number without going through the record. The witness
was shown Exh.417. The date of activation was
10/02/2007 as concerned to this case. According to the
SIT Ashok Sawant was the subscriber of the said mobile
number of Vodafone Mobile Company. The witness was
shown part of Exh.453 from page no.22 onwards. Page
no.26 bore the date. It was 21/05/2007. He again said
that, the date might be 21/05/2007 or 21/08/2007 i.e.
the document of Ashok Sawant along-with the
application. Mobile no. 9930754949 was of Manoj Kamble
from Ulhasnagar. Without going through the record he
could not tell whether CDR's and SDR's of the said
mobile were called in relation to this case. The date
of activation of mobile no.9930754949 was 12/12/2007.
He had deposed in respect of date of activation on the
basis of information supplied by Vodafone Mobile
Company which was part of the Charge-Sheet. It was the
soft copy sent by Vodafone Mobile Company. There was no
date on the application filed by Manoj Kamble. After
receipt of Exh.453 and Exh.417 the SIT did not make
further investigation in respect of these two mobiles.
The witness on his own deposed that, the mobile numbers
and the activation dates were confirmed prior to
receipt of Exh.453 and Exh.417. The witness denied
that, he was deposing false.
...1134/-
Exh.1124 1134 (J-SC 317/10)
1077. The witness further deposed that, accused no.
22 used to remain present for inquiry whenever he was
called for by the SIT. His statement was recorded only
once. Before he showed copy of proclamation to the wife
of accused no.22 the witenss had read it. The date, the
place and the authority before whom one had to remain
present had to be mentioned in the proclamation. The
witness was shown Exh. 754. There was no mention of
date but there was mention of place and the authority
in Exh.754. The witness denied that, there was no
mention of authority but word Mumbaiwas written above
the stamp of Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
1078. The witness further deposed that, during
inquiry the SIT had with it address of native place of
accused no.22. PSI Mr.Chalke and one SIT Ammaldar
visited native place of accused no.22. He did not
remember as to whether, they recorded any panchanama at
the native place of accused no.22. He could not tell as
to whether they recorded any statements from Native
place of accused no.22. During the course of
investigation he knew that, one brother of accused no.
22 was serving in Police Department as a PSI. He did
not record statement of brother of accused no.22 and
did not call him for inquiry to know whereabouts of
accused no.22. The last police station to which accused
...1135/-
Exh.1124 1135 (J-SC 317/10)
no.22 was attached was RASUB, Goregaon(E). He
personally did not make inquiry of accused no.22 in the
said police station. The SIT made inquiry in the said
police station. Leave record was an important document
to show the reason behind leave and its period. He did
not remember whether leave record of Mr. Sarvankar was
seized or not by the SIT. Either PSI Mr. Chalke or P.I.
Mr.Gaonkar might have visited the said police station.
No record of leave of accused no.22 was placed before
the Court. The witness denied that, before filing an
application for issuance of proclamation before a
Magistrate, it was necessary to go through all record
pertaining to accused no.22. He did not know whether,
the SIT recorded statement of any officer / staff, from
RASUB Police Station. The witness denied that, he had
deposed false that, he did not remember as to whether
the SIT tried to find out as to whether accused no.22
was on leave and that, the SIT did not follow due
procedure of law for promulgation of proclamation. The
witness further denied that, accused no.22 was
available but by preparing false panchanama he was
declared absconding.
1079. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, accused nos.13,16 & 19 were arrested
by the SIT only after permission was granted by DCP Mr.
Prasanna. The witness denied that, he had prepared
...1136/-
Exh.1124 1136 (J-SC 317/10)
false document at the instructions of DCP Mr.Prasanna,
showing that accused no.13 Devdas Sakpal was working
with P.I.Mr.Pradeep Sharma and P.I. Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi. The witness denied that, accused nos.
13,16 and 19 had been falsely arrested in this case
only after permission of DCP Mr. Prasanna.

1080. The witness further denied that, after the
inquiry against him, he was transferred from Sakinaka
Police Station and that, he forced the complainant to
give evidence in his favour before Smt. Archana Tyagi
(then Additional C.P. West Region). The inquiry was
regarding the allegations made against him by the
complainant. The witness further denied that, he was
attached to the same Police Station during the inquiry
and therefore, he influenced the complainant to give
statement in his favour. Khar Police Station was within
the Jurisdiction of ZoneX. DCP Mr.Prasanna was then
DCP ZoneX. He remained in contact with DCP ZoneX
during his visits to the Police Station. The DCP might
be knowing the allegations made against him. Any
allegations such as rape, extortion, bribe, should be
in the knowledge DCP. The witness denied that, the
inquiry commenced in October 2010. The inquiry began in
2008 and was concluded in the year 2009. The witness
denied that, he had deposed false that, the inquiry was
concluded in the year 2009. He did not have any
...1137/-
Exh.1124 1137 (J-SC 317/10)
document to show that the inquiry was concluded in the
year 2009 while deposing before the court. The witness
denied that, inquiry was concluded after October 2010.
He was not aware as to statements of how many persons
other than the complainant came to be recorded before
Smt. Archana Tyagi and that, as to whether statement of
Dilip Pandurang Suryawanshi was recorded in the said
inquiry. He was not aware as to whether Mr.Dilip
Suryawanshi stated against him before Smt. Archana
Tyagi. Dilip Suryawanshi was the brother of accused no.
9 Pradeep Suryawanshi.
1082. It has come during cross examination of PW-109
Mr.Sunil Sahadev Gaonkar, PI, attached to Khar police
station (on deputation to the SIT), Exh.797 that, it
would not be correct to say that, some certified
documents from Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police Station
were called by the SIT for investigation of Cr.No.
246/09 of Versova Police Station. Copies of FIR,
Panchanama of empties of accused no.9 dated 11/11/2006,
Spot panchanama dated 11/11/2006, Inquest panchanama
dated 11/11/2006, panchanama of empties of accused
Sarvankar and that of Palande from Cr.No.302/06 of
Versova Police Station were attached to the Charge-
sheet of Cr.No.246/09 of Versova Police station.
Accused no.9 Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi filed FIR in Cr.No.
302/06 u/s.307,IPC and 3 and 25 Arms Act. The SIT
...1138/-
Exh.1124 1138 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded statement of Mr.Shekhar Dinesh Sharma during
the course of investigation. The witness denied that,
Mr.Shekhar Sharma took photographs of the spot in
Cr.No.302/06. On 23/10/2009 the SIT recorded statement
of Photographer Mr.Vinayak Bharat Raudal. On 05/10/2009
the SIT recorded statement of Mr.Manohar Pandurang
Kulpe. On 05/10/2009 the SIT recorded statement of
Mr.Ramrajpal Ramajidas Singh. On 09/11/2009 the SIT
recorded statement of ASI Mr. Bhaskar Raoji Kelkar. He
did not know as to where he was posted that day. On
17/11/2009 the SIT recorded statement of P.H.C. Mr.
Pravin Sayaroba Rane. On 11/11/2006 he was on duty on
Versova-I Wireless Mobile. All above persons had been
cited as witnesses in this ChargeSheet. The prosecution
had not examined these witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution. Statements of Mr. Manohar Kulpe and Mr.
Ramrajpal Singh were also recorded as per provisions of
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of these two persons
were also recorded before the SLAO-IV and also before
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri. The witness was shown Affidavit filed by
accused no.9 Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi in criminal Writ
Petition No.2473/06 vide Art.117 colly. It was an
additional affidavit. After paragraph no.17 signature
of accused no.9 Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi appeared in the
said affidavit. Affidavit Art.117 was marked as Exh.
823 colly. The witness denied that, accused no.9 had
...1139/-
Exh.1124 1139 (J-SC 317/10)
been falsely implicated in this case.
1083. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not remember as to whether, he
was present at the time of recording statement of
Mr.Girish Nepali@ Shankar Dalsingh. He made inquiry
with him. He did not remember the date of the said
inquiry. He made inquiry with him only once. He did
not record his statement. PSI Mr.Chalke was with him
while he made inquiry with Mr.Girish Nepali. The
inquiry continued for about an hour. At that time PSI
Mr.Chalke did not record statement of Mr.Girish Nepali.
Prior to 19/04/2010, he visited the house of Janardan
Bhanage on two occasions. During those visits he did
not record statement of anyone from Building and from
his family. At that time he did not give any written
requisition either to Mr.Janardan Bhanage or to his
family members to attend the SIT office.
1084. The witness further deposed that, the Interim
Order was passed by the Sessions Court on 15/04/2010.
He did not remember as to when did he attend the court
after 19/04/2010. He was present at the time of hearing
of A.B.A. before the Court but he does not remember as
to how many times did he attend the Court during
hearing of ABA. He remained present before the Court
in the capacity of I.O. as and when there was hearing
...1140/-
Exh.1124 1140 (J-SC 317/10)
of A.B.A. He did not see Janardan Bhanage attending the
Court except that on 22/07/2010. On being asked, could
he tell as to whether Janardan Bhanage attended the
Court prior to 22/07/2010, the witness answered that,
he did not see him in the court.
1085. The witness further deposed that, on
22/07/2010 Janardan Bhanage remained present before the
Court as per directions of the Court. On 22/07/2010 in
the Afternoon Session at the beginning the order came
to be passed. He could not tell the time. They did not
take Janardan Bhanage in their custody immediately
after the order was passed. Janardan Bhanage was
apprehended after 04.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m., from the
place outside of the Court premises i.e. outside of the
compound. They were waiting outside of the premises for
Janardan Bhanage. Janardan Bhanage was apprehended from
the road outside of the Court, as he came out of the
Court premises. The SIT staff was waiting there since,
afternoon. They were one officer and two Ammaldars. The
officer was API Mr. Ghorpade. Janardan Bhanage was
brought on a stretcher outside of the court premises.
Then he was kept in the ambulance and then the SIT
apprehended him. In the same ambulance Janardan Bhanage
was taken to Versova Police Station. The witness denied
that, the SIT falsely implicated Janardan Bhanage in
this case.
...1141/-
Exh.1124 1141 (J-SC 317/10)
1086. The witness further deposed that, the SIT took
search of the house of Janardan Bhanage. He did not
remember the date of effecting search but the search
was effected after his arrest. The search was not
effected during his two visits to the house of Janardan
Bhanage prior to his arrest. He, PSI Mr.Chalke, API
Mr.Ghorpade and SIT staff and the Local Police were
present at the time of effecting the search of the
house of Janardan Bhanage. Nothing incriminating was
found during the said search. A panchanama was
recorded. He could not tell the date of recording the
said panchanama and conducting the search.
1087. The witness further deposed that, he was
instrumental in recording statement of one Kaushik of
'Sahara Samay'. On being asked, did he personally learn
that Mr.Kaushik was present on the spot at Nana Nani
Park between 11.05 p.m. to 11.20 p.m. on 11/11/2006,
the witness answered that, the said witness stated so,
in his statement. The witness was confronted with Video
C.D. of the news item. The Video C.D. was confronted to
the witness who was available in the SIT office before
the witness was confronted. The SIT received the Video
C.D. on 21/08/2009. The witness deposed that, since,
21/08/2009 till recording statement of Mr.Kaushik, the
C.D. was not in a sealed condition. On being asked, did
...1142/-
Exh.1124 1142 (J-SC 317/10)
he learn from Mr. Kaushik that he had shot from 11.15
p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 11/11/2006, the witness answered
that, in his statement before him, Mr.Kaushik stated
that, the shooting was done through his Videographer.
As per the prosecution case the said video clippings
showed presence of accused no.7 at Nana Nani Park at
the relevant time. The witness on his own deposed that,
not at the relevant time it was there in the clippings.
On being asked, after recording statement of Mr.Kaushik
did he feel necessary to call accused no.7 for
interrogation, the witness answered that, presence of
accused no.7 in the C.D. was noticed by the SIT after
arrest of accused no.7 in this case.
1088. The witness further deposed that, Sr.P.I. was
the Incharge of a Police Station. There was a separate
post of P.I. Administration. It was as per Bombay
Police Manual. The duties assigned were mentioned in
Order Book. Its report was not made to the Superior
Officer. Prior to arrest of accused no.7, the SIT did
not call for any noting from D.N. Nagar Police Station
pertaining to accused no.7. The SIT had recorded
statement of Mr.Pramanand Sitaram Desai (P.W. 14). The
witness denied that, purpose behind recording his
statement was to know the procedure followed by the BMC
and as regards to the attendance. His statement was
recorded after arrest of accused no.10. At the time of
...1143/-
Exh.1124 1143 (J-SC 317/10)
recording statement of Mr.Parmanand Desai accused no.
10 was the permanent employee of BMC. He did not not
remember the time since when he became permanent.
Accused no. 10 was an employee of BMC in November 2006.
It occurred to him that the employees of the cadres
were required to put their signatures in attendance
register. Salary was paid on the basis of attendance
of the BMC employees. The salary slip gave the correct
account of salary drawn by accused no.10. The SIT did
not try to procure the salary slip of accused no. 10
from BMC pertaining to November 2010. The SIT gave a
letter to BMC to provide to it the Muster Roll, or
Attendance Register. P.W.14 was not the In-charge of
the Muster of Roll or the Attendance Register
pertaining accused no.10 for the month of November
2006. The SIT tried to find out as to who was the In
charge of the Muster Roll or the Attendance Register
pertaining to accused no.10 for the month of November
2006. The SIT did not record statement of the person
who was In-charge of Muster Roll or Attendance Register
pertaining to accused no.10 for the month of November
2006. The witness on his own deposed that it was
informed to the SIT that the original register which
was kept in the Chowki was not available. The SIT did
not receive any document as regards to missing
complaint about the said original register. The salary
slip and the Attendance Register were the only two
...1144/-
Exh.1124 1144 (J-SC 317/10)
documents in the handwriting of the accused, where the
accused put his signatures. The witness denied that the
SIT fabricated the document in respect of accused no.
10 and got it through P.W. 14 and that, P.W.14 was not
serving in any department in BMC in the year 2008. On
being asked, was it correct to say that, he had no
evidence to show as to from where the data on C.D. was
downloaded and which was shown to Mr.Kaushik, the
witness answered that, the C.D. was produced by
Complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta during recording of his
supplementary statement. The witness did not know as to
how many times the C.D. was edited and as to whether it
was copy no.1,2, or so on. He had no personal knowledge
as to whether versions from different clippings had
been copied and converted in one C.D. The witness
denied that, he falsely implicated accused nos.6,7 & 10
in this case.
1089. The witness further deposed that, his
statement was recorded by the I.O. Whatever he had
deposed till time, was deposed on the basis of his
memory and on the basis of record before the Court.
During the course of investigation the Chief I.O. was
maintaining the case Diary. He did not know as to
whether the part that he performed in the investigation
was recorded in the Case Diary or not but he used to
report it to the Chief I.O. The Chief I.O. had
...1145/-
Exh.1124 1145 (J-SC 317/10)
instructed him to maintain Station Diary pertaining to
the important events of investigation. Personally he
did not make any diary in his handwriting. The Diary
entries were made at Bandra, Versova and Powai police
stations which were caused to be made by him. It was
the decision of the SIT as to which part was to be
entered into Station Diary. On each occasion the SIT
would not sit together and decide as to whether the
entry was to be made in the Station Diary. The entries
as regards to keeping the accused in the lockups and
taking them out were taken in the Station Diary of
Powai Police Station. It was the same case as regards
to Bandra Police Station. One more entry of accused no.
1 was taken in Station Diary of Bandra Police Station.
On being asked, was it a collective decision not to
record arrest panchanamas, the witness answered that,
arrest panchanamas were recorded. Those panchanamas
were made at the places where they were arrested. Those
panchanamas were carried out at Versova Police station
and Bandra Police Station. No panchanamas were prepared
at the places from where the accused were apprehended.
Those arrest panchanamas were not filed alongwith the
ChargeSheet. Beside his bare verbatim there was a
record of arrest in the Station Diary of Versova and
Bandra Police Stations. Those Diaries were not produced
before the Court. The witness denied that, no arrest
panchanamas were prepared and no entries were made in
...1146/-
Exh.1124 1146 (J-SC 317/10)
the Station Diaries. Station Diaries of Powai Police
Station and Bandra Police Station were not produced
before the Court. The witness denied that, there were
no such entries therefore, those were not produced
before the Court. No entries regarding the arrests of
accused from Versova Police Station were produced
before the Court.
1090. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 20.08.2009, he reached at Versova
police station at 10.30 to 11 am. He did not make entry
in the station diary of Khar police station, while
leaving for Versova police station. On the same day, he
was called on telephone by DCP Mr.Prasanna. There was
nothing on record to show that, he was called on
telephone by DCP Mr.Prasanna except that of his bare
verbatim. No letter was given to the Sr. PI or the SHO
of Versova police station on that day in his presence.
He personally did not go through the FIR at Versova
police station on that day. He did not have occasion to
interact with Ramprasad Gupta on 20.08.2010 at Versova
police station on that day. He returned to Powai police
station at about 10.30 pm. When he returned back to
Powai police station, the complainant was not present
there. On 24th August, 2009, he came to know phone
number of Dhiraj Mehta. He came to know this through a
secrete informant. The witness denied that, till that
...1147/-
Exh.1124 1147 (J-SC 317/10)
time, he did not have talks with Ramprasad Gupta and
that, this number of Dhiraj Mehta was given to him by
Ramprasad Gupta. On 24th August, 2009, he contacted
Dhiraj Mehta. He spoke to him. He asked him to come to
the SIT for recording his statement. He asked Dhiraj
Mehta to immediately report to Powai police station. He
did not come on 24th August, 2009, 25th August, 2009
and 26th August, 2009. The witness on his own deposed
that, he told the witness that he had no time, as he
was out of station. He brought this fact to the notice
of DCP Mr.Prasanna. It did not happen that, DCP
Mr.Prasanna made a phone call to Dhiraj Mehta on 26th
August, 2009. On 27th August, 2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna
called Dhiraj Mehta on phone, but he could not contact
Dhiraj Mehta. Again, Dhiraj Mehta contacted him on
phone on the same day. He got number of Dhiraj Mehta
from a secret informant. He and Mr.Prasanna tried to
contact him, but he was not available and that, on
27.08.2009, DCP Mr.Prasanna tried to contact him on
phone, but could not contact. Then, Dhiraj Mehta called
DCP Mr. Prasanna on phone. On 27.08.2009, at about
04.00 p.m. Dhiraj Mehta came to the SIT. Mr.Prasanna
interrogated him. He, API Mr.Ghorpade and PSI Mr.Chalke
were present during the course of the said
interrogation. Upon his interrogation his statement
came to be recorded. He could not tell exact time as to
when the interrogation and recording of statement was
...1148/-
Exh.1124 1148 (J-SC 317/10)
over. The recording of statement might have been over
between 07.00 p.m. to 08.00 p.m. Mr. Dhiraj Mehata was
not asked to come on the following day while his
statement was being recorded. He was called on the
following at Vashi. Again his statement came to be
recorded. On 27/08/2009 he was asked as to whether he
was willing to give statement before the Magistrate.
Dhiraj Mehata was willing to give statement before the
Magistrate. DCP Mr.Prasanna had contacted Dhiraj Mehata
for remaining present at Vashi on 28/08/2009. He did
not go to Vashi. API Mr.Ghorpade had gone to Vashi. No
panchanama was drawn of the place pointed out by
Mr.Dhiraj Mehata at Vashi. It was the decision of DCP
Mr.Prasanna to record further statement of Dhiraj Mehta
on 28/08/2009. Statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of Dhiraj
Mehtat came to be recorded on 04/09/2009. He had gone
through the statements dated 27/08/2009, 28/08/2009 and
04/09/2009 of Dhiraj Mehata. Statement of Dhiraj Mehata
again came to be recorded on 01/01/2010. Again he was
asked that day as to whether he would like to record
his statement before the Magistrate. Again he showed
his willingness. Therefore, he was taken before the
Magistrate on 11/02/2010 for recording his statement
before the Magistrate. The purpose behind recording his
statement on 11/11/2010 before the Magistrate was that
the earlier statement dated 04/09/2009 before the
Magistrate and statement dated 01/02/2010 were in
...1149/-
Exh.1124 1149 (J-SC 317/10)
variance. Statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. dated 04/09/2009
was in the same line as that statements dated
27/08/2009 and 28/08/2009. Since, 20/08/2009 till
03/09/2009 he did not get Mobile number of Anil Bheda.
The witness denied that, he personally did not make
efforts to contact Anil Bheda during the said period.
Except his bare verbatim there was no other proof to
show that he made efforts to contact Anil Bheda during
the said period. On being asked, was it correct to say
that, there was no record with the SIT to show as to
how and when it contacted Anil Bheda, the witness
answered that, the SIT could not contact Anil Bheda
till 03/09/2009. He himself visited the SIT office for
the first time on 03/09/2009. Anil Bheda came to know
that the SIT was looking for him therefore, he came to
the SIT office on his own. On being asked, since
20/08/2009 till 03/09/2009 whether any staff from the
SIT was deputed at the house of Anil Bheda, the witness
answered that, the SIT did not have with it then
address of Anil Bheda. The SIT made inquiry at the
address where Anil Bheda was lastly residing.
Complainant Mr. Ramprasad Gupta did not give phone
number of Anil Bheda to the SIT. API Mr. Ghorpade went
to the said address of Anil Bheda. He could not tell
exact date on which API Mr. Ghorapade visited the said
address. API Mr. Ghorpade visited the said address
only once. API Mr. Ghorpade did not record statement of
...1150/-
Exh.1124 1150 (J-SC 317/10)
anyone from the said address. API Mr.Ghorpade went to
Sector No.29, Khoparkhairane, Vashi. Complainant was
asked as to where did Anil Bheda reside, after Anil
Bheda was not found. His statement was not recorded.
Except his bare verbatim there was nothing to show
that API Mr. Ghorpade visited the said address. It was
an important fact that the most important prosecution
witness was not found residing at the said address at
Sector No.29, Koparkhairane, Vashi. The witness on his
own deposed that, the said address was of three years
before. Till recording statement of Anil Bheda the SIT
did not come to know as to where did Anil Bheda reside
during the period of said three years. The SIT made
inquiry with complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta and witness
Dhiraj Mehata as to where did Anil Bheda reside but
they could not tell. Both of them did not give mobile
number of Anil Bheda. API Mr.Ghorpade visited the place
where Anil Bheda carried out his business as Estate
Agent and as Grain Merchant. The SIT did not record
statement of anyone. There was no Station Diary entry
as regards to it. Except his bare verbatim there was no
other proof to show that API Mr.Ghorpade visited the
place where Anil Bheda carried out his business as
Estate Agent and as Grain Merchant. The SIT was knowing
that statements of Anil Bheda were recorded during
inquiries before the SLAO-IV and the Magistrate. The
SIT did not make inquiry by going there. On 03/09/2009
...1151/-
Exh.1124 1151 (J-SC 317/10)
the SIT did not ask Anil Bheda to show Hotel Midtown.
On 26/09/2009 when the SIT visited Hotel Midtown, Anil
Bheda did not accompany the SIT to Hotel Midtown. The
SIT came to know about Hotel Midtown on 03/09/2009.
After checking the registers from Hotel Midtown, the
SIT did not get any proof to show that a person by name
Anil Bheda resided in the said Hotel. The SIT visited
Hotel Midtown for the first time on 26/09/2009 during
the course of investigation. On 26/09/2009 the SIT did
not come across any person from Hotel Midtown stating
that Anil Bheda was seen alongwith police. The SIT did
not confront Anil Bheda to the staff from Hotel
Midtown. The witness on his own deposed that, Anil
Bheda was asked but he was reluctant as he was afraid.
Except his bare verbatim there was nothing to show that
the SIT asked Anil Bheda to be confronted to the staff
Hotel Midtown but he was reluctant as he was afraid. In
March 2010, when the SIT visited Hotel Midtown on
second occasion, Anil Bheda was with the SIT. During
the said visit also Anil Bheda was not confronted with
any staff from Hotel Midtown. Anil Bheda was taken to
the said hotel only on 19/03/2010, when the SIT visited
the place for verification on 21/08/2009 & 25/08/2009.
Except Mr.Ramprasad Gupta no other witness was present
at the said place. On 21/08/2009 the SIT could not get
any witness, article and any other proof from the
place, during the course of recording the panchanama.
...1152/-
Exh.1124 1152 (J-SC 317/10)
On 25/08/2009 no statements came to be recorded while
the SIT visited the said place. After 03/09/2009 SIT
did not tell Anil Bheda to show the said place. He
again said that, after 03/09/2009 the SIT told Anil
Bheda to show the said place. The witness on his own
deposed that, Anil Bheda was afraid and therefore he
was reluctant to show the place at that time. He had
deposed this fact for the first time before the Court
and that except his bare verbatim there was nothing on
record to show that the SIT told Anil Bheda to show the
place but he was afraid and therefore, was reluctant to
show the said place. Anil Bheda pointing the place from
where he was abducted was the most important fact from
the point of view of investigation. The witness denied
that, this was not being investigated as Anil Bheda was
never abducted and that, he had deposed false that, the
SIT told Anil Bheda to show the place from where he was
abducted and that he did not show the place as he was
reluctant to show due to fear. The SIT visited Nana
Nani Park, on 31/08/2009 for investigation. The SIT
went there to make inquiry as to who were watchmen on
11/11/2006 at Nana Nani Park. The SIT did not go to
Magnum Opus Building on that day for making inquiry. On
that day the SIT did not come across watchmen of Nana
Nani Park but it came to know names of the Watchmen.
NanaNani Park was the BMC Park. The witness denied
that, inquiry with the BMC would have revealed names of
...1153/-
Exh.1124 1153 (J-SC 317/10)
the watchmen. The witness on his own deposed that, the
watchmen were from Private Security and that BMC would
have record with it of the private Security. The SIT
did not check the said record. The SIT came to know
name of the Security on 31/08/2009. The SIT made
inquiry with the said Security about the watchmen who
were on duty on 11/11/2006. The SIT recorded statements
of two watchmen. As per the record statement of
watchman Pitambar Rameshwar Yadav was recorded on
30/10/2009. The witness denied that, he was on duty at
NanaNani Park during the night of 11/11/2006. He
visited FSL in the first week of November 2009. The
witness denied that, except his bare verbatim there was
no record to show that he visited the FSL, met Miss.
Deshpande etc., and that she told him that, the same
batch of empties, which were fired, were required for
examination. On 08/09/2009 the SIT received papers of
Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police Station. He had gone
through the said papers. After going through the papers
he came to know that Muddemal of Cr.No.302/06 was lying
in Versova Police Station. The witness denied that,
neither he nor any officer from the SIT saw the
Muddemal before 19/12/2009 and that, on 29/10/2009 he
visited FSL and there he met Mr. Gautam Ghadge. In the
month of October 2009 Mr. Gautam Ghadge visited the SIT
office but he did not remember date on which he visited
or office. His meeting with Miss. Deshpande was after
...1154/-
Exh.1124 1154 (J-SC 317/10)
the visit of Mr.Gautam Ghadge to the SIT office. The
witness on his own deposed that, Mr. Ghadge was called
by the SIT to its office. The witness denied that, the
purpose behind calling Mr.Gautam Ghadge to the SIT
office was to discuss as to what articles he would
require for the purpose of comparison. On that day
Mr.Gautam Ghadge was shown the Ballistic report from
Cr.No.302/06. He did not remember as to whether the SIT
specifically asked him as to why the weapons were not
called by him for the purpose of comparison in Cr.No.
302/06.
1091. The witness further deposed that, in the first
week of December 2009 the SIT came to know that the
weapons were deposited in Armory. The SIT made
correspondence as regards to the said weapons with D.N.
Nagar Police station and Versova Police station. On
04/11/2009, the SIT issued letters to Sr.P.I. D.N.
Nagar and Sr. P.I. Versova Police stations. The SIT did
not visit these two police stations before sending the
letters in connection with the weapons deposited in
Armory. On 06/11/2009 the SIT received letters from
Versova Police Station and D.N. Nagar Police station as
regards to the said weapons except that of accused no.
1 as there was no reference of accused number one's
weapon. The SIT had sent letters in respect of the
weapons from Cr.No.302/06, to D.N. Nagar Police station
...1155/-
Exh.1124 1155 (J-SC 317/10)
and Versova Police Station as per their record. The SIT
did not make inquiry with D.N.Nagar Police station as
regards to the weapon with accused no.1. The SIT did
not make inquiry with the Armory as regards to the
allotment of weapon to accused no.1. The SIT would have
received the information of weapons alloted to the
accused persons. The witness on his own deposed that,
these informations would have received only of those in
whose names the weapons were alloted.
1092. The witness further deposed that, on
10/12/2009 he went to Armory Naigaon. Prior to his
visit to Naigaon Armory on 10/12/2009, the SIT did not
receive any reply to its letters dated 12/11/2009,
24/11/2009 and 04/12/2009. Prior to 10/12/2009 he had
occasion to visit Naigaon Armory. Armory Building was a
restricted area. A permission was required if a private
person wanted to enter into the Building. The witness
denied that, he took two panchas with him from the SIT
office as he knew that a panchanama was to be recorded
at Armory. Though he knew that panchanamas were to be
recorded on 10/12/2009 and 17/12/2009 he did not carry
any letter with him for requesting to allow panchas to
enter alongwith the SIT in Armory Building. The witness
on his own deposed that, he made oral requests. The
witness was shown Exh.496(Colly) and Exh.496(A). There
was no mention of panchanama in these two documents. On
...1156/-
Exh.1124 1156 (J-SC 317/10)
10/12/2009, he reached at Head Quarters Armory i.e. The
Additional Commissioner of Police, Armed Forces office
at 10 a.m. On 10/12/2009 at 12.35 p.m. He reached at
Magazine Section. He was at Magazine Section till 04.00
p.m. The SIT Ammaldar alongwith panchas directly came
at the door in front of Magazine Section. The two
persons which were brought by the Ammaldar were
accepted as panchas by him. He made inquiry with those
two persons. On inquiry with them he came to know that,
one person was from Powai and another was from
Sakinaka. He made inquiry with them as to on how many
occasions they acted as panchas. Both those persons
informed him that they never acted as panchas. PSI Mr.
Chalke & API Mr. Ghorpade did not tell him that those
persons never came across to them and were not known to
them.
1093. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, vide letters dated 12/11/2009,
24/11/2009 and 04/12/2009, the SIT asked for eight
weapons. Till 10/12/2009 I did not know that the eighth
weapon was not there at Naigoan. On 10/12/2009 he came
to know that weapon of accused no.1 was at Dharavi
Police Station. On 10/12/2009 and thereafter he did not
go to Dharavi Police Station to seize the said weapon.
The SIT did not receive any letters since, 10/12/2009
till 17/12/2009 stating that, the eighth weapon was not
...1157/-
Exh.1124 1157 (J-SC 317/10)
with Naigaon Armory. The witness on his own deposed
that, the SIT came to know it as it made inquiry on
phone. Except his bare verbatim there was nothing on
record to show that the SIT came to know this after it
made inquiry on phone and that he was deposing these
facts for the first time before the Court. On
17/12/2009 he did not carry any letter with him seeking
permission to allow panchas to enter into Armory
Building. On 17/12/2009 SIT did not issue any letter
for weapon to Sr.P.I. Mr.Dal or to any other official.
On 17/12/2009 he did not have a thought in his mind to
take panchas along-with him to Armoury. PSI Mr.Chalke
brought panchas. Prior to that he had an occasion to
see one of the panchas. His name was Shamshuddin. The
witness denied that, he saw him acting as a pancha
prior to it. He accepted both of them as panchas. The
witness denied that, he did not make inquiry with them.
He asked them as to on how many occasions prior to it
they acted as panchas and how many criminal cases were
filed against them. Both of them were residing at
Jogeshwari, Plot. The witness denied that, they told
him that they were habitual panchas acting for PSI Mr.
Chalke. The witness on his own deposed that, they
informed him that they acted as panchas on one or two
occasions.
...1158/-
Exh.1124 1158 (J-SC 317/10)
1094. The witness further deposed that, panch
Shashuddin informed him that there were criminal cases
against him but he was acquitted from those old cases.
Even then he felt it that, both of them were the proper
persons to act as panchas. It did not occur to him to
call some other persons to act as panchas. On the
respective dates the panchas did not come to Versova
Police Station. It was not decided during the meeting
with Mr.Gautam Ghadge and Miss. Deshpande from FSL that
on 29/10/2009 and in the first week of November 2009,
that all the Muddemal was to be sent together at one
time. On being asked, why on 10/12/2009 all the Seven
weapons seized were not sent to the FSL, the witness
replied that, one more weapon was to be seized. On
being asked, why on 17/12/2009 all the weapons seized
were not sent to the FSL, the witness replied that, as
the office hours were about to get over the weapons
were not sent to the FSL. On 17/12/2009 at 01.15 p.m.
the panchanama was over. FSL could be nearer from
Naigaon than Versova Police Station. He could not
assign any reason as to why Muddemal Articles from
Cr.No.302/06 were not sent to FSL till 19/12/2009. The
witness denied that, the SIT wanted to tamper the
weapons and the Articles therefore, those were not sent
to FSL till 19/12/2009. On 19/12/2009 he did not see
total Muddemal form Cr.No. 302/06. He had never seen
Muddemal Property from Cr.No.302/06. He personally did
...1159/-
Exh.1124 1159 (J-SC 317/10)
not make any entry in Station Diary of Versova Police
station in his handwriting but the entries were made in
Muddemal Register and Station Diary at his instance on
10/12/2009 and 17/12/2009. Both Muddemal entries were
made by PSI Mr. Chalke in his handwriting. The duty
officer made the entries in the Station Diary. In
February 2010 when the Muddemal was received from FSL,
entries were made in the Muddemal Register and in the
Station Diary at the instance of API Mr.Ghorpade. At
that time he was not present there. The witness denied
that, entry made in the Station Diary at the instance
of API Mr. Ghorpade was not within his knowledge. He
personally did not see the Articles on 19/12/2009 and
on 02/02/2010. The witness denied that, on 02/04/2010
API Mr.Ghorpade went to check the articles in Versova
Police Station and that, API Mr.Ghorpade took out the
articles, checked those articles and again returned
back those articles and that, there was no entry in
Muddemal Register and in the Station Diary of seizure
of Articles by API Mr.Ghorpade on 02/04/2010. There was
no panchanma dated 02/04/2010 of seizure of the said
Articles by API Mr.Ghorpade. No document was placed
before the court in respect of the said seizure. The
witness on his own deposed that, statement of
Mr.BanadalkarMuddemal Karkun of Versova Police station
was placed alongwith the Charge-sheet. The witness
denied that, the SIT kept the Muddemal in Versova
...1160/-
Exh.1124 1160 (J-SC 317/10)
Police station and used to keep it there and take out
from there as and when desired by the SIT and that, the
SIT did not use any seal therefore, no document was
placed before the Court. Even after reading papers of
Cr.No.302/06 he did not come to know names of two eye
witnesses. He knew names of Mr.Manohar Kulpe and Mr.
Ramrajpal Singh. After reading papers of Cr.No.302/06
he came to know names of these two persons. Both of
them were cited witnesses in Cr.no.302/06 and also
their statements were recorded in the said crime.
Statement of Mr.Ramrajpal Singh was recorded u/s.164
Cr.P.C. in Cr.no.302/06. He did not remember whether
statement of Mr.Manohar Kulpe was recorded u/s.164
Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.302/06. The SIT made inquiry with the
important witnesses from Cr.No.302/06. The SIT summoned
both of them to the SIT office made inquiry with them
and asked them whether they wanted to give statement
u/s.164 Cr.P.C. Initially their statements were
recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. Then they were asked whether
they were ready to give statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. At
that time they told the SIT that they would communicate
it later on. Thereafter they gave their consent for
recording their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. After two
months they gave their consent for recording their
statements. Thereafter, their statements u/s.164
Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Meantime the SIT made
efforts to secure printouts of their mobile calls. The
...1161/-
Exh.1124 1161 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT received the printouts of Mobile calls of
Mr.Ramrajpal Singh. The witness denied that, the SIT
made efforts to secure printouts of their mobile calls
to know their locations as on 11/11/2006 at the alleged
time of incident. The SIT made efforts to know as to
where were those two witnesses at the alleged time of
incident. He did not know as to whether the Cell ID's
of Mobiles of those two persons were called for the
said purpose.
1095. The witness further deposed that, statements
of Mr.Ramrajpal Singh and Manohar Kulpe were recorded
in relation to the incident dated 11/11/2006. The
witness denied that, it was necessary to know their
Cell I.D.'s so as to know their locations as on
11/11/2006. Further statement of Mr.Ramrajpal Singh was
not recorded after the SIT received Cell I.D.'s and
CDR's of said Mr. Ramrajpal Singh. After making inquiry
with them SIT came to know that both of them gave their
statements before the SLAO-IV and the Magistrate and
also filed affidavit before them. The SIT did not make
efforts to secure copies of their statements and
affidavits from the record and proceedings before the
SLAO-IV and the Magistrate. The witness on his own
deposed that, the SIT had called both the reports and
inquiry papers. The SIT did not specifically make
requisition of the statements of these two witnesses.
...1162/-
Exh.1124 1162 (J-SC 317/10)
The SIT received the papers of inquiry before the SLAO-
IV and before the Magistrate. Statements and affidavits
of these two witnesses were included in those papers
called by the SIT. After receipt of the said papers the
SIT did not make inquiry with those two witnesses. The
affidavits and statements of these witnesses were not
filed alongwith ChargeSheet before the Court. Except
his bare verbatim there was no other proof to show that
the SIT asked these two witnesses for recording their
statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and that they gave their
consent after a period of two months. He read the
inquiry papers from the SLAO-IV and from the judicial
inquiry. He did not come to know even after reading
the papers that both of them claimed that on 11/11/2006
they were present at the spot when the incident took
place. He read the report of the SLAO-IV and that of
the Magistrate. Both of them claimed that they were
present at the spot or around the spot at the time of
the incident dated 11/11/2006. On 03/09/2009 he was
present when statement of Anil Bheda was recorded.
Thereafter he felt it necessary to verify the statement
made by Anil Bheda. Till 19/03/2010 Anil Bheda was not
taken to Trisha Collections, Lakashydeep Hospital Road,
Bhandup Complex and Bhatwadi. The witness on his own
deposed that, a watch was being kept on Anil Bheda and
he was afraid therefore, he was not ready to come
alongwith the SIT. The SIT did not provide protection
...1163/-
Exh.1124 1163 (J-SC 317/10)
to Anil Bheda. The SIT did not take any application
from him stating that his life was endangered. There
was no entry made anywhere stating that there was
danger to the life of Anil Bheda. Except his bare
verbatim there was no other record. Mobile of Anil
Bheda was not kept on surveillance. The SIT did not
send police to his house. The SIT called Anil Bheda to
the SIT office on many occasions during investigation.
He was called on thirteen occasions for recording his
statements. On 03/09/2009 the SIT secured his mobile
number and address of his residence. The SIT was in
contact with Anil Bheda on his mobile till he
disappeared. The SIT did not tell him to change his
mobile number. The SIT did not tell him to change his
residential address. He could not tell as to whether
the SIT visited Bhatwadi prior to 19/03/2010. On
25/08/2009 API Mr.Ghorpade did not prepare a sketch at
Trisha Collections on Lakasydeep Hospital Road. On
28/08/2009 Mr.Dhiraj Mehata was called at Trisha
Collections. On 28/08/2009 the SIT did not collect any
document showing that there was a shop of Dhiraj Mehata
near Trisha collections. Even thereafter the SIT did
not collect any document. The witness on his own
deposed that, the SIT made inquiry with him but he told
that there were no documents. The SIT recorded
statements of two persons having shops in and around
Trisha Collections. Those two witnesses were not
...1164/-
Exh.1124 1164 (J-SC 317/10)
confronted to Anil Bheda. The SIT did not show photo of
Ramnarayan Gupta to those two witnesses. The SIT did
not confront Dhiraj Mehata to those two witnesses. One
witness was by name Mr. Dinesh Gandhi and another was
Sikandar. The SIT did not call them to see the vehicle.
The SIT did not come across any witness from Bhandup
Complex. The SIT did not record statement of any
witnesses from Bhandup Complex. On 19/03/2010 Anil
Bheda was with the SIT when it went to D.N. Nagar
Police Station. On 19/03/2010 there was no one in D.N.
Nagar Police Station who could identify Anil Bheda in
D.N. Nagar Police Station. On 19/03/2010 the SIT
reached at D.N. Nagar Police station at 02.30 p.m. to
03.00 p.m. and remained there for about one hour. On
19/03/2010 he went to Hotel Midtown. At Hotel Midtown,
the SIT called Madan More and Milind More. On
01/02/2010 and 02/02/2010 the SIT recorded statements
of Madan More and Milind More. SIT recorded their
further statements on 04/02/2010. On 01/02/2010,
02/02/2010 and 04/02/2010 the SIT did not tell these
two witnesses to show the rooms form Hotel Midtown.
There was no witness in the Hotel who could identify
Mr. Madan More and Mr.Milind More. The parental house
of Mrs. Aruna Bheda was in Bhatwadi. On 19/03/2010
nothing was seized by the SIT from above mentioned four
places. The witness denied that, panchanama Exh.753 and
sketch Exh.753(A) were false and that, the SIT prepared
...1165/-
Exh.1124 1165 (J-SC 317/10)
false statement of Anil Bheda and that to corroborate
the said statement, the panchanama Exh.753 and sketch
Exh.753 (A) were prepared by the SIT. On 20/10/2009 or
two days prior to it the SIT sent a letter to CTO. The
said letter was not produced before the Court. The
witness denied that, there was no such letter therefore
the SIT did not produce it before the Court and that,
the SIT and the complainant fabricated Five Telegram
Booking Forms exhibits 114 to 118 and that, those were
not genuine Booking Forms and that no such Booking
Forms were prepared. On 27/08/2009 he came to know
name of Mr. Nilesh who had given information to Dhiraj
Mehata. After 28/08/2009 the SIT made efforts to search
Nilesh. The SIT could not trace out Nilesh at any point
of time. The SIT also did not come to know mobile
number of Nilesh. The SIT did not mention in the
progress report submitted to The Hon'ble High Court,
anything about its efforts to find out Mr. Nilesh and
also that the SIT could not trace out him. The witness
on his own deposed that, on 08/02/2010, after arrest of
the accused the SIT mentioned in its progress report
before the Hon'ble High Court that it would not submit
details as it would affect the investigation,
therefore, the SIT did not mention about Nilesh. The
report dated 08/02/2010 was the fifth progress report.
Even in the last progress report the SIT did not
mention that it searched for Mr. Nilesh but could not
...1166/-
Exh.1124 1166 (J-SC 317/10)
trace out him. The SIT made efforts to search for Mr.
Sawant who was the Accountant of Mr. Dhiraj Mehata. The
SIT could not trace out him. It was not mentioned in
the progress report. The SIT did not make any entry
anywhere as regards to it. The SIT recorded statements
of Urmish Udhani and Jenny whose names appeared in the
FIR. The SIT did not submit report before the Court
stating that there was no evidence against those two
persons. The witness on his own deposed that, they were
not shown as wanted accused. The SIT had not produced
statements of Urmish Udani and Jenny before the Court.
The SIT made inquiry as to how many cases were there
against Ramnarayan Gupta. The SIT made inquiry as to in
how many cases Ramnarayan Gupta was wanted. The SIT
made inquiry as to how many cases were pending in the
Court against Ramnarayan Gupta but it did not make
inquiry as to in how many cases warrants were issued
against Ramnarayan Gupta. The SIT did not record
statements of the I.O.'s relating to the cases against
Ramnarayan Gupta. During inquiry the SIT came to know
that Ramnarayan Gupta was wanted in three to four cases
as on the date of incident. He did not know as to from
when, the mobile phone on which recording was done by
Anil Bheda, was with him. He had heard mobile no.
9833676351. This was mobile number of Anil Bheda. He
did not know as to from when the said mobile phone was
with Anil Bheda. 9821298666 was his mobile number. This
...1167/-
Exh.1124 1167 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile number was with him since, the year 2001.
9870102736 was the mobile number of PSI Mr.Chalke.
9322266769 was the mobile number of API Mr. Ghorpade.
9870198979 was mobile number of DCP Mr. Prasanna.
1096. The witness further deposed that, 9702053191
was the mobile number Adv. Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. On
07/03/2011 at 20:20:57 for 33 seconds he spoke to
Mobile no 9833676351 of Anil Bheda. On the same day at
21:30 hours for 45 seconds he spoke to Anil Bheda on
the same mobile. On 08/03/2011 at 10:17:56 hours for 36
seconds he spoke to Anil Bheda. All the three calls
were done by him. The witness on his own deposed that,
Bheda gave missed calls and then he used to call him.
On 07/03/2011 and 08/03/2011 Bheda wanted to get
information of the case. On those dates Bheda did not
tell him about any threats to him. API Mr. Ghorpade was
in contact with Anil Bheda. He could not tell as to
whether PSI Mr. Chalke and complainant Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta were always in contact with Anil Bheda. He did
not remember as to whether, on 10/03/2011 & 11/03/2011
Anil Bheda gave him missed calls. On 11/03/2011 at
about 08.30 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. API Mr. Ghorpade
informed him that he had talks on mobile with Anil
Bheda. At that time for the first time they came to
know that Anil Bheda received threats. They did not
know that he recorded the calls in his mobile. They did
...1168/-
Exh.1124 1168 (J-SC 317/10)
not come to know as to how many calls Anil Bheda had
received. On 12/03/2011, he did not contact Anil Bheda
on his mobile. Anil Bheda talked on phone to API. Mr.
Ghorpade on 12/03./2011 as regards to their visit to
Nahur. API Mr. Ghorpade told him between 02.30 p.m. to
04.00 p.m. that they were to go to Nahur. They did not
go to Nahur to apprehend the person who made calls.
Anil Bheda did not reside within the radius of 15 to 20
kilometers of Nahur area. He was not afraid of the SIT.
He did not tell Anil Bheda to come to the SIT office.
Till then the SIT did not come to know as to how many
calls were recorded by him. Except his bare verbatim
there was no other proof to show that they went to
Nahur and brought Anil Bheda to the SIT office. The SIT
had not suggested Anil Bheda to do recordings of the
calls. Even though the SIT came to know at 08.30 p.m.
to 09.00 p.m. on 11/03/2011 that Anil Bheda received
threats, the SIT did not provide protection to Anil
Bheda. He informed DCP Mr. Prasanna on 11/03/2011 that
on that day Anil Bheda received threats. DCP Mr.
Prasanna specifically did not tell him to give
protection to Anil Bheda. The witness on his own
deposed that, DCP Mr. Prasanna told him to ask Anil
Bheda and then provide protection. Anil Bheda receiving
threats and asking him about providing protection,
after informing it to DCP Mr.Prasanna was an important
fact. Even then its Entry was not taken anywhere. DCP
...1169/-
Exh.1124 1169 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr. Prasanna did not give instructions to keep mobile
number of Anil Bheda under surveillance. The SIT told
Anil Bheda that he should inform the SIT as soon as he
received call. Anil Bheda on his own never called the
SIT. The witness on his own deposed that, Anil Bheda
used to give missed call. He had not stated the theory
of missed calls anywhere till this day. Statement of
API Mr. Ghorpade was recorded in Vashi Police Station.
No statements of the SIT officers were recorded in
Manor Police Station. On 12/03/2011 for the first time
he heard the recording in the SIT office at Powai. He
and API Mr. Ghorpade brought Anil Bheda to the SIT
office at about 06.00 p.m. on 12/03/2011. Anil Bheda
was with them upto 10.00 p.m. They did not know that
Anil Bheda made calls to Adv. Sultan. Therefore, they
did not tell Anil Bheda to record the calls. The two
calls were made at 09.24 p.m. and 09.37 p.m. At that
time, Anil Bheda was out of the SIT office. Anil bheda
was outside of the SIT office. He did not hear the said
calls made by him to Adv. Sultan. The SIT did not tell
him to make calls to Adv. Sultan. Anil Bheda did not
tell him that he made calls to Adv. Sultan. Even after
hearing name of Adv. Sultan from the recording, the SIT
did not tell Anil Bheda to call Adv. Sultan. Even after
hearing the recording the SIT did not contact on the
said mobile number. They did not feel it necessary to
tell Anil Bheda to record the calls between him and
...1170/-
Exh.1124 1170 (J-SC 317/10)
Adv. Sultan. Anil Bheda recorded the two calls which
he received on his mobile while he was in the SIT
office. They did not know as to whether Anil Bheda
received one more call after these two calls while he
was in the SIT office. He had seen Exh.445. It was the
printout of 9833676351. After seeing the printout he
came to know that on 12/03/2011 at 20:45:45 Anil Bheda
received a call on his mobile while he was in the SIT
office. Anil Bheda did not tell him anything about the
said phone call and he also did not hear anything of
the said call. He could not tell as to why Anil Bheda
did not record the said call in his mobile. The SIT did
not seize the mobile therefore, panchanama was not
recorded. It was necessary to record panchanama of
transfer of the recording from a mobile to mobile or
from mobile to Laptop. Even then the SIT did not record
panchanama. The SIT did not record statements from the
place from where the alleged calls were originated. The
witness on his own deposed that, he went to the said
place along-with the SIT officer and made inquiry.
There was no record of it. Except his bare verbatim
there was no proof to show that on 12/03/2011 Anil
Bheda was in the SIT office. He did not file any report
as regards to missing of Anil Bheda. The SIT did not
make investigation about it as per provisions of
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The witness denied that, he was
deposing false that threats were issued to Bheda and
...1171/-
Exh.1124 1171 (J-SC 317/10)
also about recording of the threats and that, Bheda did
not come to the SIT office and did not produce the
recordings and that, he and the SIT officers fabricated
false evidence. The witness denied that, prior to and
after the alleged recordings Anil Bheda received calls
from Ramprasad Gupta and the SIT officers and that, he
deposed false that Anil Bheda gave missed call.
1097. The witness further deposed that, on
12/03/2010, he recorded statement of Mr.Hanumant
Girappa Kambli, as per his say. He did not state in his
statement before the witness that, Arm/s & Ammunitions
of the police station were in his possession.
Mr.Hanumant Kambli did not state in his statement
before him that,His duty was to disburse Arms/ And
Ammunitionsand that, It was his duty to accept Arm/s
And Ammunitions when received. Mr.Hanumant Kambli did
not state in his statement that, One round of,Cr.No.
302/06 of Versova Police Station. On 12/03/2010, he
recorded statement of (P.W.19) Jyotiram Sadashiv Fasale
as per his say. He did not state in his statement
before him that, He had informed while recording his
statement that if there was any deficit in the Arm/s
And Ammunitions then he made inquires with the
concerned police officerand that,He took Charge from
Shri.Kamble. On 29/08/2011, he recorded statement
of (P.W.42) Bhavka Maruti Bhangare as per his say. He
...1172/-
Exh.1124 1172 (J-SC 317/10)
did not state in his statement before him that, He had
informed while recording his statement that he
identified his handwriting on the photocopies and hence
he had booked the said telegrams. It is not stated so
in my statement. The witness could not assign any
reason why the same was not stated in his statement.
----- He had informed the witness that he had not
written the time in the form in his handwriting as the
electronic endorsement mentioned the time and other
details. It was not so stated in the statement. The
witness could not assign any reason why the same was
not stated in his statement. ----- He had informed the
witness interpretation of the electronic endorsement on
telegram forms. It was not so stated in the statement.
The witness could not assign any reason why the same
was not stated in his statement. ------ He had stated
that Mumbai Tmeans Mumbai Matunga. It was not so
stated in the statement. He could not assign any
reason why the same was not stated in his statement. He
had stated while recording his statement that
endorsement of issuance of certified copy was made on
telegraph forms and on Exh. 114, Exh. 115 and Exh.116,
such endorsement was made by Farooq Mujawar whose
signature and handwriting he could identify. It was not
so stated in the statement. The witness could not
assign any reason as to why the same was not stated in
my statement. On 09/03/2011, he recorded statement of
...1173/-
Exh.1124 1173 (J-SC 317/10)
(P.W.47) Mr. Santosh Khimaji Naik as per his say. He
did not state in his statement before him that, He had
stated to the SIT while recording his statement that
the offices of the police officers within the CP
compound closed at 7.00 p.m. It was not so stated in
his statement. The witness could not assign any reason
why the same was not mentioned in his statement.
------- He had stated to the SIT while recording his
statement that the Writer on duty of the Main Control
room also received the correspondence after the office
hours on working days. (pertains to Writer on duty of
Main Control room.) It was not so stated in his
statement. The witness could not assign any reason why
the same was not mentioned in his statement. On
09/03/2010, he recorded statement of (P.W.67) Mr.Manoj
Ambadas Desai as per his say. He did not state in his
statement before him that, he stated in his statement
before S.I.T. that, endorsement overleaf Exh.593 was in
his handwriting and that signature of Mr.Pradeep Sharma
was there below the said endorsement. The witness could
not assign any reason as to why said portion did not
appear in his statement dtd. 09/03/2010 before the
S.I.T. ------- He stated in his statement dated
09/03/2010 before the S.I.T. That the Arm/s and
Ammunitions were handed over to Mr. Pradeep Sharma. The
witness could not assign any reason as to why said
Portion did not appear in his statement before the
...1174/-
Exh.1124 1174 (J-SC 317/10)
S.I.T. On 04/12/2010, he recorded statement of (P.W.
88) Mr. Mohammad Usman Illyas Shaikh as per his say. He
did not state in his statement before him that, Sheth
wanted to continue the BPL CARD again. Sheth actually
wanted to give this CARD to his wife. On 27/06/2011,
he recorded statement of (P.W.99) Mr. Suresh Jagannath
Nalawade as per his say. He did not state in his
statement before him that, He stated in his statement
before the S.I.T. that, the Muddemal handed over to
P.S.I. Mr. Chalke was having, Seal of FSL but it was
not recorded by the S.I.T. The SIT did not contact
Sultan after it received information of his mobile
number. The SIT did not record his statement. After
coming to know about receipt of last call from Mr.
Gupta to Bheda, the SIT did not record statement of Mr.
Gupta. The SIT did not record statement of those who as
per Exh. 445 contacted Anil Bheda. The SIT did not make
inquiry with the person who made frequent calls from
mobile number 9320294590 to Anil Bheda. He did not
come to know from the record that Anil Bheda used to
frequently call to this number, as he did not do
analysis. As per Exh.445(Colly) on 11/03/2011 Anil
Bheda made calls to 5297, 5209, 5305, 5309 to mobile
no. 9320294590. The SIT recorded statement of Mr. Arun
Chavan P.I. Property Sell, API Mr.Prakash Sakpal from
Rabale Police Station, Thane, P.C. Mr. Narendrasingh
Bisht from Antop-Hill Police Station. The SIT did not
...1175/-
Exh.1124 1175 (J-SC 317/10)
produce statement of these three witnesses along-with
Charge-Sheet before the Court. The witness denied that,
they did not support false theory of the SIT therefore
their statements were not produced along-with the
Charge-Sheet. The SIT did not record statement of
anyone from The Police Commissionerates and The Control
Rooms of Navi Mumbai and that of Thane. The SIT made
inquiry in the Commissionerate Mumbai and also The
Control Room, Mumbai. The SIT did not make inquiry as
regards to fax in The Commissionerate, Mumbai. The SIT
came to know from the FIR that, the Complainant could
not do Fax to the office of The Police Commissioner,
Mumbai. The witness denied that, it was necessary to
know how fax was sent to and received by the office of
The Police Commissioner, Mumbai. The SIT recorded
statement of P.W. 49 Mr.Ravindra Kulkarni, then P.A. to
the Police Commissioner, Mumbai. He visited The
Commissioner office on many occasions. He never sent a
fax. He never felt it necessary to know as to how Fax
was transmitted. He did not feel it necessary to make
inquiry in respect of Complainant could not send a fax.
He read statement dated 02/09/2011 of Mr.Ravindra
Kulkarni, recorded by API Mr.Ghorpade. He did not come
to know that, there was a separate line for Fax in The
Police Commissioner office, Mumbai.
...1176/-
Exh.1124 1176 (J-SC 317/10)
1098. The witness further deposed that, he did not
come to know during the course of the investigation
that on 12/12/2006 then Additional C.P., Crime
addressed a letter O.W. 293/Additional C.P. Crime (R)
06 addressed to the staff officer of Commissioner of
Police Gr.Mumbai for furnishing details of Fax Machine
operator at the material time i.e. 11/11/2006 at 16.45
hours and that P.A. to Commissioner wrote a letter to
Additional C.P. Crime informing that The Fax Machine in
the office of Commissioner of Police was always on fax
mode and there was no separate operator and there is no
need to give Fax tone. He did not know whether, Mr.
Hemant Nagrale, then Additional C.P. Crime through the
Commissioner of Police submitted a report to The
Hon'ble High Court in criminal Writ Petition no.2473/06
vide covering letter dtd. 05/05/2007. On 02/09/2011 API
Mr.Ghorpade recorded statement of Mr. Hemant Nagrale.
The SIT did not make efforts to know fax number of the
office of The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. He knew
that, there was fax in the office of The Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai. He did not know its number. He did
not know whether fax number was 22621835. During the
course of investigation he did not come across fax
operator from the office of The Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai. The witness denied that, he knew that, there
was a separate fax Line in the office of The
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and that the SIT made
...1177/-
Exh.1124 1177 (J-SC 317/10)
inquiry about it but to support the complainant he was
deposing false.
1099. The witness further denied that, Adv. Mr.Gupta
and Adv. Mr.Ganesh Iyer were sent by the SIT for Lie
Detectors Test. The witness on his own deposed that,
they were sent for Brain Mapping Test. He could not
tell as to whether a person was sent for Brain Mapping
Test if he was telling a lie and was concealing
something. The SIT received report of Brain Mapping
Test. Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda were also sent for
Brain Mapping Test. These reports were not placed
before the Court. The witness denied that, the SIT did
not place the report before the Court as these reports
did not help the SIT. A Log Book was maintained in
Peter Mobile and Wireless Mobile and in the vehicles of
ACP, DCP, Additional C.P. and above. A copy of Log Book
of Sr. P.I. Versova Police station was called by the
SIT dtd. 11/11/2006 but the Log-Book of other vehicles
were not called for by the SIT. The SIT did not feel it
necessary to call for other Log-Books therefore, those
were not called for. It was necessary to know as to
whether The ACP, The DCP, The Additional C.P. and above
received messages of the said incident. He, API
Mr.Ghorpade and PSI Mr.Chalke maintained a Log-Book of
the vehicle that they used during the course of
investigation. There was a Log-Book in the vehicle used
...1178/-
Exh.1124 1178 (J-SC 317/10)
by DCP Mr. Prasanna. After expiry of the Log-Book it
was sent to M.T. Section. For some period there were
two vehicles with them.
1100. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the said period was February 2010 to
April 2010. One vehicle was MH-01-610. He did not
remember number of the another vehicle, which was with
them since, February 2010 to April 2010. He did not
remember whether, number of another vehicle was
mentioned in any panchanamas. He did not remember,
number of the vehicle of DCP Mr.Prasanna. The number of
vehicle of DCP Mr.Prasanna was MH-01-ZA-360. The
vehicle that they used was bearing no. MH-01-BA-610.
The witness denied that, the SIT did not have any other
vehicle with it. He knew that if there was an
encounter, the DCP concerned had to submit a report.
The SIT did not make efforts to secure the report sent
by the DCP. The witness was shown entry dated
11/11/2006 at Sr.No.3 in respect of weapon no.2915 of
06 which was entered in the name of API Mr.Gosavi. On
being asked, did he record statement of API Mr.Gosavi
after perusal of entry in weapon movement register, the
witness answered that, the SIT had recorded statement
of API. Mr. Gosavi but not after perusal of this entry.
After perusal of this entry he came to know that on
11/11/2006 weapon 2915 of 06 was with API Mr.Gosavi.
...1179/-
Exh.1124 1179 (J-SC 317/10)
The said weapon was sent to the C.A. The witness on his
own deposed that, the SIT called report from Versova
Police station in which it was stated that on
11/11/2006 the said weapon was with PSI. Mr.Harpude.
To set at rest the said variance it was necessary to
interrogate API Mr. Gosavi. The witness on his own
deposed that statement of API Mr. Gosavi was recorded
after the weapon was sent to the C.A. Therefore, the
SIT did not feel it necessary to interrogate him on
this point. The SIT recorded statement of the person
from Versova Police station who sent the report but the
entry in Weapon Movement Register of weapon 2915 of 06
was not shown to him. On being asked, did he not feel
it necessary to show the said entry to him, the witness
answered that, the witness gave report only after
perusal of the register and accordingly his statement
came to be recorded. That day he came to know that,
the said report given by Mr. Lalasaheb Shete from
Versova Police station was false report. That day he
knew that, on 11/11/2006 weapon 2915 of 06 was not with
PSI Mr.Harpude. The Entry dated 11/11/2006 of weapon
2915 of 06 was now marked Exh.827. Its copy was already
on record. It was marked Exh.827(A).
1101. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, API Mr. Ghorpade was doing the work
of Mobile analysis for the SIT. He did not know whether
...1180/-
Exh.1124 1180 (J-SC 317/10)
the said work was pertaining to the witnesses or the
accused. He, API Mr.Ghorpade and PSI Mr. Chalke
together called for the information as regards to the
cases against the deceased. He knew two nick names or
alias of the deceased. Those were Lakhan Bhayya and
Pandeji. Wife of deceased knew him as Ajay prior to
their marriage. On 14/03/2006, he raided and filed
cases against Night Lovers Bar & Restaurant. At that
time, he was reader to then DCP ZoneX Mr. Naiknavre.
He did not know whether Sr.P.I. MIDC Police station
submitted report vide O.W.No.2383 dated 15/03/2006 to
DCP stating that the raid was false and it was done by
misguiding the seniors, for personal gain and with
prejudice. The Sr. P.I. Was Dilip Pandurang Suryawanshi
brother of Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi accused no.9.
The witness denied that, he was sensored & Bondover
therefore, he had falsely implicated accused no.9 and
other accused persons in this case and that, he was in
habit of creating false evidences. He did not know
whether Charge-Sheet was ever filed in the said case.
He also did not know whether, any summaries were filed.
He did not make efforts to know as to what happened to
the said case though, he was the complainant. The
witness denied that, on 18/10/2010 DCP Mr.Prasanna
recorded statement of Dilip Pandurang Suryawanshi and
that, the said statement was not filed with Charge-
Sheet. The witness on his own deposed that, his
...1181/-
Exh.1124 1181 (J-SC 317/10)
statement was not recorded. The witness denied that,
the SIT deliberately concealed and suppressed the said
statement from the Court and that, there were so many
statements like this which were against the prosecution
therefore, the SIT was refusing to bring those
investigation papers before the Court. There was
voluminous record with the SIT besides the Charge-
Sheet, which was not filed before the Court. The SIT
was ready to produce the documents if ordered by the
Court. The SIT on its own was not ready to produce the
said voluminous documents. There were some statements
of witnesses in the said documents which were with the
SIT. Names of some witnesses were informed to the Court
and some names had not been informed to the Court.
1102. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the SIT came to know that on
20/11/2006 then commissioner of Police Mr.A.N.Roy
submitted an affidavit in the Hon'ble High Court. The
SIT secured its copy. The said copy was not placed
before the Court. After inquiry it was found that the
deceased was related to gangs and was a dangerous
person. The witness denied that, accused no.1 to 22
had been falsely implicated in this case and that he
assisted DCP Mr. Prasanna to falsely implicate these
accused persons in this case. The witness denied that,
no panchanama at Armory on 10/12/2009 was prepared and
...1182/-
Exh.1124 1182 (J-SC 317/10)
that the said panchanama was prepared at the SIT office
at Powai and that, Anil Bheda did not show any place
either on 19/03/2010 or on any other dates. The witness
denied that, panchanama and sketches dated 19/03/2010
were false and that those were prepared in the SIT
office and that, on 03/09/2009 statement of Anil Bheda
was not recorded. The witness denied that, after Anil
Bheda succumbed to his pressure and that of the
complainant, thereafter a false panchanama dated
19/03/2010 was prepared and that, the SIT prepared
false statement therefore the SIT is unable to produce
contemporanious record before the Court. The witness
denied that, to mislead the Court the record had been
suppressed by the SIT and that, the SIT filed false
case papers in the Court and that for the said reason
did not produce Case Diary and Papers of Investigation
before the Court. The witness denied that, there was no
prima facie justified evidence against the accused
persons at the time of their arrests and even then at
the say of DCP Mr.Prasanna, then Additional
Commissioner and The Joint C.P. they were falsely
arrested and that, accused no.1 had been falsely
arrested and implicated in this case at the say of
superior officer.
1103. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, at the time of framing charge the
...1183/-
Exh.1124 1183 (J-SC 317/10)
court had orally directed to keep witness Anil Bheda
present on next hearing. The Then Public Prosecutor
sought further time to produce Anil Bheda. The witness
denied that, during the said period the SIT prepared
the Tape recordings and that the Tape recordings were
false and the other person in the conversation was from
the SIT. On 16/03/2011 the SIT did not produce the
Tape and did not submit any report to the Court,
regarding the Tapes and alleged threats. The witness
denied that, the SIT tampered the Articles in order to
implicate accused no.1 in this case and that, he forced
Aruna Bheda, Dhiraj Mehta, Jayesh Kesariya and other
witnesses to give false statements and also that, they
were forced to depose false before the Court, due to
terror of the SIT.
1104. The witness denied that, accused nos.2 to 6
were arrested on 07/01/2010 and that, accused nos.2 to
6 were not taken to the SIT office. On 08/01/2010
accused nos. 2 to 6 were produced before Metropolitan
Magistrate, after recess. They were remanded to police
custody till 14/01/2010. Accused nos.2 to 6 were
produced in veils on 14/01/2010 before the Magistrate.
On 08/01/2010 also accused nos. 2 to 6 were produced in
veils before the Magistrate. Accused were produced by
SIT during police custody before the Magistrate on two
occasions. Thereafter, they were produced before the
...1184/-
Exh.1124 1184 (J-SC 317/10)
Magistrate from Judicial Custody. He did not remember
the date on which for the first time accused were
produced before the Magistrate from Judicial Custody.
He could not tell whether accused were produced in
veils before the Magistrate from Judicial Custody. The
SIT did not send a letter to the Jailer stating that
these accused be produced in veils before the
Magistrate. There was mention in the remand application
that these accused were produced in veils on 08/01/2010
and 14/01/2010 before the Magistrate. On both these
dates he was present in the Court. The SIT did not make
Station Diary Entry stating that these accused were
produced in veils before the Magistrate.
1105. The witness denied that, on 08/01/2010 and
14/01/2010 the SIT did not produce accused nos.2 to 6
in veils before the Magistrate. The witness denied that
he deposed false that, those accused were produced in
veils before the Court. Copies of remand applications
were not annexed to the Charge-Sheet. It was the
decision of DCP Mr.Prasanna to arrest the accused. On
07/01/2010 accused nos. 2 to 6 were brought to the SIT
office, between 10.30 a.m. to 10.45 a.m. On being
asked, whether accused nos. 2 to 6 were brought to the
SIT office with an intention to arrest them, the
witness answered that, accused nos.2 to 6 were brought
to the SIT office for inquiry. It could not be said
...1185/-
Exh.1124 1185 (J-SC 317/10)
that, till the time accused were brought to the SIT
office, the SIT did not decide to arrest them. The
final decision of arrest was taken by the SIT after
making inquiry with accused nos.2 to 6. Accused were
not allowed to go after they were brought to the SIT
office. The SIT officers, as per the directions of DCP
Mr.Prasanna, made inquiry with the said accused. While
in the SIT office, DCP Mr.Prasanna himself did not make
inquiry with the said accused. On being asked, was
there any difficulty in arresting the accused at the
SIT office, the witness answered that, as the crime was
registered at Versova Police station, a decision was
made to arrest the accused persons at Versova Police
Station and not at the SIT office. Accused were
arrested at 00.25 hours on 08/01/2010. Arrest
panchanamas by calling the panchas were recorded.
Separate panchanama of arrest of each of the accused
was recorded. Copies of the said panchanamas were not
annexed to the Charge-Sheet. There was a record of
Native place of Sandeep Sardar with police. The SIT
seized the said record. He personally did not go to his
native place. The SIT did not send anyone from the SIT
and from Versova Police station to Native Place of
Sandeep Sardar so as to record statements. The witness
on his own deposed that, inquiry was made through
secret informer. There was no diary entry as regards to
said inquiry.
...1186/-
Exh.1124 1186 (J-SC 317/10)
1106. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the promulgation of proclamation was
carried out only once against accused Sandeep Sardar.
The witness was shown Exh.803. Its contents were true
and correct. The witness on his own deposed that, there
was a typographic mistake in it. He came to know that
typographic mistake in the SIT office in recent past.
Versova Police station had its megaphone. The said
megaphone was meant for promulgation of proclamation.
He did not know whether a copy of proclamation was to
be published in the Newspapers. The SIT did not move
any application at any time to the Magistrate
requesting that the proclamation be not published in
the newspapers. The witness denied that, the SIT
obtained proclamation by furnishing false information
to the Magistrate and that the SIT never executed the
said proclamation and that, no proclamation was
promulgated as no copies of it were annexed to the
Charge-Sheet. He frequently visited Versova Police
Station. All diary entries pertaining to this case had
been perused by him. The SIT came to know about the
weapon with Tanaji Desai, only at the time of recording
his statement at the SIT office. It was prior to
24/11/2009 and after 12/11/2009. He could not tell
exact date. At the time of his arrest Tanaji Desai was
attached to Andheri Police Station. Prior to that he
...1187/-
Exh.1124 1187 (J-SC 317/10)
was attached to Versova Police Station and for sometime
he was on deputation at D. N. Nagar Police Station.
Again from D.N. Nagar Police station he was attached to
Versova Police Station. He could not tell as to from
what date again he was working at Versova Police
Station.
1107. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, in the inquiry made with accused
Tanaji Desai it was revealed that a weapon was with him
at the time of incident. At the time of incident dated
11/11/2006 he was not present. On 11/11/2006 he had not
seen a weapon with Tanaji Desai. While perusing Station
Diary entries from Versova Police Station it did not
occur to the SIT that on 11/09/2008 Tanaji Desai
deposited the arm in Versova Police Station. The SIT
made inquiry in Versova Police Station as to which
accused was having what arm/ weapon with him. He had
not seen the diary entries made by Versova Police
Station. He had seen the Diary entries sent along-with
the report. The SIT did not inform Versova Police
Station to supply its all diary entries to the SIT, as
regards to the weapons alloted to all accused. The
diary entries were maintained by the Police Stations in
their regular course of business. The true copy of
diary entry of Versova Police Station was also of diary
entry made in regular course of business of Versova
...1188/-
Exh.1124 1188 (J-SC 317/10)
Police Station. The Station Diary entires were the
public record. Therefore, those were public documents.
The witness was shown entry at Sr.no.42 dated
11/09/2008 was true copy of the station diary entry of
Versova Police Station. The entry was marked Exh.833.
As per entry in the said document Tanaji Desai
deposited 9 mm Pistol Butt No. 786 along-with 30 rounds
in Versova Police Station. As per entry in the said
document ASI. Mr.Jagannath Shinde went to Naigaon
Armory to deposit 30 rounds and Revolver Butt No. 786
belonging to Tanaji Desai and one more revolver Ruger
153-68573 which was in the name of V.P.Shinde, P.C.
31743. The said entry was marked Exh.834.
1108. The witness was shown entry in the true copy
of the said entry at Sr.No.31 dated 23/09/2008 at 17.30
hours. As per the said entry one revolver, one pistol &
60 rounds were sent to Naigaon Armory for depositing
those Arm/s and Ammunitions but those were not accepted
stating that the person concerned should come to
deposit the Arm/s and Ammunitions. Therefore, those
were again deposited in Versova Police Station. The
said entry was marked Exh.835. The witness was shown
entry dtd. 27/01/2009 and true copy of the said entry
at Sr.No.40. As per this entry on 27/01/2009 Tanaji
Desai was relieved from Versova Police Station for
Joining at Andheri Police Station. As per the said
...1189/-
Exh.1124 1189 (J-SC 317/10)
entry it could not be said that, since, 11/09/2008 to
27/01/2009 the weapon of Tanaji Desai was deposited in
Versova Police Station. As per the said entry Tanaji
Desai was called upon to deposit Pistol Butt No.786
with 30 rounds at Naigaon Armory. When Tanaji Desai
received the said pistol, he received it along-with 30
rounds from Naigaon Armory. He deposited the said
pistol along-with the 30 rounds in Naigaon Armory. The
witness denied that, Tanaji Desai deposited Pistol Butt
No. 786, along-with 30 rounds in Versova Police Station
during the period since, 11/09/2008 till 27/01/2009. On
11/09/2008 Tanaji Desai deposited the said pistol Butt
No.786, along-with 30 rounds in Versova Police Station.
The SIT did not make inquiry as to when the said pistol
was returned to Tanaji Desai. The said entry was marked
Exh.836.
1109. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, when Ratnakar Kamble and Vinayak
Shinde were arrested, the SIT made inquiry with them.
At the time of inquiry they did not state before the
SIT that they were having Arm/s with them. That day,
when he read the diary entry in the Court he came to
know that Naigaon Armory alloted Arm to Vinayak Shinde.
During inquiry Armory did not inform the SIT about it.
The SIT did not make inquiry with Versova Police
Station about the allotment of weapon to Vinayak
...1190/-
Exh.1124 1190 (J-SC 317/10)
Shinde. The witness on his own deposed that the SIT did
not make inquiry as Vinayak Shinde was not a member of
the raiding party. The SIT sent letters to Versova
Police station and D.N.Nagar Police station with a
request to furnish information of the Arm/s and
Ammunitions which were with the arrested accused
persons as on 11/11/2006. The witness denied that, each
and every time at the transfer of a Police Officer or a
Police Personnel, entry of the Arm/s and Ammunitions
were entered into the record of Police station if the
Arms/ And Ammunitions were alloted in his name. If a
Police Officer or a Police Personnel was transfered his
personal information was recorded at the said Police
Station. The information contained the date of joining
service and the last Police Station from which he was
transfered, residential address and the address of his
native place. There was no standard format as regards
to the entry of weapon but each police station had got
its own method. He did not know whether the police
station concerned asked the Police Officer or Police
Personnel transferred there to furnish information of
the Arm/s and Ammunitions which stood in his name. Each
police station had the Armoury Section. The witness
denied that, the information was entered in the Armory
Section in respect of the Arm/s and Ammunitions alloted
to Police Officers/ Police Personnel in his name. The
witness, on his own, deposed that there was entry of
...1191/-
Exh.1124 1191 (J-SC 317/10)
Arms & Ammunitions alloted in the name of Police
station. He could not tell whether information of
allotment of Arm/s and Ammunitions in the name of
Police officers/personnel and use of the Ammunitions by
them was entered in the record of Police Station or not
and that, a monthly report of Arm/s And Ammunitions
with police staff had to be submitted to Naigaon
Armory. The witness on his own deposed that, the report
of the Arm/s and Ammunitions on the pull of Police
Station had to be submitted. If a Sr.P.I. desired he
could know as to which of the Police Officers/ Police
Personnel were holding which Weapons and Ammunitions.
It was not necessary that on each and every occasion
DCP or ACP made inquiry of a Police Constable or a
Police Officer if he was transferred to a particular
police station. He could not tell as to whether DCP or
ACP would make inquiry of Arm/s And Ammunitions with a
Police Constable or a Police Officer, if he was
transferred to a particular Police Station. It was not
necessary, if there was firing of a weapon by a Police
Constable or Police Officer, its information was to be
submitted to the Police Station concerned. Account of
the used Ammunitions had to be submitted to Naigaon
Armory. That information was submitted by the Police
Station concerned. If the Ammunitions were less than
alloted at the time of depositing, then unless there
was copy of FIR showing the use of the said
...1192/-
Exh.1124 1192 (J-SC 317/10)
ammunitions, remaining Ammunitions were not accepted,
unless produced along-with the FIR explaining the use.
The SIT did not make inquiry as to whether accused no.3
Ratnakar Kamble was having Arm/s and Ammunitions in his
name. Till that day he did not know as to whether
Ratnakar Kamble was having Arm/s and Ammunitions in
his name. The SIT did not make inquiry with Versova
Police Station and D.N. Nagar Police Station in this
respect. The SIT came to know that Prior to 11/11/2006
that Ratnakar Kamble was deputed to D.N. Nagar Police
station from Juhu Police Station. The SIT did not make
inquiry in Juhu Police Station about the weapons with
Ratnakar Kamble. He did not apprehend him. At the time
of arrest Ratnakar Kamble was not possessing Arm/s and
Ammunitions. Arm/s And Ammunitions were alloted to
Police Personnel, Police Officers in their personal
name from Naigaon Armory and its record was maintained
there. The SIT made inquiry as regards to issuance of
weapon to Vinayak Shinde but did not make inquiry as
regards to issuance of weapon to Ratnakar Kamble. If
weapon was issued in the name of Ratnakar Kamble, the
SIT could have received its information from Naigaon
Armory. Till date he did not know as to whether Ratnkar
Kamble had any Arm/s and Ammunitions. He did not make
inquiry anywhere in this behalf. The witness denied
that, the SIT has falsely implicated accused nos.
2,8,12,20 and 21 by making false arrests.
...1193/-
Exh.1124 1193 (J-SC 317/10)
1110. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, prior to arrests of accused nos. 2 to
6 on 08/01/2010, they were called for inquiry at the
SIT office. Accused nos.2 & 3 attended the SIT office.
Other accused also attended the SIT office. The witness
denied that, accused nos.2 & 3 were called for inquiry
on four to five occasions to the SIT office. They were
called for inquiry after registration of the FIR in
Cr.No.246/09. The accused persons were called for on
two to three occasions at Bandra Office, Nana-Nani Park
and the SIT Office. On those occasions the SIT
thoroughly made inquiry with them. The witness denied
that, nothing incriminating was found against them
therefore, they were allowed to go and that, on all
those occasions their statements were recorded. The
witness, on his own, deposed that, their statements
came to be recorded only once. Even after making
thorough inquiry with them and recording their
statements, the SIT did not feel it necessary to arrest
them. The witness on his own deposed that, as it was a
sensitive case the SIT was not in hurry to arrest them.
From the beginning the SIT knew that it was a sensitive
case. On 08/01/2010, sufficient evidence was before the
SIT against those accused therefore, they came to be
arrested. It could not be said that there was no
sufficient evidence against the accused till 08/01/2010
...1194/-
Exh.1124 1194 (J-SC 317/10)
so as to arrest them. The witness denied that, the SIT
had no evidence against accused nos. 2 to 6 and that
even then they came to be arrested. Whenever accused
nos. 2 to 6 were called to attend the SIT, they had
attended. Prior to initial arrest on 07/01/2010 and
08/01/2010 Sandeep Sardar accused no.20 had attended
the SIT as and when called. He was called three times.
His statement was recorded only once. He was thoroughly
interrogated when he was called three times. The SIT
made efforts to find out as to what duty was assigned
to Sandeep Sardar on the date of incident. He perused
the duty book of the staff, which was inclusive of
Sandeep Sardar. As per record of D.N.Nagar Police
Station on that day he was given duty of verification
of Passports. Distance between D.N. Nagar Police
station and the Police Quarters where Sandeep Sardar
resided, might be one kilometer to one and half
kilometers. That distance could be crossed by walk
within 15 to 20 minutes. He did not know whether there
was a shortcut through Nana-Nani park from D.N.Nagar
Police Station to the said Police Quarters. The SIT
never asked accused no.2 Tanaji Desai during the course
of interrogation prior to his arrest, to produce the
Arm/s and Ammunitions which were with him. The witness
denied that, accused no.20 Sandeep Sardar was falsely
arrested and was falsely implicated in this case and
that, accused nos 13,16 & 19 have been falsely arrested
...1195/-
Exh.1124 1195 (J-SC 317/10)
and falsely implicated in this case.
1111. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the SIT had investigated this case as
per the orders of The Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly,
Special Investigation Team was formed. The SIT was not
directly concerned with Versova Police Station,
Oshiwara Police Station or D.N.Nagar Police Station.
The SIT did not prepare or Form any independent Station
Diary and Movement Register. He agreed that Station
Diary entry and Movement Register were the important
documents. He arrested accused nos 4 & 5. At the time
of arrest of an accused he had to be apprised with
grounds of arrest. The SIT informed them the grounds of
their arrests. The grounds were communicated orally. He
did not know whether, the grounds of arrest were to be
communicated in writing to the accused. Crime report
was also an important document. Crime Report was to be
maintained by the investigating officers on day to day
basis till filing Charge-Sheet. Prior to his deputation
to the SIT, he served at Khar Police station in the
capacity of Police Inspector. Whenever a statement of a
witness was recorded by an officer sub ordinate to P.I.
then on the following day it was to be placed before
the Sr.P.I. and then before the ACP. It was to be
placed on the very next day so as to avoid any
manipulation. He was Senior Officer in the SIT, sub-
...1196/-
Exh.1124 1196 (J-SC 317/10)
ordinate to DCP Mr.Prasanna. Statements recorded by PSI
Mr.Chalke and API Mr.Ghorpade were put before him. He
did not put initials on those statements. The witness
on his own deposed that, it was not a practice with the
SIT or with Police Stations.
1112. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, it was the same with the panchanamas.
The witness denied that, he was telling lies that there
was no practice of putting initials on the statements
and the panchanamas by the Sr.P.I., if those were
recorded by the subordinate and were put before the Sr.
P.I. at Khar Police Station he investigated many cases.
At Khar Police Station he was not the Sr.P.I. The
statements and panchanamas recorded by him during
investigation at Khar Police Station were put before
the Sr.P.I. and Crime P.I. as well as before ACP. The
Sr.P.I., The Crime P.I. and the ACP, used to put
initials and the stamp on the statements and
panchanamas. It was a practice in the Police Station.
The witness denied that, the SIT did not have any
reason to arrest accused nos.4 and 5 and that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. He recorded
statement of Mr.Manoj Bhagwan Kamble. The witness
denied that, it did not occur to him while recording
statement of the said witness that he provided
documents for the purpose of procuring the Sim Card to
...1197/-
Exh.1124 1197 (J-SC 317/10)
one person by name Dhabbu. On being asked, during the
course of interrogation to Manoj Kamble, if he would
have come to know that he had given driving license,
Photo, for the purpose of obtaining Sim Card then it
must have been incorporated in his statement, to which
the witness answered in affirmative. The witness on his
own deposed that, it was revealed during investigation
that by using his documents, SIM Card was obtained by
Dhabbu. Therefore, inquiry was made and his statement
was recorded. That was an important fact. The witness
admitted that, he should have incorporated this fact in
his statement. He was not present on 17/08/2010 at the
time of T.I.Parade conducted of accused no. 16. He did
not know anything as regards to T.I.P. Dated
17/08/2010. PSI Mr.Chalke went for T.I.P. Dated
17/08/2010. He had no occasion to go through the
Memorandum of T.I.P. dtd.17/08/2010 till filing Charge-
Sheet or thereafter. He did not meet Amit Jayantilal
Patel in Hotel Avion, Santacurz. The witness denied
that, he and API Mr. Ghorpade extorted Rs.5,00,000/-
from Amit Jantilal Patel in Hotel Avion. The witness
denied that, after receiving the said amount they
stopped harassing him. The witness denied that, he and
API Mr.Ghorpade prepared his false statement and that,
he prepared a false statement of P.W.88 Mohammad Usman
Illyas Shaikh. The witness denied that, he prepared a
false statement of P.W.96 Mehamood Mohammad Ali Shaikh.
...1198/-
Exh.1124 1198 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness denied that, he prepared a false statement
of P.W.70 Manoj Bhagwan Kamble. Brother of accused no.
22 was along-with him at the time of his apprehension.
He was apprehended from near the BEST Quarters. They
came to know that his brother was an officer in the
BEST and that he resided in the said Quarters. The
witness denied that, accused nos.11,15,17,18 and 22
have been falsely arrested and have been falsely
implicated in this case.
1113. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, his evidence was not recorded in that
case (the case of Night Lovers Bar & Restaurant, as
mentioned in Examination in chief) Yesterday, while
deposing before the Court, he did not know that the
proceedings in that case were stopped u/s.258 Cr.P.C.
That day, he did not have any record with him to show
that the proceedings of said case were stopped u/s. 258
Cr.P.C. Yesterday, till the court time was over he was
in the Court. That day and yesterday since 10.30 am he
was in the Court. He had not been to Andheri Court.
The witness denied that he deposed false at the say of
his associates present in the Court that the
proceedings were stopped. His statement was recorded in
MIDC Police Station. The witness denied that, other two
officers were from MIDC Police Station. The other two
officers and he went together to MIDC Police Station.
...1199/-
Exh.1124 1199 (J-SC 317/10)
Their statements were recorded by MIDC Police Station.
Investigation was handed over to MIDC Police Station.
That day, he did not have any document to show that
there were complaints against Night Lovers Bar &
Restaurant and that the MIDC Police Station did not
take action against it and that the said complaints
were made to the DCP. He did not state in the FIR that
MIDC Police station did not take action against Night
Lovers Bar & Restaurant therefore, DCP ZoneX directed
him to conduct the raid. DCP ZoneX did not take part
in conducting the raid. DCP ZoneX did not take action
against MIDC Police station for not taking action
against Night Lovers Bar & Restaurant. The witness
denied that, he deposed false in reexamination as he
was tutored by Special Public Prosecutor.
1114. It has come during cross examination of
Mr.K.M. Mallikarjuna Prasanna(PW-110), Superintendent
of Police, Satara (On Deputation to SIT, Mumbai), Exh.
837, that, being the Investigating officer, he had gone
through entire records of the investigation papers
before filing of the Charge-Sheet. After filing the
Charge-Sheet, three Supplementary Charge-Sheets were
filed. The SIT got registered a case vide Versova
Police Station Cr.No.246/09. Names of accused nos.4 & 5
did not appear in the FIR. There was no mention and
there were no averments against accused nos.4 & 5 in
...1200/-
Exh.1124 1200 (J-SC 317/10)
the statement of the Complainant on which basis the
Cr.No.246/09 was registered. On being asked, it was not
clear from investigation till date as to from where
deceased Lakhan Bhayya and Anil Bheda were abducted or
picked-up, the witness replied that, it was very clear
from the investigation that, Anil Bheda and Lakhan
Bhayya were abducted from Trisha Collections,
Lakasydeep Hospital Road, Vashi on 11/11/2006. On being
asked, whether there was any material except his bare
verbatim to show that the deceased and Anil Bheda were
picked-up from Trisha Collections, the witness replied
that, material evidence collected during the course of
investigation showed that both were abducted from
Trisha Collections, Vashi as had been placed before the
Court. Accused nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 08/01/2010.
He got arrested them. He was personally present there
at the time of their arrests at Versova Police Station.
He knew that, a person who was being arrested had to be
apprised of the grounds of his arrest and that his
medical examination had to be carried out after his
arrest. The grounds of arrest were conveyed to accused
nos. 4 & 5 orally and not in writing. He could not
assign any reason as to why the grounds of arrests were
not conveyed in writing. He did not remember names of
the relatives of accused nos.4 & 5 to whom the
information of their arrests was communicated. They
were medically examined before they were taken to the
...1201/-
Exh.1124 1201 (J-SC 317/10)
SIT office, Powai. They were medically examined from
Versova. They were sent for medical examination from
Versova Police Station to some hospital. He did not
remember as to in which hospital they were medically
examined. On being asked, had he any document with him
to show that, accused nos.4 & 5 were medically examined
in some hospital, after referring documents, the
witness answered that, relevant Station Diaries were
not part of the Charge-Sheet. They were with other
papers. The arrested accused persons had to be sent to
the nearest hospital from the place of arrest. On being
asked, were he well versed and conversant with English
language, the witness answered he thought so. He
studied through Kannada medium during schooling upto
7
th
STD and from 8
th
STD onwards till graduation he
studied through English medium. He had knowledge of
Marathi language. He could read, write and understand
Marathi. A complete book of proforma of FIR was there
in all Police Stations. The proforma had got serial
numbers at the top right hand side. He did not know
whether there was any record in the Stationery showing
distribution of FIR Books to the Police Stations. The
witness was shown FIR Exh.121. There was no serial
number at the right hand side in Exh.121 i.e. FIR
proforma. On being asked, had he any proof to show that
proforma Exh.121 was taken from Versova Police Station,
the witness answered that, there were seals of Versova
...1202/-
Exh.1124 1202 (J-SC 317/10)
Police Station on both the pages of Exh. 121 to show
that proforma of Exh.121 was taken from Versova Police
Station. Date 20/08/2009 was not mentioned within the
seals on Exh. 121. He knew that, a copy of FIR was to
be sent to the Judicial Magistrate/ The Metropolitan
Magistrate/ The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, within
24 hours of registration of the crime. It might had
taken two to two and half hours for recording statement
of Complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. Recording of
statement commenced at 07.00 a.m. Information was
received at 09.15 a.m. as mentioned in the FIR.
Recording of statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta started at
07.00 a.m. Firstly statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta was
recorded. After it was complete, it was taken to SHO of
Versova Police station for registration of crime. The
Hon'ble High Court Order was very clear stating that
fresh statement of Mr. Ramprasad Gupta be recorded and
case be registered and investigated.
1115. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, usually Copy of FIR was taken to the
Court by the Court Karkun from Police Station. On
20/08/2009 a copy of FIR was sent to the Court through
the Court Karkun of Versova Police Station and on
21/08/2009 the SIT sent one more copy to the Court from
office of the SIT, along-with Covering letter. The
witness denied that, he had falsely incorporated name
...1203/-
Exh.1124 1203 (J-SC 317/10)
of accused Hitesh Solanki to the effect that he had
gone along-with Aruna Bheda (P.W.40) to Kolhapur and
that, accused no. 5 Hitesh Solanki did not go along-
with Aruna Bheda to Kolhapur at any point of time.
Before recording statement of a witness u/s.164
Cr.P.C., the witness concerned must show willingness
for recording such statement or to give his statement.
A witness could give his consent for recording
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C., either orally or in writing.
All witnesses of whom statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C were
recorded, gave their consents orally, in this case.
Except his bare verbatim there was nothing to show
that, the said witnesses gave their consents orally for
recording their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. It was
mentioned in the Case Diary. The witness denied that,
he deposed false that, it was mentioned in the Case
Diary. The Case Diary was in the Court premises.
1116. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember as to who took
Jayesh Kesariya to the Court for recording his
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. After the witnesses gave
their consents for recording their statements u/s.164
Cr.P.C., they were informed to remain present in the
Court and the SIT staff went to the Court and
introduced the witnesses to the Court staff. When the
Court informed a particular date for recording
...1204/-
Exh.1124 1204 (J-SC 317/10)
statement of a particular witness, accordingly he was
informed to remain present on that day before the
Court. No witnesses were called to Versova Police
Station for recording statements as per provision of
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Only in case of Aruna Bheda it
happened that, she along-with two advocates came to the
SIT office Powai and then they were taken to Andheri
Court for recording her statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.
All other witnesses directly went to the court. The
witness denied that, they directly reported to the
Magistrate concerned. The witness on his own deposed
that, one of the SIT officer used to remain present in
the Court, took the witness and introduced the witness
to the Court staff. All remaining witnesses except
Aruna Bheda directly appeared in the Court. Then the
SIT officer met the witness present in the Court and
introduced him to the Court staff. He did not come to
know that, all witnesses other than Aruna Bheda had
come to the Court with any civilian or any private
person for recording statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The
witness on his own deposed that, when Mr. Dhiraj Mehta
gave his first statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C he was
accompanied by Adv. Falguni Brahmbhatt. Prior to
conducting T.I.P. of accused nos.2 to 6 on 20/01/2010,
their photographs were published in Newspapers. Accused
nos.2 to 6 were in police custody since, 08/01/2010.
Accused nos.2 to 6 were produced for remand on
...1205/-
Exh.1124 1205 (J-SC 317/10)
08/01/2010 and on 14/01/2010 prior to T.I.P dtd.
20/01/2010. On both these occasions accused nos. 2 to 6
were produced in veils before the Court. The purpose
behind producing the accused persons in veils before
the Court was that their identity should not be
disclosed to the public at large and to the witnesses.
There was a Press Room in the office of The
Commissioner of Police Mumbai, at Crowford Market,
Mumbai. Since, 08/01/2010 till 20/01/2010 he did not
feel it necessary to instruct the said Press Room that,
the photographs of accused nos. 2 to 6 be not published
in the Newspapers. The witness on his own deposed that,
he was under impression that since the accused persons
were produced in veils their photographs would not be
published in the Newspapers.
1117. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, at that point of time, he did not
think it to be an important fact to give instructions
to the Press Room. After the arrest of accused
photographs are taken. Mr. Madan More, Mr.Milind More
and Mr.Sumant Bhosale were never put up as the
identifying witnesses during the T.I.P.'s conducted by
the S.E.O. related to this case. Statement of Mehamood
Mohammad Ali Shaikh was typewritten as per my
directions. This statement bore his signature. The
witness denied that, Portion Marked 'A' (Exh.860) was
...1206/-
Exh.1124 1206 (J-SC 317/10)
falsely typewritten at his directions and that the
witness never stated Portion Marked 'A'(Exh.860) before
him. The witness denied that, he never recorded any
statement of the said witness and that both statements
of the said witness were falsely recorded as per his
directions. On being asked, what was written in Portion
Marked 'C' i.e. Exh.857, the witness read as, == ==| =+
::| =++ +=| =+| ===| (Tyamule mazi Santosh Shettiyar sobat
Changli Maitri Jamali). The witness was shown portion
marked 'E'. The witness denied that, P.W.95 did not
state Portion Marked 'E' Exh.859 in his statement
before him. The witness was shown portion marked 'A'
Exh.861 from statement Amit Jayantibhai Patel. The
witness denied that, the said portion was falsely
recorded and that, the witness never stated, Portion
Marked 'A',B', C, D, E, F, G, H, I, i.e. Exhs.861 to
869 respectively, before him (PW-110). The witness
denied that, he recorded false statements of witnesses
so as to implicate accused nos. 3, 4 & 5 in this case.
Exh.879(Colly) was report along-with names of witnesses
who were served but not examined and who were not
served. The witness denied that, he got prepared a
false T.I.P Memorandum through Mr. Satish Rane (PW-84)
and that no such T.I.P was conducted and that the
accused were shown to the witnesses prior to conducting
the T.I. Parade and that, accused nos.3,4 and 5 i.e.
Rattu, Pinky and Dhabbu had been falsely implicated in
...1207/-
Exh.1124 1207 (J-SC 317/10)
this case. The witness also denied that, the SIT had
given false alias to the accused persons and that,
accused nos.3,4 & 5 were never known by these alias
names.
1118. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, for the first time, Mr. Shankar
Dalsingh came to him when his statement was recorded on
20/03/2010. Before that the SIT made efforts to trace
him, but in vain. PSI. Mr. Chalke, P.I. Mr.Gaonkar had
gone in search of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali.
On some occasions Mr.Vinay Ghorpade also went in search
of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh. Ever since, the case was
registered they were looking for him. They were trying
to trace out him since, August 2009 but could not trace
out him till 20/03/2010. Prior to 20/03/2010 the SIT
could not collect his mobile number. The SIT officers
searched Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburb, New Mumbai, Thane
City and Thane Rural for Mr. Shankar Dalsingh@ Girish
Nepali. No statements were recorded in respect of the
said search and visits to the places and non
availability of Girish Nepali. There was no Station
Diary entry as regards to the search the made since
August 2009 to 20 March 2010. This fact had been
recorded in the Case Diary. Except his bare verbatim
there was nothing to show that a search was made for
Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali. Since 20/08/2009, he
...1208/-
Exh.1124 1208 (J-SC 317/10)
was knowing that Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali was
an important witness. He recorded first statement of
complainant on 20/08/2009. On that day, no other
statements were recorded. Before registration of the
FIR no case papers were made available to him.
Therefore, at that point of time he had no opportunity
to go through the record of Cr.No.302/06 of Versova
Police Station and the papers of inquiry made by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, The Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri. Prior to recording statement of complainant on
20/08/2009 he did not get the record of Cr.No.302/06
from any other source. He did not remember the date on
which papers of encounter of Lakhan Bhayya were made
available to him from both the inquiries by SLAO, The
Metropolitan Magistrate, The Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri and from Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police
Station. The case was registered at Versova Police
Station and he chose to register the case in the said
police station as the incident had happened within the
jurisdiction of Versova Police Station. After
registration of the case and prior to commencing the
investigation of the case the above mentioned case
papers were not made available to him by Versova Police
Station. After registration of the case he did not
direct Sr. P.I. of Versova Police Station to produce
the papers. On the date of registration of the case he
came to know that, Mr. Shankar Dalsingh was an
...1209/-
Exh.1124 1209 (J-SC 317/10)
important witness. After recording statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta on 20/08/2009 he came to know that,
Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali was an important
witness. API Mr.Ghorpade recorded statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta as per his instructions. That was
faithfully and correctly recorded as per the say of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not choose to omit something
which was stated by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta or add some
thing which was not stated by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. The
witness on his own deposed that, after recording the
statement it was read over to the complainant, after
confirming it to be as per his statement, he put his
signature on alternate pages of the statement.
1119. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, prior to 20/03/2010 the SIT did not
get any clue of the mobile number which was of
Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali as on the date of
incident ie. 11/11/2006. After going through the FIR
Exh.121 the witness deposed that, there was no mention
of mobile number of Shankar Dalsingh in FIR Exh.121.
There was no mention of name of Shankar Dalsingh and
even there was no reference of him in FIR Exh.121. He
did not remember as to when did he come to know mobile
number of Shankar Dalsingh that he held on 11/11/2006.
During the course of investigation he came to know
mobile number of Shankar Dalsingh that he had on
...1210/-
Exh.1124 1210 (J-SC 317/10)
11/11/2006 but he did not remember the date on which he
came to know the said number. He did not remember the
said mobile number. On 20/03/2010 Mr. Shankar Dalisingh
@ Girish Nepali on his own came to the SIT office. The
witness questioned him for two to three hours. The SIT
officers PSI Mr.Chalke, API Mr.Ghorpade and P.I.
Mr.Gaonkar assisted him. The witness on his own deposed
that, he did not exactly remember as to which of these
officers assisted him. He did not remember the name of
officer who recorded statements of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh
@ Girish Nepali but it was recorded in Marathi as per
his directions. From the point of view of investigation
knowing the mobile number which Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @
Girish Nepali held on 11/11/2006 was an important fact.
On being asked, whether he interrogated Shankar Dalsigh
@ Girish Nepali on the point of mobile number that he
held on 11/11/2006, the witness replied that he
interrogated him on various points including the talks
on mobile as on 11/11/2006. On going through the
statement of Shankar Dalsingh the witness deposed that,
he could not get his mobile number that he held on
11/11/2006. Shankar Dalsingh@ Girish Nepali did not
give his mobile number that he held on 11/11/2006, in
his statement before him, therefore, that was not
recorded in his statement. The witness on his own
deposed that, he got statement of Mr. Shankar Dalsigh @
Girish Nepali recorded as per his say. Statement of
...1211/-
Exh.1124 1211 (J-SC 317/10)
Shankar Dalsingh was correctly recorded as per his say.
Nothing was omitted from what he stated and nothing was
added what he did not state in his statement before
him. He did not remember even now as to when did he
come to know mobile number of Dalsingh. He also could
not say, as to from whom he came to know the said
mobile number. He did not remember as to whether, he
recorded statement of any person who gave mobile number
of Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali to him. He could
not say whether he got his mobile number. He could not
say whether, he asked the mobile companies CDR's and
SDR's of mobile number of Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish
Nepali held by him on 11/11/2006. The witness denied
that, he did not know any of the mobile details of
Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali. He personally did not
know as on that day the mobile details of Shankar
Dalsingh @ Girish Nepali which he held on 11/11/2006.
The witness on his own deposed that, all the mobile
data analysis was done by API Mr.Ghorpade.
1120. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Reliance Mobile Company did not
provide CDR details of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @ Girish
Nepali to the SIT. The SIT asked the Reliance Mobile
Company to provide CDR details of Mr.Shankar Dalsingh @
Girish Nepali. The witness on his own deposed that, due
to typographical mistake it was written as CDR and not
...1212/-
Exh.1124 1212 (J-SC 317/10)
SDR. The SIT asked The Reliance Mobile Company to
provide CDR details of the said Mobile that was held on
11/11/2006. He did not remember as to on how many
occasions did the SIT make request to The Reliance
Mobile Company to provide CDR details of the said
mobile. On being asked, whether Reliance Mobile Company
never provided to the SIT CDR details of the said
mobile, the witness replied that, the SIT never
received CDR details of the said mobile. The mobile
Companies provided information of CDR's and SDR's in
the form of a hard copy or a Soft copy to The Law
Enforcing Agencies. All correspondence with the mobile
companies by the SIT was prepared as per his directions
and those were signed by him.
1121. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember the date on
which, he realized the typographic mistake. He did not
realize the said mistake when, he put signature on the
document. The witness on his own deposed that, it
happened due to oversight. He did not remember whether
the SIT sent reminders to the said mobile Company when
the Reliance Mobile Company failed to furnish CDR
details of mobile no.9323459998, the witness on his own
deposed that, he had given the task of collecting CDR,
SDR details and doing Analysis of the same to API
Mr.Ghorpade. He could not tell as to whether API
...1213/-
Exh.1124 1213 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Ghorpade perused it with the Mobile Company or not.
Though this task was assigned to API Mr.Ghorpade, all
the correspondence was done under his signature. The
witness was shown Exh.676. He did not remember whether
Exh.676 was the last correspondence made by the SIT to
the Nodal officer Reliance Communications Ltd. He did
not remember whether after 01/03/2011 any communication
was made by the SIT to the Reliance communications Ltd.
Before putting signature on Exh.676 he had gone through
it. There was reference in Exh.676 of a letter dated
09/02/2011 sent by Reliance Communications Ltd., to the
SIT. Letter dated 09/02/2011 from Reliance
Communications Ltd., had not been filed along-with the
Charge-Sheet. Exh.676 mentioned that CDR details of
mobile no.9323459998 were furnished vide letter dated
09/02/2011 by Reliance Communications Ltd., The SIT had
not been relying on the letter dated 09/02/2011
therefore, it was not filed along-with the Charge-
Sheet. The witness denied that, the letter dated
09/02/2011 and the CDR details therein were not
convenient to the prosecution therefore, the said
letter was not filed along-with the Charge-Sheet and
that, the SIT had suppressed the said letter as the
contents therein of the CDR's did not suit to the
prosecution case. He interrogated Shankar Dalsingh in
Hindi. He answered him in Hindi. Then, it was recorded
in Marathi. It was read over and explained to him. He
...1214/-
Exh.1124 1214 (J-SC 317/10)
did not remember the time during which the process of
recording Shankar Dalsingh's statement continued. His
statement was either recorded in the SIT office Powai
or at his office at Bandra. He could not say even
approximately as to at what time did Shankar Dalsingh
come and at what time he left. Generally the SIT
operated from the SIT office Powai. The witness on his
own deposed that, on daily basis if, he was unable to
go to the SIT office Powai, the officers used to visit
his office at Bandra. He did not remember as to
whether, on 20/03/2010 he visited the SIT office Powai
and that as to since what time and till what time he
was at Bandra office on 20/03/2010. He did not remember
as to which were places that he visited on 20/3/2010
while discharging his duties and that, whether on
20/03/2010 he had an occasion to visit C.P. office
Mumbai, Police Club or Officers conference. On being
asked, he replied that, he never visited Powai office
on 20/03/2010. Were he was in a position to contradict,
the witness could not say anything. On being asked, the
Marathi transcript in the statement of Shankar Dalsingh
was as per your wordings or as per the wordings of Mr.
Chalke, the witness answered that, it was as per the
statement of Girish Nepali. He did not remember as to
when did he come to know for the first time that, his
name was Girish Nepali. At the time of his statement he
gave his name as Girish Nepali along-with other things.
...1215/-
Exh.1124 1215 (J-SC 317/10)
The witness on his own deposed that, Anil Bheda had
taken the name of Girish Nepali. He did not remember as
to on which day Anil Bheda mentioned his name. Anil
Bheda disclosed the name as Girish Nepali Prior to
20/03/2010. Shankar Dalsingh also gave his name as
Girish 'Nepali'. On being asked, why name Girish
Nepali did not reflect in his statement, the witness
replied that, whatever was stated by him was recorded.
The witness denied that, Girish never gave his name as
Nepali. It was he who translated Hindi wordings in
Marathi in the statement of Shankar Dalsingh. He did
not require assistance of P.I. Gaonkar, API Mr.
Ghorpade & PSI Mr.Chalke or the staff of the SIT for
the said translation. Shankar @ Girish Dalsingh did not
state in his statement dated 20/03/2010 before him
that,Subhash Lefty yane Lakhan Bhayyacha game,Kela.
He did not remember as to on how many occasions after
20/03/2010 did Nepali meet him. He could not say as to
whether after 20/03/2010 he met him or not. On
20/03/2010 he expressed his desire to give statement
before a Magistrate. He made the said request orally.
The SIT moved an application before the learned
Magistrate for the purpose of recording statement of
Shankar Dalsingh. He did not remember the date on which
the said application was made by the SIT and that, as
to which officer from the SIT made the application. He
did not go to the Court to move the application. On
...1216/-
Exh.1124 1216 (J-SC 317/10)
being asked, whether names of the probable accused
persons were included in the FIR on the basis of this
statement dtd. 20/08/2009 made by the Complainant, the
witness answered, complainant, in his statement, had
taken the names of 17 persons as accused persons. All
those 17 persons were mentioned in the FIR as the
accused.
1122. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember the date on
which for the first time Subhash Lefty came to the SIT
office. He did not remember as to on how many occasions
the SIT recorded his statements. His statement was
recoded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. He was not aware as to whether
Subhash Lefty made an Anticipatory Bail Application in
the Sessions Court. He did not remember whether his
subordinates or the Public Prosecutor informed him
about it and that whether then learned SPP or his
subordinates obtained his instructions in the said
Anticipatory Bail Application. A copy of the said ABA
was not made available to him till date. He did not
know whether Subhash Lefty made serious allegations of
torture ill-treatment, illegal detention, forcibly
obtaining the statement and threatening to implicate in
the present case. He did not remember as to whether,
the A.B.A. was withdrawn on the basis of the statement
made by the prosecution stating that the said Lefty was
...1217/-
Exh.1124 1217 (J-SC 317/10)
only a witness and that he would not be arrested in the
present case. He did not remember whether anybody
sought his advice to make such statement before the
Court. On being asked, could he take it that he was
not aware about anything so far as the ABA of Subhash
Lefty was concerned, the witness replied he remembered
that day. He did not remember the contents of the ABA
and that, whether the prosecution moved any application
opposing the ABA or agreeing it.
1123. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during the course of investigation he
interrogated Urmish Udhani on couple of occasions. He
recorded his statement. He did not remember as to how
many times his statements were recorded and that,
whether the SIT effected house search and office search
of Urmish Udhani. He had not visited his house or his
office. He did not remember if the SIT officers or
staff ever visited the house and office of Urmish
Udhani. It was not revealed during investigation that
Lakhan Bhayya threatened Urmish Udhani. The witness on
his own deposed that, it was revealed during
investigation that Lakhan Bhayya threatened Janardan
Bhanage@ Janya Sheth, at his residence in CBD Belapur.
He did not remember as to whose statement came to be
recorded to that effect and that, as to when did Lakhan
Bhayya threatened Janardan Bhanage@ Janya Sheth at his
...1218/-
Exh.1124 1218 (J-SC 317/10)
residence in CBD Belapur and that, as to which witness
did the prosecution wanted to examine before the Court
depositing as regards to the said threats. He did not
know whether Subhash Lefty and Urmish Udhani were
available or not. The SIT had not incorporated
statement of Urmish Udhani in the Charge-sheet. The
witness on his own deposed that, the SIT was not
relying upon the said witness. The witness denied that,
the statement of Urmish Udhani was contrary to the
prosecution case therefore, the SIT was not relying
upon it. During the course of investigation the SIT did
not call Anandibai Deshmukh for interrogation. On being
asked, whether he made efforts to take property record
of 24 plots of Anandibai Deshmukh from Airoli, the
witness answered that, the SIT made inquiries related
to Anandibai Deshmukh matter but he did not remember if
the SIT obtained copies of those documents. He did not
remember whether the SIT recorded anybody's statement
relating to property of Anandibai Deshmukh and that,
whether Anandibai Deshmukh was dead or alive during the
course of investigation. He did not remember whether
any member from the family of Anandibai Deshmukh was
called and examined during the course of investigation.
No statement was recorded of any one from Rhythm Mobile
Shop. The witness on his own deposed that, one Ashok
Sawant obtained a mobile phone from this shop and by
furnishing his documents he obtained a SIM Card and
...1219/-
Exh.1124 1219 (J-SC 317/10)
handed over the Mobile phone and the SIM Card to
Janardan Bhanage for lattar's use. Even then the SIT
did not choose to record statement of anyone from
Rhythm Mobile Shop. The witness on his own deposed
that, he did not feel it necessary. He did not remember
the date and the year of purchase of mobile phone or
SIM Card by Ashok Sawant. It was prior to the incident
in question. He did not remember. The mobile was not
seized in this case. He personally never visited house
of Janardan Bhanage. He directed to effect house search
of Janardan Bhanage. The search was effected after his
arrest but he did not remember the date. He directed to
effect the said search only after arrest of Janardan
Bhanage. Before the arrest of Janardan Bhanage he was
aware of the residential address of Janardan Bhanage.
Before his arrest he did not direct the SIT officers to
effect search of his house. He did not remember as to
how many days after his arrest the search was made and
name'/s of the SIT officer who effected the search.
Panchanama of the house search was placed before him.
Nothing incriminating was found during the search. Even
during the search panchanama mobile handset was not
seized. The witness on his own deposed that, since it
was not found it was not seized. The witness denied
that, even thereafter, the SIT did not make efforts to
find out the mobile handset and the SIM Card. He did
not remember as to who recorded statement of Ashok
...1220/-
Exh.1124 1220 (J-SC 317/10)
Sawant. He interrogated Ashok Sawant. He did not
inspect any of the mobiles/ phones of Ashok Sawant. He
did not get any idea as to how many mobile phones were
used by Ashok Sawant during the said period. He did not
remember as to whether Ashok Sawant produced documents
of any mobile phone before him. He recorded statement
of Ashok Sawant. Ashok Sawant stated Portion Marked 'A'
in his statement dtd. 04/09/2010 before him and it was
correctly recorded as per his say. Portion Marked 'A'
was marked Exh.882.
1124. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember as to whether he
asked or not Mr.Ashok Sawant to produce documents of
purchase of Motor Cycle on installments from a Bank. He
did not remember as to whether on his own he produced
any documents. The SIT called and received SDR details
of mobile no.9930754949. He did not feel it necessary
to seek clarification from the mobile company
concerned. The witness on his own deposed that, he did
not remember contents of the reply sent by the mobile
company concerned. Question of seeking or not seeking
clarification did not arise. He did not remember as to
whether, he inspected the details sent by Mobile
Company. He did not remember as to whether, the details
from the mobile company were received prior to or after
recording statement of Ashok Sawant. He did not
...1221/-
Exh.1124 1221 (J-SC 317/10)
remember as to whether, the SIT received SDR details
along-with documents and the mobile number purchased by
Ashok Sawant and given to Janardan Bhanage. The witness
was shown Exh.417. Mobile no. 9833886791 stood in the
name of Ashok Sawant. The date of activation as per the
record was 10/02/2007. It was active till 15/08/2010.
1125. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, after receiving documents Exh.453
(Colly), he did not feel it necessary to confront Ashok
Sawant with those documents. The witness was shown
internal page no.26 of Exh.453 (Colly). He did not
verify as to in whose handwriting page no.26 was. As
per the said document the date was mentioned as
21/05/2007. The month was '5' and not '8'. Even after
perusal of SDR and page no.26 he did not seek
clarification from the telephone Company concerned or
from Rhythm House Mobile Shop. Even after going through
documents at Exh.417 and Exh.453 he did not find any
ambiguity. There was contradiction between the two
documents. This application was signed on 21/05/2007.
As per the report from the company it was activated on
10/02/2007. He did not observe this contradiction
during the course of investigation. His subordinate
officers did not bring it to his notice. During the
course of investigation, as DCP Mumbai City he was
given white indigo car. They obtained one vehicle from
...1222/-
Exh.1124 1222 (J-SC 317/10)
C.P. Mumbai for the SIT staff. For two to three months
they had one more vehicle with the SIT staff. He did
not remember the numbers of any of these vehicles and
names of the drivers who were on duty. The witness
denied that, accused no.14 Janardan Bhanage had been
implicated in this case without having any material
evidence against him.
1126. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, there was an attendance register in
the Police Station in respect of Police officers and
men of the Police Station concerned. As I.O. of this
case, he had occasion to see the attendance register of
the Police Station in respect of attendance during the
night of 11/11/2006. He wanted to see as to who were
present on duty on 11/11/2006 and who performed what
kind of the duties. The witness was shown entry dated
11/11/2006 at 20:15 hours in Station Diary no.13/2006
of D.N.Nagar Police Station. It was at the first page.
He had occasion to go through the said entry. Those
entries were mandatory and were meticulously
maintained. He could not certify as to the correctness
of the said entry. He never verified its correctness.
Station Diary Entries were to be compulsory maintained.
The Station Diary Entry dtd.11/11/2006 was marked Exh.
884. Its Xerox copy was on record. It was marked Exh.
884-A. On being asked, was there any document
...1223/-
Exh.1124 1223 (J-SC 317/10)
maintained which could give details of the staff
concerned of that police station and of their
attendance at the relevant time other than the Station
Diary. After going through charge sheet the witness
answered that, there was one more entry in the Station
Diary of D.N.Nagar Police Station dtd.11/11/2006
regarding the presence of officers and men. There was
one more register Arm/s, Ammunitions, Movement
Register. He did not know whether there were any other
entries apart from the entries in the Station Diary and
entries in the Arm/s, Ammunitions, Movement Register.
He checked the Arm/s and Ammunitions, Movement Register
of D.N. Nagar Police Station as on 11/11/2006. He made
inquiry in respect of juxtaposition of the these two
documents. He made routine inquiry and also recorded
statements in this connection. They made inquiries with
the District Staff of D. N. Nagar Police Station and
also with then Sr. P.I. of D.N.Nagar Police Station. He
did not record any statement in relation to it. He
recorded statement of the staff of D.N. Nagar Police
station in this connection. He recorded statement of
District Staff Mr. Tadavi, Mr. Sanjivan Shinge and Mr.
Kathal. Mr.Tadavi and Mr. Kathal were related to Arms
and Ammunitions Movement Register and Mr. Sanjivan
Shinge was then In-charge Hawaldar who distributed
duties. It could be that the person who distributed
duties was unaware of the entries made in the relevant
...1224/-
Exh.1124 1224 (J-SC 317/10)
registers unless those were placed before him. He did
not feel it necessary to record statements of the
officers concerned as regards to the entries of
distribution of duties mentioned in Station Dairy Exh.
884 & Exh.884(A). He did not remember as to whether, he
made inquires with Mr.Tadavi, Mr.Sanjivan Shinge,
Mr.Khatal before going through the said entries. He did
not confront the said entries to Mr.Khatal. He
confronted Mr. Khatal with the entries in the Arm/s And
Ammunitions Movement Register and signature therein of
the party who received the Arm/s and Ammunitions. He
did not feel it necessary to record the shortcomings in
the said entries. He recorded statement as per the say
of the witness and not as per his say. He could not say
whether, not finding signature on receipt of the weapon
was a lapse or dereliction of duties on the part of the
concerned staff. It was duty cast upon the person who
distributed the Arm/s and Ammunitions to other party to
obtain acknowledgment of the same. The witness denied
that, this acknowledgment was the only document which
acknowledged about actual receipt of Arm/s and
Ammunitions by a particular staff. On being asked, was
there any other document which would give the same
sanctity of receipt of Arms and Ammunitions to the
concerned staff of the police Station, the witness
replied that, if the concerned staff voluntarily
deposited an empty case stating that it was fired from
...1225/-
Exh.1124 1225 (J-SC 317/10)
the weapon which was issued as per the corresponding
entry in the Arms and Ammunitions Movement Register
then it was the confirmation for having received the
said Arm/s and Ammunitions. In his view that was the
acknowledgment in this case. It was very important to
maintain Movement Register of Arm/s and Ammunitions.
It was a routine case to maintain the said register
meticulously. Generally this was not changed from case
to case as regards to the acknowledgment of the receipt
of the Arms. On being asked, under what category of
cases it was important and under what category of cases
it was not important, the witness replied that
generally in all cases it was important. One signature
was missing in the Arms and Ammunitions Movement
Register of D.N.Nagar Police Station dtd. 11/11/2006.
It was the matter of importance to know as to why
signature was not there. The witness denied that, Mr.
Sarvankar was unconcerned with receipt of any weapon as
on 11.11.2006 and that, without making any inquiries,
he decided to implicate all officers. He did not know
the date on which he came to know the order of the
Hon'ble High Court vide which he was appointed as the
I.O and head of the SIT. The witness on his own deposed
that, API Mr. Palande met him in the C.P. Office and
informed him about the order. Formally, he came to know
about this order on 17.8.2009. On being asked, did he
get copy of the order on 17.8.2009 when he formally
...1226/-
Exh.1124 1226 (J-SC 317/10)
came to know about the order, the witness answered
that, he got copy of the order on 17.8.2009 when he
formally came to know about the order.
1127. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember whether on
18.08.2009 he made a request to the then C.P., Mumbai
to spare a room in Powai police station for SIT. On
18.8.2009, the SIT got this room for its office. Choice
of office at Pawai was as the incidents had taken place
at two places i.e. one in Vashi and another in Versova.
The witness denied that, he came to know from the order
of the High Court that, the incidents had taken place
at two places. FIR could have been lodged at any of
these two police stations. He chose Versova over Vashi,
as he was DCP, Mumbai. The witness on his own deposed
that, it was about the alleged encounter at Nana Nani
Park which was within the jurisdiction of Versova
police station, therefore, he chose Versova police
station. It was his decision to register the case at
Versova police station. On 17.8.2009, the complainant
did not contact him. He contacted him on 18 or 19 of
August, 2009. He personally did not meet the witness.
He called the witness on phone. There would not be any
record of talks of Ramprasad Gupta with him on 18 or 19
August, 2009. On 18
th
or 19
th
August, 2009, whenver
Ramprasad Gupta had called him and he was told to come
...1227/-
Exh.1124 1227 (J-SC 317/10)
to Versova police station on 20.8.2009 in the morning.
Prior to 20.8.2009, he did not communicate to Versova
police station that on 20.8.2009, he was to visit
Versova police station. On 20.8.2009, he did not give
any letter to the Sr.PI or SHO of Versova police
station that, he was to register a crime in Versova
police station. He did not give copy of the High Court
order to Sr. PI or SHO of Versova police station. The
witness on his own deposed that, he had shown copy of
the order to duty officer API Mr. Bandalkar of Versova
police station on 20.8.2009. He did not ask the witness
to produce copy of the said order. He did not feel it
necessary to give a copy of the order to him. On
20.8.2009, he did not give any letter to the SHO as
regards to registration of the FIR and handing over a
copy of the FIR to the witness. On 20.8.2009, statement
of Mr. Bandalkar was not recorded. He did not record
his statement subsequently. He did not feel it
necessary. He did not request Mr.Bandalkar to take down
FIR (statement) of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. The witness on
his own deposed that, the Hon'ble High Court's order
was very clear stating that, he should record fresh
statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not dictate the
FIR. It was recorded as per his say. He personally did
not type the statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. On being
asked, normally, FIR registered at a police station
began at the reverse of the FIR form, the witness
...1228/-
Exh.1124 1228 (J-SC 317/10)
answered, it depends. To give authenticity to the FIR,
it was recorded on the reverse of the form at times.
Every FIR Forms were numbered and were given serial
numbers. The witness denied that, the FIR recorded
outside the police station was recorded on separate
pages. FIR could not be removed from the police
station. The witness denied that, when statements were
recorded outside the police station and were to be
treated as FIR, were annexed with the FIR Form. The
witness was shown Exh.121, especially the statement
part of the complainant. There was nothing in the said
statement part to show that, it was recorded in Versova
police station. The witness was shown the proforma part
of Exh.121. There was no mention in FIR proforma part
that, statement of Mr.Ramprasad Gupta was recorded in
Versova police station.
1128. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember as to whether, he
carried original statement and original FIR Form along-
with him when he left Versova Police Station. When he
went to the SIT office from Versova Police Station the
complainant did not accompany him. He had gone through
the copy of the FIR and Copy of the Statement on
20/08/2009 in the SIT office. He did not remember as to
when did he go through the original FIR and the FIR
Form thereafter i.e. after 20/08/2009. There was no
...1229/-
Exh.1124 1229 (J-SC 317/10)
record of making copies of the FIR and the statement.
The witness was shown column no. 15 in FIR proforma at
Exh.121. He could not say whether date 20/08/2009 was
put in the same pen and in same handwriting as that in
the other parts of the proforma Exh.121. It was filled
in in his presence in the police station. He personally
did not collect any document subsequent to 20/08/2009
as to when was the FIR submitted before the Court. On
being asked, did he come across any document during the
course of investigation showing the date and time of
submission of the FIR to the Court, the witness
answered that, he came across a document showing the
date on which FIR was submitted before the Court. He
did not come across any document showing the time of
submission of the FIR to the Court. On being asked, did
he take Charge of the said document, the witness
answered, since, the said document was submitted
through a covering letter in his name on 21/08/2009,
question of taking charge of the document did not
arise.
1129. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, copy of FIR along-with a covering
letter was sent to the Court on 21/08/2009. He did not
remember as to whether any endorsement or signature of
the Court staff was obtained in respect of receipt of
the FIR. The covering letter was not filed along-with
...1230/-
Exh.1124 1230 (J-SC 317/10)
the Charge-sheet. He did not come across any documents
stating that Versova Police Station filed FIR before
the Magistrate on 20/08/2009. The witness denied that
when he studied the FIR the first thing that he decided
to do was to verify the allegations in the FIR. On
being asked, did it occur to him at anytime that
allegations in the FIR were to be verified, the witness
answered that, contents of the FIR were to be verified/
ascertained. Ascertaining meant checking the contents.
He visited Nana-Nani park on 21/08/2009 for
ascertaining the contents in the FIR. After going
through the FIR he felt that, all contents in the FIR
required to be verified. The witness denied that, on
21/08/2009 when he along-with complainant went to the
spot there was nothing to be verified on the spot. On
being asked, for the purpose of verification of the
alleged spot at Nana-Nani Park four things were to be
verified 1) Watchmen 2) Pickup Van and three persons
3) Blood 4) Lights, the witness answered, it was not
confined to these four things. These four things were
necessary to be verified. He had come to know name of
watchman Rambabu Lodh, the watchman of Magnum Opus
Building on the relevant date. He was the person who
had allegedly talked to the complainant. He was present
at Magnum Opus Building during the night of 11/11/2006.
He was traced and his statement along-with that of
Rajkumar Shukla came to be recorded on 27/08/2009. On
...1231/-
Exh.1124 1231 (J-SC 317/10)
21/08/2009 sketches were drawn and photographs were
taken. The witness on his own deposed that a panchanama
was recorded. He did not remember whether, those
sketches and photographs were shown to Rambabu Lodh or
not. Before recording statement of Rambabu Lodh he
verified that he was on duty at Magnum Opus Building at
the relevant time on 11/11/2006. Rambabu Lodh was not
confronted with the complainant. Rajkumar Shukla was
forwarded for recording statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.
and that the said statement came to be recorded on
03/10/2009. The witness on his own deposed that except
the Experts Medical Officers & Nodal Officers all other
witnesses were asked as to whether they were willing to
give their statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. As and when the
witnesses gave their willingness process of getting the
statements recorded was commenced. On being asked, did
he get recorded statement of Rambabu Lodh as per
section 164 Cr.P.C., the witness answered that, he did
not remember. After verifying record, the witness
deposed that, statement of Rambabu Lodh was not
recorded as per Section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness knew
that, willingness of a witness for recording statement
u/s.164 Cr.P.C. was an important aspect. There was no
record with the SIT stating willingness or
unwillingness of a particular witness for recording his
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The witness on his own
deposed that, it was mentioned in the relevant Case
...1232/-
Exh.1124 1232 (J-SC 317/10)
Diaries. Case Diaries and Crime report were one and
the same. The witness denied that, Rambabu Lodh was the
Eye Witness to the alleged fake encounter. On being
asked, did he agree that, allegations in the FIR
regarding a dead body being thrown at Nana-Nani Park
was based on what Rambabu Lodh had told to the
Complainant, the witness replied that, it was a point
mentioned in the FIR. He did not think that Mr. Rambabu
Lodh was the eye witness to the alleged fake encounter
till date.
1130. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, it was important to record statement
of Rambabu Lodh u/s.164 Cr.P.C. but it was subject to
his willingness. The witness denied that, on 20/08/2009
he had not been to Versova Police Station and that no
FIR was registered in his presence in Versova Police
Station. The witness denied that, no FIR was ever
recorded in Versova Police Station and that, statement
of complainant was prepared by him and the SIT staff at
some place other than Versova Police Station and that,
Mr.Rambabu Lodh did not corroborate the allegations of
the complainant that a dead body was thrown at Nana-
Nani Park therefore, he did not record his statement as
per provisions of section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness
denied that, there was no record to show that
Mr.Rambabu Lodh was asked to give statement u/s.164
...1233/-
Exh.1124 1233 (J-SC 317/10)
Cr.P.C. Mr.Rambabu Lodh was citied as a witness and
his statement was filed along-with the Charge-Sheet.
Mr.Rambabu Lodh had not been examined as a witness
before the Court by the prosecution. On 09/09/2009
statements of Kripashankar Yadav and Shersingh,
watchmen from Magnum Opus Building were recorded and on
10/09/2009 they were called upon to show the place at
NanaNani Park. He did not remember whether sketches
were prepared at Nana-Nani Park with the help of these
witnesses and whether on 11/09/2009 he along-with
complainant visited Nana-Nani Park. He did not remember
whether on 11/09/2009 he recorded statement of
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. After referring charge sheet, the
witness deposed that, he recollected that, he recorded
statement Mr.Ramprasad Gupta on 11/09/2009. It was
recorded after visit to Nana-Nani Park and Magnum Opus
Building. On being asked, on interrogation to
Kripashankar Yadav and Shersingh did you feel that they
were important witnesses and their statements should be
recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C., the witnses answered in
affirmative. Statement of Kripashankar Yadav u/s.164
Cr.P.C was recorded on 22/09/2009 and that of Shersing
Yadav was recorded on 16/09/2009 on getting their
willingness. Their statements u/s. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C
had been filed along-with the charge-sheet. The first
witness that he tried to find out was Mr. Rambabu Lodh
and the second was the person who were seen near the
...1234/-
Exh.1124 1234 (J-SC 317/10)
pickup van. The witness on his own deposed that it was
not confined to this aspect only. As far as the van was
concerned, he came to know that the van belonged to
Star-T.V. The van was outdoor broadcasting van. That
van was bearing no.UP-16-L9622. Various statements came
to be recorded and documents came to be collected in
respect of this vehicle. He personally did not see the
said vehicle. No panchanama was drawn in respect of
this vehicle. On 10/10/2009 he recorded statement
Mr.Mayank Bhagwat. He also recorded statement of the
driver of this van by name Venkat Palnate on
15/10/2009. They were present along-with the van on the
day of incident at Nana-Nani Park. Mr.Mayank Bhagwat
had called for O.B. Van. Statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C of
Mr.Mayank Bhagwat and that of Venkat Palnate were not
recorded. They were not confronted with the
complainant. Their statements were recorded and filed
along-with the Charge-Sheet. They were citied as
prosecution witnesses.
1131. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he saw Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda
for the first time on 03/09/2009. They were
interrogated for two to three hours. During the said
period their statements were also recorded. At that
time he did not ask Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda as to
who asked them to approach to the SIT. He did not ask
...1235/-
Exh.1124 1235 (J-SC 317/10)
the complainant and Dhiraj Mehta to ask Anil Bheda and
Aruna Bheda to approach to the SIT. On being asked,
did he feel it necessary to verify allegations made by
Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda after recording their
statements, the witness replied that, he did not
remember if they made any allegations on that day while
making statements before him. He asked Anil Bheda to
show the alleged place of abduction subsequently to
recording his statement dated 03/09/2009 i.e. on the
same day. He did not take the witness to the said
place. He asked him to show the place on the same day
when he was transferred from one vehicle to another. He
was not ready to show the place at that point of time.
Similar was the case of alleged places of his
detention. Due to his refusal or reluctance he could
not visit these places with help of Anil Bheda. There
was no record to show that he asked Anil Bheda to show
the places and that he was reluctant and refused to
show the places. The witness on his own deposed that,
it was reflected in the Case Diaries. He had not filed
any Case Diary along-with Charge-Sheet before the court
pertaining to this aspect. On 25/09/2009 he deputed API
Mr.Ghorpade to go to Kolhapur. The SIT asked Anil Bheda
to accompany API Mr.Ghorpade but he was reluctant to
accompany API Mr.Ghorpade to Kolhapur at that point of
time. The SIT did not give any letter to Anil Bheda. He
did not record his statement as regards to his refusal
...1236/-
Exh.1124 1236 (J-SC 317/10)
or reluctance. There was no record of his reluctance
anywhere else as regards to going to Kolhapur. He asked
Anil Bheda on 03/09/2009 as regards to his willingness
for recording his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. On being
asked, on 03/09/2009 Anil Bheda and his wife Aruna
Bheda were not willing to give their statements u/s.164
Cr.P.C., the witness answered that, on that day they
were not ready to give their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C.
and told him that as and when they made up their minds
they would inform accordingly. Their statements to the
effect that they would inform accordingly when they
made up their minds were not recorded. There was record
in the Case Diary stating that Anil Bheda & Anil Bheda
were asked to give their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C.,
but on 03/09/2009 they were not willing to give their
statements and told him that as and when they made up
their minds they would inform accordingly. Apart form
the case diary there was no record to this effect. He
did not recollect as to whether this fact was not even
mentioned in the second progress report. The defence
produced certified copy of progress report dated
09.09.2009 submitted by the SIT before Hon'ble High
Court vide Exh.886.(Colly), which was the first report.
The report did not show that an offer was made to Anil
Bheda and Aruna Bheda for recording their statements
u/s.164 Cr.P.C., and that they did not show their
willingness and were reluctant to give statements u/s.
...1237/-
Exh.1124 1237 (J-SC 317/10)
164 Cr.P.C., at that point of time i.e. on 03/09/2009.
The report also did not show reluctance on the part of
Anil Bheda to show place of his alleged abduction,
transfer from one vehicle to another and for showing
places of his detention.
1132. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he dictated the progress report. He
used to dictate it on the basis of investigation
papers. At that time, the case diary was before him.
Photographs taken earlier of Nana-Nani Park were not
clear therefore he directed P.I. Mr. Gaonkar to again
take photographs of the said place. Even approximately
he could not tell as to how many photographs were taken
but many photographs were taken. The witness denied
that, these photographs were shown to the witnesses
whose statements were recorded. Dhiraj Mehta was one of
the most important witnesses. He did not ask the
complainant and the SIT staff to contact Mr.Dhiraj
Mehta. He did not ask the complainant to contact Dhiraj
Mehta but he asked his SIT staff to find out his
whereabouts and to call him. On 25/08/2009 Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta gave a list of witnesses to him. He was not sure
as to whether the said list included name of Mr.Dhiraj
Mehta. The list of witnesses given by the Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta was not filed along-with the Charge-Sheet. The
said list of witnesses also contained mobile numbers of
...1238/-
Exh.1124 1238 (J-SC 317/10)
witnesses. As he directed his staff to locate Dhiraj
Mehta he also directed his staff to locate Anil Bheda.
Before the time Anil Bheda and Dhiraj Mehta came to him
he did not know that the SIT staff had contacted them.
In case of Dhiraj Mehta he knew that, the SIT had
contacted him before he came to the SIT office. Prior
to visit of Dhiraj Mehta to the SIT office, he visited
Trisha Collections on 25/08/2009. On that day he made
inquires regarding Dhiraj Mehta with the nearby
shopkeepers at Trisha Collections. On being asked, did
he try to locate Trisha collections on 25/08/2009, the
witness answered in affirmative. The witness on his own
deposed that meanwhile the complainant had come to the
SIT office and told him that, it was wrongly stated by
him on 20/08/2009 in his statement as 'Trishala'
instead of 'Trisha'. Portion marked A in Exh.886 was
correctly written by him. On 25/08/2009 he did not
record any statements and also could not gather any
useful information at Trisha Collections.
1133. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that on 25
th
August, 2009, he could not
trace out Trisha Collections. On 4.10.2009, he recorded
statement of Dilip B.Jain, owner of Trisha Collections.
Mr.Dhiraj Mehta and Mr.Dilip B. Jain were not asked to
produce any documents to the effect that, Mr.Dhiraj
Mehta was having a shop at Trisha Collections.
...1239/-
Exh.1124 1239 (J-SC 317/10)
Statements of other persons running shops in Trisha
Collections in the year 2006 were not recorded, but
there were other persons running shops in Trisha
Collections. On 09.10.2009, he recorded statement of
one Sikandar Rahim Ali. Mr.Sikander Rahim Ali was
working in Trisha Collections on 11.11.2006 at the
relevant time as per his statement. His statement had
not been filed along with the charge sheet. Mr.Dilip
B.Jain and Mr.Sikandar Rahim Ali were not referred to
the Magistrate for recording their statements u/s. 164
of Cr.P.C. It was necessary to collect documents to
show that, at the relevant time, Mr.Dhiraj Mehta was
running a shop at Trisha Collections. The witness on
his own deposed that efforts were made but same could
not be collected. Summons/ notices/ letters were not
issued to Dilip Jain and to Dhiraj Mehta for producing
documents. On 27.08.2009, Mr.Dhiraj Mehta was asked as
to whether he was willing to give statement u/s.164 of
Cr.P.C. He agreed to it, therefore, he was referred to
the Magistrate for recording his statement on
04.09.2009. Anil Bheda, Aruna Bheda and Dhiraj Mehta
along with their respective advocates came to the SIT.
They were the only witnesses who came to the SIT along
with their respective advocates. He did not remember
whether on 27.08.2009 when Mr. Dhiraj Mehta came to the
SIT office, he asked him mobile number of Anil Bheda.
Mr. Dhiraj Mehta, on his own, did not give mobile
...1240/-
Exh.1124 1240 (J-SC 317/10)
number of Anil Bheda. He did not remember whether he
had questioned him as to when did he meet on the last
occasion to Anil Bheda. On 27.08.2009, he came to know
that, Mr.Dhiraj Mehta and Anil Bheda knew each other.
Nobody told him and he did not come across that, since
13.8.2009 i.e. the date of order of the Hon'ble High
Court, Anil Bheda and Dhiraj Mehta were in contact with
each other. He did not study the mobile printouts of
Mr.Dhiraj Mehta and Mr.Anil Bheda. He did not feel it
necessary therefore, he did not study it. The witness
denied that, he was deposing false and that Mr.Anil
Bheda and Dhiraj Mehta were in contact with each other
and were in hands-in-gloves since 13.08.2009. On
27.09.2009, Mr.Ghorpade reported to him after he had
returned from Kolhapur. Thereafter, he came to know one
name Pravin Teli. Mr.Ghorpade did not record his
statement. He did not know whether Mr.Teli was in Hotel
Majestic, Kolhapur, in 2006. The witness was confronted
with second report submitted to the Hon'ble High Court
by the SIT (Exh.888). Attention of the witness was
drawn to Para-15 of the Report. The witness deposed
that, the report was prepared as per his directions and
under his signatures. The contents were true and
correct. Para -15 was marked as Portion MarkedA.
1134. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, at that time, he did not feel it
...1241/-
Exh.1124 1241 (J-SC 317/10)
necessary to record statement of Mr.Pravin Teli. That
day, he felt that, it was necessary to record statement
of Mr.Pravin Teli. He agreed that, it was necessary to
confront this witness with Mr. Anil Bheda. They could
not trace the constable who had allegedly seen Anil
Bheda at Mahalaxmi Temple, Kolhapur. He personally did
not visit Hotel Majestic, Kolhapur. He did not meet any
person from Hotel Majestic, Kolhapur. He did not
remember whether he met a gardener by name Jijaram
Shinde at Nana Nani Park, when he visited the said
place. He did not make any correspondence with the BMC
to know as to how many watchmen/security guards were
posted at Nana Nani Park at the relevant time. On being
asked, did he come to know during the course of
investigation that, the BMC had posted security persons
at Nana Nani Park, the witness answered that, there
were security guards posted at Nana Nani Park. They
were deployed there by one KDS Security Services. The
SIT issued letters to the KDS. They provided
information of the watchmen which were deployed at Nana
Nani Park at the relevant time. On 31.08.2009, he
deputed PI Mr.Gaonkar and PSI Mr.Chalke to Nana Nani
Park to make inquiry as regards to security guards
deployed at the said place at the relevant time.
Thereafter, statements of three security guards came to
be recorded. One of the three persons was on duty
during the night on 11.11.2006. His name was Pitambar
...1242/-
Exh.1124 1242 (J-SC 317/10)
Yadav. All the three security persons were asked
questions as to whether they were willing to give
statements u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. Mr.Pitamber Yadav only
showed his willingness, therefore, he was referred to
recording statement and accordingly, his statement came
to be recorded u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. Statements of
Mr.Pitamber Yadav were the part of charge sheet.
Statements of other two security persons were recorded,
but they were not included in the charge sheet. On
being asked, since he was investigating allegations of
fake encounter, it was necessary for him to get hold of
the papers of investigation of C.R.302/06 of Versova
police station which was transferred to Oshiwara police
station, the witness answered that, since the High
Court order was to record a fresh statement of the
complainant and register and investigate the case,
initially, he did not feel it necessary to call for the
papers of CR No.302/06. He did not remember the date on
which he got papers of CR No.302/06.
1135. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not remember as to when did he
come to know that, Mr.Mohandas Sankhe was investigating
CR No.302/06. Mr.Mohandas Sankhe was mentioned as an
accused in the complaint made by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta in
Cr.No.246/09. He called Mr.Mohandas Sankhe for
interrogation. He did not remember as to whether he
...1243/-
Exh.1124 1243 (J-SC 317/10)
received papers of CR No.302/06 when he interrogated
Mr.Mohandas Sankhe. Whenever he got papers of CR No.
302/06, he went through those papers. When he went
through the papers, he felt that, statements of
witnesses in CR No.302/06 should again be recorded in
CR No.246/09. That was done after making fresh
inquiries with those witnesses. Except one, all
witnesses and panchas from CR No.302/06 were called,
interrogated and statements were recorded and were also
asked as to whether they were willing to give
statements u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. Witnesses Manohar Kulpe
and Ramrajpal Singh were called, their statements were
recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C and also they were referred for
statements u/s.164 of Cr.P.C after they showed their
willingness. Their statements u/s.161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C. were part of the charge sheet and they were
cited as prosecution witnesses. He directed his staff
to collect their locationscell I.Ds as on 11.11.2006.
That was done as they had claimed to be at Nana Nani
Park on 11.11.2006. Initially, the name of the hotel
was mentioned as Hotel Mid-land. Subsequently, Mr.Anil
Bheda mentioned the hotel to be Hotel Mid-town in his
statement. He sent Mr. Gaonkar and Mr.Chalke to the
said hotel on 26.09.2009. They recorded statements of
four witnesses, including owner Mr.Rizwan Marediya from
the said hotel. Those four persons were never called to
confront with Mr.Anil Bheda. Those four statements had
...1244/-
Exh.1124 1244 (J-SC 317/10)
not been filed along with the charge sheet. On being
asked, he did not come across any witness from Hotel
Mid-town or Mid-land, who could identify Mr. Anil
Bheda, the witness answered that, no staff from Hotel
Mid-town could identify Mr. Anil Bheda, however, Milind
More and Madan More, Constables, identified him at
Hotel Mid-town, when he had gone to Hotel Mid-town. It
was in February, 2010.
1136. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Mr.Milind More and Madan More were
the constables from D.N. Nagar police station. On being
asked, did he get any witness from Hotel Mid-town who
could identify Mr.Milind More and Madan More, the
witness answered that, he did not ask any staff from
Hotel Mid-town to identify Mr.Milind More and Mr.Madan
More. He did not come across any document showing that,
Milind More and Madan More had been to Hotel Mid-town.
Even while deposing before the Court, he did not feel
it necessary that, Mr.Milind More and Mr.Madan More
should have been identified by the staff of Hotel Mid-
town. On being asked, did he ask Mr. Milind More and
Mr.Madan More to show the hotel that they referred to
in their statements , the witness answered that, they
were asked to come to the hotel which they had referred
to. They were not asked to show the hotel.
...1245/-
Exh.1124 1245 (J-SC 317/10)
1137. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Mr.Milind More and Mr.Madan More were
summoned to Hotel Mid-town on 19.03.2010 i.e after one
and half months of recording their statements. During
the course of investigation, they got the information
and on the basis of the information they located Mr.
Madan More and Mr.Milind More. Those two persons did
not come to the SIT, on their own. Till recording
statements of these witnesses, their names did not
appear in the statements of any other witnesses. The
witness on his own deposed that, he remembered Anil
Bheda having mentioned just Morein his statement. He
also recorded statements of Sumant Bhosale and Naresh
Phalke. Their names were also not disclosed in the
statements of any other witnesses prior to recording
their statements. He made inquiry with DN Nagar police
station and Versova police station as regards to how
many Mores were serving there, but he did not
remember as to how many Mores were serving in those
police stations at the relevant time. The witness
denied that, Mr.Milind More, Mr.Madan More and
Mr.Sumant Bhosale were not confronted with Mr.Anil
Bheda. Their statements were recorded after they were
confronted with Mr.Anil Bheda in his office of the SIT
and supplementary statements of these witnesses to the
effect that they identified Anil Bheda to be the same
person whom they had guarded at Hotel Mid-town, came to
...1246/-
Exh.1124 1246 (J-SC 317/10)
be recorded. On being asked, on which date they were
confronted with Anil Bheda, the witness answered that,
on 04.02.2010, they were confronted with Anil Bheda.
1138. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 04.02.2010, Mr.Anil Bheda was
summoned to the SIT office and he was shown to the
witnesses so as to confront with the witnesses. On
04.02.2010, he did not record further statement of Anil
Bheda. He did not feel it necessary to record his
further statement on 04.02.2010. He felt it necessary
that day, as he was no more. Anil Bheda referred to
'More' as a person and not as a 'policeman'. He
recorded statement of one Mr.Sanjeevan Shinge, In
charge Hawaldar of DN Nagar police station. He did not
remember as to whether he asked him as to how many
'Mores' were there in DN Nagar police station.
Correspondence was made with Reliance Energy to know
the position of street lights at Nana Nani Park on
11.11.2006. The witness denied that, the correspondence
was made with Reliance Energy to know the position of
the street lights at Nana Nani Park on 11.11.2006 as
the clip produced by PW-1 showed darkness at the said
place. He did not remember that, PW-1 claimed that
there was total darkness when he visited Nana Nani Park
at the relevant date and time. He wanted to know what
was the condition of lights at the relevant date and
...1247/-
Exh.1124 1247 (J-SC 317/10)
time at the relevant place. On perusal of FIR Exh.121,
internal page no.9 i.e. running page no.15 as per
charge sheet, the witness agreed that, PW-1 claimed in
Exh.121 that, there was darkness (andhar aslya mule).
In this connection, he got letter from Reliance Energy
on 08.10.2009. Vide said letter, Reliance Energy
informed the SIT that, at the relevant date, time and
place, the lights were functioning. That letter had
not been filed along with the charge sheet.
1139. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during investigation, he came to know
that, Versova Mobile-I removed the injured to the
hospital. In this respect, he recorded statements of
five persons namely; ASI Mr.Chavan, PHC Mr.Kelkar, PN
Mr.Rane, RTPC Mr.Mane and PC Mr.Anil Kadam (PW-26). He
asked them as to from where did they pick up the
injured. He did not ask them to show the place. He did
not remember whether he had shown them the sketches
that were drawn. They did not point out any place in
the sketch from where they had picked up the injured.
He did not remember whether he had shown them the
photographs that were taken on two occasions. That
day, he felt that, it was an important thing to show
them the photographs and the sketches so as to
ascertain the place from where they had picked up the
injured. He did not show them the clip that was
...1248/-
Exh.1124 1248 (J-SC 317/10)
produced by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not remember as
to whether if all those five persons were examined by
PI Mr.Sankhe in CR 302/06 and that, as to whether he
came to know when he examined Mr. Shekhar Sharma that,
PI Mr. Sankhe had taken charge of some photographs. The
SIT recorded statement of Mr. Shekhar Sharma in CR No.
246/09 whose statement was also recorded in CR No.
302/06. He stated in his statement that, he had taken
photographs of the spot. He did not come to know
that, Mr. Shekhar Sharma had taken photographs. He did
not know whether Mr. Sankhe had taken charge of those
photographs. He did not remember as to whether he
asked Mr. Sankhe to produce those photographs. It was
necessary to collect those photographs of 11.11.2006.
He agreed that, those photographs were necessary to
know the position as to where the person died and fell,
as to the position of the bloodstains and as to the
position of the weapon, if any, lying there. The
witness on his own deposed that, copy of the case
papers of CR no.302/06 which were obtained by the SIT
from the High Court did not have these photographs. He
did not remember whether he asked Mr.Sankhe or Mr.Patil
to produce those photographs. He did not remember
whether he asked photographer Mr.Shekhar Sharma to
produce copies of those photographs. The SIT recorded
statement of Mr.Mohandas Sankhe, Mr.Patil and
Mr.Shekhar Sharma. He recorded statement of Mr.Mohandas
...1249/-
Exh.1124 1249 (J-SC 317/10)
Sankhe. On being asked, when he referred to the SIT,
did he mean himself or the other officers, the witness
answered that, the SIT meant Special Investigation Team
which included the whole team.
1140. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the photographs were not filed along
with the charge sheet. As an Investigating Officer, it
was very important for him to see those photographs. He
did not make correspondence with BMC to find out as to
how many hotel Mid-town and Hotel Mid-land were there
in Andheri area. FIR disclosed four names viz. Arun
Chavan from Property Cell, Prakash Sakpal from Rabale
police station, Narendrasingh Bisht from Antop Hill
police station and Mr.Prakash Bhandari from Crime
Branch. All those four persons were called and their
statements were recorded u/s.161 of Cr.P.C. They were
asked their willingness for recording statements u/s.
164 of Cr.P.C, but none of them gave his willingness to
record statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. No record in that
regard was maintained anywhere by the SIT. Their
statements were filed along with the charge sheet. He
did not remember whether their mobile phone details
were called or not. It was necessary to call their
mobile phone details. He did not remember as to whether
he came across the mobile call details of those four
persons during the course of investigation. Those call
...1250/-
Exh.1124 1250 (J-SC 317/10)
details were necessary for verifying the FIR of Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta. Statements of Mr. Chavan, Bisht and
Sakpal had not been filed along with the charge sheet.
1141. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 23/09/2009, he recorded statement
of Mr.Jayesh Kesariya. That witness was also sent for
recording his statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. The witness
was shown Exh. 888. Attention of the witness was drawn
to Portion Marked 'B' in Exh. 888 by the defence and he
was asked, whether Portion Marked B was correctly
recorded, the witness replied that, there was one
mistake- word allegedly was missing. This mistake had
come to his knowledge only that day when it was pointed
during cross examination. The witness denied that, he
was deposing false that there was one mistake as the
word 'allegedly' was missing and that it was a factual
position mentioned in report Exh.888. The witness was
shown Exh.667A (Colly). He called for Order Book of
D.N.Nagar Police Station of 12/11/2006. He went through
the said Order Book after he received it. As per this
record on 12/11/2006 accused no.1 was on weekly off.
After receipt of Exh.667(A)(Colly) he did not record
statement of anyone from D.N.Nagar Police Station.
During the course of investigation, he visited D.N.
Nagar Police Station on many occasions. During the
course of investigation he recorded statement of Police
...1251/-
Exh.1124 1251 (J-SC 317/10)
Personnel from D.N. Nagar Police Station. This was also
in context that Mr. Bheda was brought to D.N. Nagar
Police Station. He did not get any witness from D.N.
Nagar Police Station stating that he had seen Mr. Bheda
in D. N. Nagar Police Station on 11/11/2006. He did not
get any witness from D.N. Nagar Police station stating
that he had seen accused no.1 in D.N.Nagar Police
Station on 12/11/2006. Among the many things which he
was interested in were Logbook of Wireless of West
Control with Versova MobileI Van. He came to know
that, by the orders of Director and Special I.G.
Wireless Maharashtra, the Wireless Record of the West
Control and Logbook of Versova MobileI were destroyed.
Those were destroyed as per the standing orders that
those were to be destroyed after a period of one month.
Accordingly he received a report from ACP, West Control
and Sr.P.I. Versova Police Station. The another thing
was to get the video Clips of the coverage of by
Electronic Media as on 11/11/2006. Star T.V. and Zee
News were not in possession of those clips when the SIT
asked for it. They were not in possession of those
clips because as per the guidelines of Minster of
Information and Broadcasting those clips were not to be
maintained after a period of 90 days. He did not
remember whether he interrogated and recorded statement
of any person from Zee News regarding the coverage of
the spot on 11/11/2006. Only Exh.739 (Video Clip) from
...1252/-
Exh.1124 1252 (J-SC 317/10)
Aaj-Tak was made available to the SIT. He recorded
statement of Mr.Sahil Joshi from Aaj-Tak. He also
recorded statement of Mr.Arun Kaushik form Sahara
Samay. The purpose behind interrogating them was as to
when did they reach at the spot and what they heard at
the spot. For the purpose of interrogation of these
three persons the photographs of the spot taken as on
11/11/2006 in Cr.No.302/06 were important. The SIT
recorded statement of Mr.Sanjay Vahanmane from print
media. He was also interrogated as to at what time he
reached the spot. He tried to get information from them
as regards to the alleged encounter. Their statements
were recorded in this respect as to how did they
receive the information. How and when they received
information of the alleged encounter was an important
fact. No documentary evidence could be collected as and
when they received information of the alleged
encounter. Video Clip Exh.739 produced by Aaj-Tak did
not show any time.
1142. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the SIT officers examined Mr.
Vishwasrao who was on night duty on 11/11/2006 at
D.N.Nagar Police Station. He was interrogated as far as
he had seen Mr. Bheda. As far as P.W.1 was concerned he
was not confronted with any staff from D.N.Nagar Police
Station. During the course of inquires/ investigation
...1253/-
Exh.1124 1253 (J-SC 317/10)
he could not get any eye witness from Trisha
Collections of the abduction of the deceased and Mr.
Anil Bheda. Name of one Nilesh cropped up during the
investigation. Efforts were made to trace him but the
SIT could not find him. The progress reports submitted
in the Hon'ble High Court were totally silent on the
point of efforts made by the SIT to trace Mr. Nilesh.
There were no documents or statements in the Charge-
Sheet showing that efforts were made to trace
Mr.Nilesh. As DCP ZoneIX, he was In-Charge of eight
police stations including D.N. Nagar Police Station,
Versova Police Station and Oshiwara Police Station. He
was required to take rounds of all those police
stations as the DCP. While investigating the alleged
fake encounter vide Cr.No.246/09 as an I.O, it was
important to know as to what weapons did the police
officers carry with them at the time of the alleged
fake encounter. It was also important to know as to who
were the persons who had gone for the encounter. For
this purpose he obtained the papers of investigation of
Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police Station. It was also
important to seize those weapons and to send those
weapons for examination. The witness denied that, this
was particularly important as those weapons were not
seized in Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police Station. After
receipt of papers of Cr.No.302/06, he came to know
that, the weapons were not seized in Cr.No.302/06 and
...1254/-
Exh.1124 1254 (J-SC 317/10)
were not sent for examination. Even after going through
the Charge-Sheet he could not tell as to when he
received papers of Cr.No.302/06 of Versova Police
Station. There was a record to show that record of
Cr.No.302/06 was received, but it was not before the
Court as on that day. That record was the order issued
by the Hon'ble high Court, subsequent to which there
was record in the form of the entry in Case Diary.
Except the said Case diary, there was no other record
to show as to when the papers of Cr.No.302/06 were
received by the SIT. On being asked, on receipt of
papers and going through it did he feel it necessary to
seize and send the weapons from Cr.No.302/06 of Versova
Police station at the earliest for examination, the
witness answered in affirmative. The witness on his own
deposed that, after deciding on what points the
examination of these five Fire Arm/s was to be
conducted then only those weapons could be sent. On
being asked, was there any point other than the use of
weapons in the alleged fake encounter, the witness
answered that, there was no other point than the use of
weapon in the alleged fake encounter that was to be
considered by him. The witness denied that, other point
was to frame accused no.1 and that, he was doing this
as per the directions of the then Joint C.P.Mr.Rakesh
Mariya. The witness on his own deposed that, before
sending the Fire Arm/s, possessed by the members of the
...1255/-
Exh.1124 1255 (J-SC 317/10)
raiding party in C.R.302/06 their statements were
recorded and during this time it was revealed during
course of investigation that Mr.Pradeep Sharma,
Mr.Tanaji Desai were named accused from Versova Police
Station in Cr.No.246/09, who were also having fire-arms
and whose names were mentioned in FIR in Cr.No.246/09.
1143. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, till he got the weapon of accused no.
1, no weapons were sent to C.A. He came to know during
course of investigation that, accused no.1 was
dismissed from services one year prior to the order of
Hon'ble High Court. He also came to know that, he was
reinstated by the order of M.A.T. He did not know
whether the state challenged the order of M.A.T. before
the Hon'ble High Court. He did not know whether on
08/01/2010 the matter was fixed for hearing before the
Hon'ble High Court. The witness denied that, as
dictated by then Joint C.P.Mr. Rakesh Mariya he
arrested accused no.1 on 07/01/2010, as the matter was
fixed was for final hearing on 08/01/2010.
1144. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during the course of investigation,
he tried to find out as to whether there was a weapon
in his name as he was dismissed from Services. He came
to know that, his weapon was in Dharavi Police Station
...1256/-
Exh.1124 1256 (J-SC 317/10)
after his dismissal till 12/12/2009, when it was
allegedly sent to the Armory. The witness on his own
deposed that,on 10/12/2009 when the SIT received only
seven firearms from Naigaon Armory, the SIT came to
know that, Firearm of Mr. Pradeep Sharam was not there
at Naigaon Armory. He did not come to know that, since,
01/09/2008 the weapon was lying in Dharavi Police
Station. He had seen Exh.480 during the course of
investigation. At that time, he came to know that,
Dharavi Police Station received the weapon on
01/09/2008. On being asked, did he want to send
Firearm/s of all the police personnel named in the FIR
in Cr.No.246/09, the witness answered, he wanted to
send Firearm/s of those police personnel who were
possessing weapons at the time of incident and who were
named in the FIR. He wanted to ascertain among the
police named in the FIR, as to who were possessing
weapons at the time of alleged fake encounter. On being
asked, did he write any letter to D.N.Nagar Police
Station and Versova Police Station, the witness
answered, he wrote letters to D.N.Nagar Police Station
and Versova Police Station. The witness was called upon
by the defence to produce those letters. Those letters
were letters O.W.No.100/VTP/2009 dtd. 04/11/2009 to
D.N.Nagar Police Station and letter O.W. 100/ VTP /
2009 to Versova Police Station sent by him and their
respective replies vide O.W.No.7953/09 dtd. 06/11/2009
...1257/-
Exh.1124 1257 (J-SC 317/10)
of Sr.P.I., D.N.Nagar Police Station and letter O.W.No.
7387/ 2009 from Versova Police Station were the same
letters on record. No letter was written to Dharavi
Police station. He wrote letters to D.N. Nagar Police
station and Versova Police Station to find out as to
which of the police personnel were having weapons on
the relevant date among the police personnel named in
the FIR of 246/09. Those were the only letters written
to D.N. Nagar Police Station and Versova Police
Station. No such query was made in the said letters.
His letters did not refer to Mr.Ratnakar Kamble, Mr.
Vinayak Shinde, Mr. Mohan Sankhe and many other police
staff named in FIR of CR No.246/09. He did not come
to know during course of investigation that Mr.
Ratnakar Kamble and Mr. Vinayak Shinde surrendered
their weapons. Weapons of Mr.Ratnakar Kamble, Mr.
Vinayak Shinde & Mr. Mohan Sankhe were not taken charge
of and were not sent for examination. The witness
admitted that, accused no.1 Mr.Sharma was not the
member of the party of encounter in Cr.no.302/06 and
that, as far as Mr. Tanaji Desai was concerned no role
had been attributed to him in Cr.No.302/06. On
12/09/2009 he sent a letter to FSL for copies of the
reports sent by them to Verosova Police station and
others. On 29/10/2009, he had meeting with Mr. Gautam
Ghadge (P.W. 86). It was held in pursuant to his letter
dtd. 29/10/2009. The witness denied that, the said
...1258/-
Exh.1124 1258 (J-SC 317/10)
meeting was held so as to ascertain as to which
articles he would require for examination of the
Weapons/ Ammunitions. The SIT received attested copies
of all the reports from FSL in Cr.No.302/06, on
03/10/2010. He had gone through those reports. After
going through the reports, he came to know as to, what
articles were sent vide Cr.no. 302/06 to the C.A. He
also came to know that, those articles were received
back by Versova Police Station in the year 2007. He
did not immediately try to take charge of those
articles from Versova Police Station. He did not
immediately take charge of the weapons of which he
received information from Versova Police Station and
D.N.Nagar Police Station. The witness on his own
deposed that, they inquired with D.N.Nagar Police
Station and Verosva Police Station. The SIT learned
that these weapons were deposited along-with other
weapons of the police stations as part of the new
weapon policy (THEN) at Naigaon Armory. The SIT made
correspondence on 12/11/2009 seeking six Arm/s. On
24/11/2009 the SIT made the second correspondence for
seven Arms. On 04/12/2009 the SIT made third
correspondence for eighth Arm/s.
1145. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not receive any reply to the
letters mentioned above from Naigaon Armory. The
...1259/-
Exh.1124 1259 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that, after meeting with Mr. Ghadage he
realized that all the articles which were sent to him
earlier could be required to be sent again for
examination. On being asked, was the case of SIT that
the articles sent earlier for examination to CFL were
not again sent to CFL for examination, the witness
could not say anything. On being asked, after meeting
with Mr.Gautam Ghadage did he realize that, sending the
weapons of Police party or Policemen could be necessary
for examination, again the witness could not say
anything.
1146. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he did not ask Mr.Gautam Ghadge as to
why did he not ask to send for the weapons from earlier
examination i.e., for examination of bullets and the
empty. There was no record as to what transpired in the
meeting between me and Mr. Gautam Ghadage. Mr. Gautam
Ghadage was called for meeting as he was the person who
had earlier examined the articles. The SIT started
exercise of collecting the weapons only after meeting
with Mr. Gautam Ghadage was held. On 07/12/2009 all
members of the raiding party were called at the spot in
Cr.no.302/06 and the scene was reenacted. A panchanama
of that, recreation was drawn. Photographs were taken.
The witness denied that, expert Mr. Ghadage was called
at the spot. On being asked, the idea of recreation of
...1260/-
Exh.1124 1260 (J-SC 317/10)
the scene of 11/11/2006 was for the purpose of
understanding whether the firing was possible as per
FIR of 302/06 and whether the deceased could have
sustained injuries as found on his body, the witness
answered that, it was to understand the position of the
raiding party members and also that of the deceased on
the date of incident. It was not done for the purpose
to know whether the deceased could have sustained
injuries found on his body. It was done to understand
whether the firing was possible as per FIR of CR No.
302/06.
1147. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, it was necessary to find out as to
whether such injuries as noted on the body of the
deceased could have been possible by such firing as
mentioned in FIR of 302/06. The panchanama and the
photographs taken on 07/10/2009 were not placed along-
with the Charge-Sheet. It was in his knowledge at the
time of sending letters to Naigaon Armory that the arms
and ammunitions were deposited in Naigaon Armory. On
10/12/2009 when P.I. Mr. Gaonkar & API Mr. Ghorpade
visited Naigaon Armory he gave a letter with them. The
witness was shown letter Exh.496 dated 09/12/2009. That
was the first occasion on which he sent any SIT officer
to Naigaon Armory. By referring to previous letters in
Exh.496 he asked Naigaon Armory to deliver the weapons
...1261/-
Exh.1124 1261 (J-SC 317/10)
mentioned in those three letters. Despite the three
letters sent by him asking Naigaon Armory to deliver
the arm/s and Ammunitions, they did not deliver the
Arms and Ammunitions till he sent Mr. Gaonkar along-
with letter Exh.496. Naigaon Armory did not give reply
to his letter Exh.496. He did not write any letter to
the Additional C.P. Armed Forces, Naigaon Armory
seeking his assistance in drawing panchanama. After
10/12/2009 no letter was addressed to him. No written
correspondence was made with Armory. No letter except
Exh.496 was given to Armory on 17/12/2009. No letter
was given to Armory for collecting arms on 17/12/2009.
1148. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that on 10/12/2009 he came to know that,
weapon of accused no.1 was deposited at Dharavi Police
Station. Since, 10/12/2009 till 17/12/2009 he did not
make any correspondence with Dharavi Police Station for
taking charge of that weapon. He did not send anybody
to collect weapon from Dharavi Police Station. There
was no difficulty in collecting the weapon from Dharavi
Police Station. The witness on his own deposed that,
since 10/12/2009 the SIT was orally informed by the
Armory Section that they would be collecting the said
firearm form Dharavi Police Station and would inform
the SIT accordingly.
...1262/-
Exh.1124 1262 (J-SC 317/10)
1149. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not come to know before
sending articles to the FSL that PSI Mr.Harpude was not
in possession weapon butt no.2915 as on 11/11/2006.
During the course of investigation he did not learn
this fact. There were three persons from Versova Police
Station by names Mr.Harpude, Mr.Sartape and Mr. Kokam
who took part in the alleged fake encounter. The
witness was shown entry at Exh.827. He had seen that
entry. On seeing the said entry he came to know that as
per the said entry weapon 2915 was issued to API Mr.
Gosavi and was not with PSI Mr. Harpude on that day. He
recorded statement of Mr. Gosavi on 03/09/2010. He did
not question Mr. Gosavi as regards to the possession of
weapon butt no. 2915 as on 11/11/2006. The witness on
his own deposed that, as they were relying upon the
report sent by Sr. P.I. Versova Police Station and that
of D. N. Nagar Police Station at that time. He did not
remember as to whether, he was knowing at the time of
recording statement of Mr. Gosavi the fact that Mr.
Gosavi was possessing the weapon butt no. 2915 on
11/11/2006. He did not remember as to whether, he had
received FSL Report prior to recording statement of Mr.
Gosavi. When he seized Muddemal of Cr.No.302/06 from
Versova Police Station he did not draw a panchanama.
The witness on his own deposed that, he did not seize
the Muddemal from Versova Police Station from CR
...1263/-
Exh.1124 1263 (J-SC 317/10)
302/06. The SIT collected the sized Muddemal from
Versova Police Station.
1150. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he personally did not feel it
necessary to open the packets and see the Muddemal. On
23/06/2010 he opened the Muddemal and again resealed
it. The witness on his own deposed that, it was done in
presence of two panchas. A Video-graph and photographs
of the entire process was done. The said video-graphs
and photographs were not filed along-with the Charge-
Sheet. He had filed statement of the video-grapher and
Photographer along-withe the Charge-Sheet. The Muddemal
Articles were not shown to any witnesses. The idea
behind opining the packets was to check as to whether
the articles were the same as seized under inquest
panchanama in Cr.No.302/06. The articles were found to
be correct as per inquest panchanama in Cr.No.302/06.
He did not remember whether at the time of verification
of the articles he was having inquest panchanama before
him. The SIT recorded statement of inquest panch from
Cr.no.302/06 Mr. Rohidas Dattu Shinde. At the time of
recording his statement the SIT was having a copy of
inquest panchanama from Cr.No.302/06. The original
alleged inquest panchanama from Cr.No.302/06 had been
filed along-with the Charge-Sheet. That was not the
panchanama filed along-with the Charge-sheet. The SIT
...1264/-
Exh.1124 1264 (J-SC 317/10)
filed a photocopy that it received from the Registrar
of The Hon'ble High Court. On being asked, why did he
not take charge of the original, the witness replied
that, they asked for it but they got a photocopy.
After getting the photocopy the SIT did not make any
correspondence for getting the original. The SIT
received the photocopy from the Registrar of the
Hon'ble High Court. It was not a certified true copy.
They asked for a certified true copy but they got only
photocopy. The SIT did not ask to certify the photocopy
after it received the photocopy. The photocopy was
filed along-with the Charge-Sheet. He could not say as
to whether, the photocopy was of the original of
alleged inquest panchanama dated 11/11/2006. He had
recorded statements of all persons except Mr. Birju
Devnath who was signatgory to the said inquest
panchanma. He recorded statement of PSI Mr. Vijay
Dattatry Jadhav. He was examined because he had drawn
the inquest proceeding. The witness on his own deposed
that he had allegedly done the inquest proceedings. He
had examined him in the context of this panchanama. On
being asked, did he find any difference between these
two documents, the witness replied that, he could not
say if it was the photocopy of the said document. The
witness further deposed during cross examination that
the witness was shown Exh. 886 and on being asked,
whether portion marked 'B' was correctly recorded, the
...1265/-
Exh.1124 1265 (J-SC 317/10)
witness replied that, inadvertently, the case number
had not been mentioned. What was written in portion
markedB was correct.
1151. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that portion marked 'B' was in reference to
Cr. no. 302/06. He had asked for certified copies from
the Hon'ble High Court and not the original. Photocopy
of the document that the SIT received from the High
Court had been filed along-with the Charge-Sheet. He
had filed statements of Mr.Rohidas Dattu Shinde and
that of Mr.Vijay Dattatry Jadhav along-with the Charge-
Sheet. The photocopy of the panchanma and the
statements of those witnesses had been filed along-with
the charge-sheet as the SIT was relying on those
documents. Inquest Panchanama dtd. 11/11/2006 from
Cr.No.302/06 was marked Article No.122. Its Xerox copy
was on record and was marked as Article No.122-A.
1152. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that the SIT carried out investigation as
regards to Railway Tickets from the articles seized in
Cr.no.302/06. That investigation was pertaining to the
Railway Stations from where the tickets were purported
to be issued. Investigation by the SIT did not reveal
that those were forged tickets or not issued by the
Railway. Since day one on which he began the
...1266/-
Exh.1124 1266 (J-SC 317/10)
investigation he came to know that there were already
two inquires by the SLAO-IV and the Metropolitan
Magistrate. He did not know that, complaint dated
14/11/2006 made by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta was inquired into
by then Additional C.P. Mr.Hemant Nagrale. He did not
make inquiry as to what happened to the complaint dated
14/11/2006 made by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta. He did not
receive certified copy of the report submitted by
Mr.D.N.Jadhav of the inquiry made by then Addl. C.P.
Mr.Hemant Nagrale. It was the certified copy received
by the SIT from the Hon'ble High Court in respect of
the report purportedly enclosed by the Ex-C.P., Mumbai
Mr.Anami Roy in his affidavit made before the Hon'ble
High Court in connection with Cri.W.P. No.2473/06.
1153. The Court put question to the witness that,
whether the report was related to the complaint dated
14.11.2006 by Mr. Ramprasad Gupta, to which the witness
answered that, he did not peruse the report, therefore,
he could not say. He again stated that, he perused the
report. The report was in connection with the
allegations by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta as regards to the
death of Mr.Ramnarayan Gupta. On 11.11.2006, Mr.A.N.Roy
was then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. On perusal of
his affidavit, he came to know that, inquiry was made
by Mr. Hemant Nagrale in respect of the complaint dated
14.11.2006 made by Mr.Ramprasad Gupta to the then C.P.,
...1267/-
Exh.1124 1267 (J-SC 317/10)
Mumbai. He had also filed inquiry report along with his
affidavit, which was the part of that Exhibit. The SIT
made inquiry in respect of receipt of telegrams by
office of C.P., Mumbai on 11.11.2006. They did not make
inquiry as regards fax. There were specific allegations
in the FIR as regards to fax tone deliberately being
not given to the complainant. The SIT did not make
inquiry in that respect. The witness denied that, he
did not make inquiry because the said allegations in
the FIR were false. He did not feel it to be an
important aspect therefore the SIT did not make
inquiry. The SIT recorded statement of Sharada@
Yashoda, who was residing in the same building where
Anil Bheda resided on 11.11.2006. They came to know
name of Sharada@ Yashoda through Vashi police station.
Accordingly, her statement was recorded. The SIT called
documents from Vashi police station and were taken
charge of and were filed along with the charge sheet.
The SIT used to apply to the Magistrates and to get the
copies of the statements recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C.
That was done with the purpose to know their statements
and to decide further course of investigation. As and
when those copies of statements u/s.164 of Cr.P.C were
obtained were placed before him. Ramrajpal Singh and
Manohar Kulpe claimed before the Magistrate that, they
were the eye witnesses to the encounter dated
11.11.2006 at Nana Nani Park. They were not called on
...1268/-
Exh.1124 1268 (J-SC 317/10)
07.12.2009 to the place of incident to show the correct
position of the incident dated 11.11.2006. The witness
denied that, the SIT deliberately suppressed the CDR of
Manohar Kulpe from the Court.
1554. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he did not remember as to whether
during the course of investigation he was using vehicle
bearing No.MH-01ZA-360. He also did not remember
whether his staff was using vehicle bearing No.MH-01-
B.A-610. The witness on his own deposed that vehicles
were used but he did not remember the numbers. He did
not know whether Log-Book of vehicle bearing No. MH-01-
ZA-360 was called by the CBI and that, whether it was
done after the accused filed an application for copy of
the Log-book under RTI Act. He was using the vehicle,
but he did not remember the dates as to whether the
said vehicle was used by him between 07.05.2009 to
17.02.2011. He did not know as to whether the Log-
Books were sent to M.T. Sections after the Log-Book was
complete. Log-Book of his official vehicle would
disclose his position on a particular day. He did not
know whether the wireless Log-book would disclose his
position on a particular day. He did not know whether
there was any record with M.T. Section as regards to
replacement of vehicles. His office did not maintain
record of vehicles.
...1269/-
Exh.1124 1269 (J-SC 317/10)
1155. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he did not remember whether statements
of A.T. Patil dated 29.1.2010, Madan More dated
1.2.2010, Sumant Bhosale dated 2.2.2010, Milind More
dated 2.2.2010, Ajendra Thakur dated 20.03.2010, Girish
Nepali dated 20.03.2010, Gautam Ghadge dated
22.03.2010, Dhiraj Mehta dated 01.02.2010 were recorded
in the SIT office, Pawai. He was not in a position to
say as to where those statements were recorded. The
witness on his own deposed that the statements were
recorded either at the SIT office at Powai or at the
office of D.C.P. Zone IX, Bandra. He did not recollect
as to whether on the above mentioned dates he was not
at the SIT office, Powai. He did not remember whether
statements of Shyamsunder Gupta dated 22.06.2010, Sujit
Mhatre dated 11.03.2010, Naresh Chandorkar dated
17.11.2010, Tatkare dated 24.08.2010, Revandkar dated
24.08.2010, Kandalgaonkar dated 28.08.2010, Naresh
Phalke dated 06.03.2010, Anil More dated 16.08.2010,
Ashok Sawant dated 04.09.2010, Sushil Kamble dated
10.06.2010 and Dhiraj Mehta dated 28.08.2010 were
recorded in the SIT office, Pawai. He was not in a
position to say as to where those statements were
recorded. The witness on his own deposed that the
statements were recorded either at the SIT office at
Powai or at the office of D.C.P. Zone IX, Bandra. He
...1270/-
Exh.1124 1270 (J-SC 317/10)
did not recollect as to whether on the above mentioned
dates he was not at the SIT office, Powai. He did not
know whether the higher police officers from Mumbai
were interested in the investigation of this case. As
DCP Zone-IX he used to meet then Addl. Commissioners of
Police, Jt.Commissioners of Police and the Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai. During meetings, he did not apprise
them of investigation of this case at any point of
time. At no point of time, he informed them that, he
would be arresting the officers who were then in
employment of Police Force, Mumbai. In the first week
of January 2010, he decided to arrest the accused
persons. Till that time, he did not feel it necessary
to arrest them. It was also because they were
cooperating in investigation. The witness denied that
it was because he did not have sufficient evidence to
arrest them. On being asked, he did not immediately
proceed to arrest the accused persons named in the FIR
as he wanted to verify the allegations in the FIR, the
witness replied that, he did not immediately proceed to
arrest the accused persons named in the FIR as he
wanted to verify the contents in the FIR. The witness
denied that he chose to target accused no.1 Mr. Sharma.
He was the first one to be arrested, even though he was
not a member of the raiding party and that, it was done
at the behest of Mr. Rakesh Maria, then Jt.C.P.
(Crimes). The arrests of accused nos.1 to 6 were made
...1271/-
Exh.1124 1271 (J-SC 317/10)
before the SIT received the Ballistic Report. He
recorded statement of one Mr.A.T.Patil. His statement
u/s.164 Cr.P.C also came to be recorded. The witness
denied that he threatened Mr. A.T. Patil that he would
be arrested if he did not state before the Magistrate
as stated in the police statement prepared by the SIT.
He did not remember whether Mr. A.T. Patil was produced
before him by API Mr. Ghorpade and PSI Mr. Chalke. The
witness denied that, they produced Mr. A.T. Patil along
with statement prepared by them before him. On being
asked, he asked Mr.A.T.Patil whether the statement
prepared by Mr. Ghorpade and Mr. Chalke was acceptable
to him, the witness answered that, once his statement
was recorded the copy of the statement was given to him
and he was asked if he wanted to make any changes in
the statement and if the statement so recorded was as
per his oral say. He went through the copy of the
statement. The witness denied that then he threatened
him of his arrest and that, he gave threats to him
saying that, he would see how he got the pension. The
witness denied that, due to his threats, he was forced
to give false statement before the Metropolitan
Magistrate. He did not remember as to whether Mr.A.T.
Patil was never called to the SIT after his statement
u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C came to be recorded.
...1272/-
Exh.1124 1272 (J-SC 317/10)
1156 The witness further deposed during cross
examination that four witnesses were sent for Lie
detection/ psychological tests. Those were complainant
Mr. Ramprasad Gupta, Mr.Ganesh Iyer, Mr. Anil Bheda and
Mrs. Aruna Bheda. He did not think it fit to send Mr.
Dhiraj Mehta for the said test. In this regard he met
the expert. He did not assist the expert in preparing
questions in respect of which, he wanted those
witnesses to be questioned. He assisted the expert in
preparing questions in respect of which he wanted those
witnesses to be questioned. He had not filed on record
those points on which he sought clarification from the
expert who conducted the Psychological Test. The report
was inconclusive. He did not remember as to what were
the points to which the witnesses were to be subjected
during their Psychological Tests/ Lie-detection Tests.
Even by referring to the record which was available
before the Court, he was not in a position to say as
to what were the points to which the witnesses were to
be subjected during their Lie Detection Tests. The SIT
collected the said report. The report was not filed
along-with the Charge-Sheet. The report reflected as to
on what points the report was inconclusive. During the
course of investigation, he came to know that, Mr.Anil
Bheda and Mrs.Aruna Bheda were examined before the
SLAO-IV and The Metropolitan Magistrate. The SIT
obtained copies of their depositions during the said
...1273/-
Exh.1124 1273 (J-SC 317/10)
inquiries along-with the inquiry reports. He did not
remember whether, the SIT recorded their statements
before it received the reports of inquiries by the
SLAO-IV and by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Even after
referring the record before the Court, he could not say
as to when did the SIT receive the reports along-with
depositions in the inquiries made by the SLAO-IV and
the Metropolitan Magistrate. The SIT did not file the
inquiry reports along-with the Charge-Sheet. Affidavits
filed by Mr.Suryawanshi, Mr.Palande & Mr.Sarvankar in
the inquires were filed along-with the Charge-Sheet.
The SIT did not feel it necessary therefore affidavits
of others were not filed before the Court. He did not
remember as to whether, Mr. Anil Bheda & Mrs. Aruna
Bheda had ever filed any affidavits before the
Magistrate. It was an important aspect to question
these witnesses especially Mr. Anil Bheda and Mrs.
Aruna Bheda as to what they had stated before the
Magistrate during the inquiry. On being asked, did he
record any statement of Mr. & Mrs.Bheda after
confronting them with their previous statements made in
the inquiries conducted earlier by the SLAO-IV and by
the Magistrate, the witness answered that, Mr. Anil
Bheda & Mrs. Aruna Bheda in their statements before him
had referred to their statements made before the SLAO-
IV and the Metropolitan Magistrate and that their
statements made before the two Magistrates were under
...1274/-
Exh.1124 1274 (J-SC 317/10)
duress. He did not confront Mr. Anil Bhea & Mrs. Aruna
Bheda with their statements before the SLAO-IV and the
Metropolitan Magistrate when, he recorded their
statements. The witness denied that he deliberately did
not confront these two witnesses with their earlier
statements because he did not want inconvenient
answers. During the course of investigation he received
the complaint that Mr.Ramprasad Gupta made to then
Commissioner of Police, his affidavit before the
Hon'ble High Court and order of the Hon'ble High Court.
On being asked, did he confront Mr. Ramprasad Gupta
with these three documents, the witness answered in
affirmative. He did not record statement of Mr.
Ramprasad Gupta after confronting him with these three
documents. On being asked, whether this confronting
was important as Mr.Ramprasad Gupta made vital
improvements in his FIR, the witness replied in
affirmative. On 24/10/2009 he issued a letter to
Mr.Ramprasad Gupta to produce witnesses Adv. Mr.Amit
Jambotkar and Mr.Babu Haridas Murgan. He did not
recollect as to whether, he informed him the specific
point which were to be investigated by the SIT. After
going through third progress report (last sentence of
para no.15Exh.890) submitted by the SIT to the Hon'ble
High Court, the witness deposed that, the report was
under his signature. Its contents were true and
correct. Portion Marked 'A' in the report (Para no.15
...1275/-
Exh.1124 1275 (J-SC 317/10)
last sentence) was correct. The witness remembered that
he had asked Mr.Ramprasad Gupta to inform the specific
points, if any, to be investigated in-connection with
this case. One Mr.Sawant was an Accountant in the
office of Mr.Dhiraj Mehta on 11/11/2006. The SIT did
not record his statement. The witness on his own
deposed that the SIT made efforts to trace him but in
vain. The SIT did not have any record to show that,
efforts were made to trace out Mr. Sawant.
1157. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that on 11/03/2011 at. 11.00 p.m., API Mr.
Ghorpade made him a call stating that, Anil Bheda
received threats. He did not record statement of P.I.
Mr. Gaonkar, API Mr. Ghorpade & PSI Mr. Chalke as
regards to the alleged threats received by Mr. Anil
Bheda. He did not remember as to whether, he asked Mr.
Ghorpade as to when he came to know that, Anil Bheda
was receiving threatening calls. He knew that, it was
necessary. The witness on his own deposed that since
the matter was very serious he instructed API Mr.
Ghorpade on 11/11/2006 to call Anil Bheda the very next
day to the SIT office and to inquire into the matter.
It was necessary to know as to from where Anil Bheda
was receiving threatening calls. He asked API. Mr.
Ghorpade. Anil Bheda was receiving threats for a couple
of days. On being asked, whether he made any efforts on
...1276/-
Exh.1124 1276 (J-SC 317/10)
11/03/2011 to give protective cover to Anil Bheda after
he came to know that, Anil Bheda received threats, the
witness answered that, he did not provide security
cover to Anil Bheda on 11/03/2011. The witness on his
own deposed that he asked API Mr. Ghorpade to call Anil
bheda to the SIT office and to inquire. Depending upon
the findings of the inquiry decision of providing
security cover would have been taken. On making
inquiries on 12/03/2011, he felt it necessary to
provide security cover to Mr.Anil Bheda. Receiving
threats by Mr.Anil Bheda and its communication by API
Mr. Ghorpade to him on 11/03/2011 was an important fact
and it should have been reflected in some record.
1158. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that no such record had been placed before
the Court. It was very much necessary for him to call
Mr. Anil Bheda for making inquiry. On 11/03/2011 and on
12/03/2011, he did not tell API Mr.Ghorpade to produce
Mr. Anil Bheda before him. The witness on his own
deposed that while Mr.Anil Bheda was in the SIT office
on 12/03/2011 he spoke to him orally on
P.I.Mr.Gaonkar's phone. He personally asked Mr.Anil
Bheda as to whether he wanted police protection. It was
not given to him as he declined to have protection. The
witness on his own deposed that he asked Anil Bheda on
12/03/2011 to take protection and he also told him
...1277/-
Exh.1124 1277 (J-SC 317/10)
that, the SIT would be providing a constable till he
got formal security cover from the concerned authority,
but he declined. He talked to Mr.Anil Bheda around
07.00 p.m. on 12/03/2011. That day, he felt that,
asking Mr.Anil Bheda to have security cover and he
declining to have it was an important fact and ought
have been recorded. The SIT did not expect that,
Mr.Anil Bheda would be abducted and killed the very
next day. Therefore, it was not recorded. The procedure
for getting security for any person was that the person
concerned, had to make an application for it to The
Commissioner of Police Mumbai. The witness on his own
deposed that, the application should be addressed to
the competent authority concerned. The witness on his
own deposed that The SIT recorded statement of Anil
Bheda on 12/03/2011. He did not remember name of the
SIT officer who recorded statement of Anil Bheda. He
asked the officer concerned as to whether he asked
Mr.Anil Bheda to have police protection. The witness
denied that he asked the officer concerned as to
whether he asked Mr.Anil Bheda to have police
protection, after going through the statement of Mr.
Anil Bhea. He did not remember as to when did he see
statement dated 12/03/2011 of Mr.Anil Bheda. On
08/03/2011 the SIT came to know that, Anil Bhedas
presence was necessary on 16/03/2011 before the Court.
On 12/03/2011 he did not tell the SIT officer to record
...1278/-
Exh.1124 1278 (J-SC 317/10)
any panchanama as regards to recordings and
transcription thereof. On 13/03/2011, he came to know
that, Mr.Bheda was missing. He did not remember as to
whether, the SIT submitted any report to the court
stating reason as to why Mr.Anil Bheda could not be
produced before the court on 16/03/2011. Even after
referring the record before the court he could not tell
as to whether the SIT submitted any report to the Court
or not. On being asked, inability to produce a witness
as directed by the Court had to be explained by the
I.O., the witness answered in affirmative. He did not
remember as to whether the SIT did not disclose to the
Court regarding the threats, recordings and
transcription in respect of Mr.Anil Bheda in the report
dated 16/03/2011.
1159. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he was carrying on his duties in a
dual capacity as the DCP ZoneIX as well as Head of the
SIT and the I.O., There were three major immersion
points at Versova, Santacruz and Juhu within the
jurisdiction of DCP, Zone-IX. He was overall In charge
of Bandobast and law and order duties. On 03.09.2009,
it was the last day of Ganesh immersion. On 03.09.2009,
he visited all these three points, but he did not
remember as to when he visited the said points. He did
not remember as to whether he visited these three
...1279/-
Exh.1124 1279 (J-SC 317/10)
places in the evening. The immersion started in the
evening and took place on the next day morning. His
personal presence was not required at every point of
immersion. On being asked, whether his presence was
required during the process of immersion since evening
till next day morning at these three points, the
witness answered that, his presence at these points was
not required but his overall supervision and monitoring
was required. There was a temporary Control Room in
Santacruz Control Room (Juhu) to monitor immersion.
From there, all the immersion points were covered. The
witness denied that DCP Zone IX controlled from there.
He did not remember whether he controlled the
immersions from temporary control room in Santacruz
(Juhu) on 03.09.2009. He definitely visited the Control
Room on 03.09.2009, but he did not remember the time.
He did not remember as to how long he was at the said
Control Room. He did not remember how many points he
visited on 03.09.2009 and as to how long I remained at
each of the points. The witness denied that the final
day immersion bandobast started on the previous day. It
started in the afternoon of the immersion day. He did
not remember as to at what time the immersion bandobast
started on 03.09.2009 and as to at what time and how
many places he visited for the purpose of bandobast.
The office of DCP Zone-IX might be approximately at a
distance of 10 to 15 kms. from Santacruz, Juhu and
...1280/-
Exh.1124 1280 (J-SC 317/10)
Versova points of immersion. He did not remember as to
how long he remained in his office at Bandra on
03.09.2009. He also did not remember as to how many
times he left his office at Bandra. The witness denied
that, he was feigning convenient amnesia to answer the
questions in cross examination.
1160. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he heard name of Mrs.Hina Kalbag.
Some inquiry was entrusted to him in respect of the
complaint made by her against Mr.Ajendrasing Thakur
(PW-87) and others. The witness denied that he gave a
default report against Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur. He could
not say that, he gave clean chit to Mr.Ajendrasingh
Thakur. The witness on his own deposed that he
conducted departmental inquiry and before it was
concluded, he was transferred. He did not give any
findings. On 29.07.2009, he handed over the charge. The
witness denied that Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur was
pressurized by him to give a false statement and that,
he was the inquiry officer of him and that, therefore,
he was having hold over him and therefore, he compelled
him to give a false statement, under the threats that
he would give findings against him. On 3.9.3009, he did
not visit the SIT office, Powai. The witness denied
that on 3.9.3009, he did not record statements of Anil
Bheda and Aruna Bheda. The witness denied that he had
...1281/-
Exh.1124 1281 (J-SC 317/10)
not recorded any statements as a matter of fact and
that all these statements were prepared by Mr.Gaonkar,
Mr.Chalke and Mr.Ghorpade in consultation with him and
that he merely signed those prepared statements brought
by the SIT officers. The witness denied that due to
allegations made by accused no.1 against his boss Mr.
Maria, he had implicated him in this case and that, he
did not carry out fair and impartial investigation. The
witness denied that he had been dictated by the
complainant the manner in which the investigation was
to be carried out and that, the investigation suffered
from malafide and malice. The witness denied that he
deliberately and intentionally did not collect vital
evidence, as it would have absolved all accused persons
from false charges levelled by him. The witness denied
that he deliberately suppressed evidence from the Court
and that, he had not only suppressed the evidence but
manipulated it by intimidation, threats and undue
influence.
1161. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, the default report against Dilip
Suryawanshi, Avdhoot Chavan and Mohandas Sankhe was not
sent on the basis of complaint made by Mr.Ramprasad
Gupta. His evidence in the court regarding the letter
of the complainant dated 12.07.2010 in respect of
complaint against some of the witnesses as recorded in
...1282/-
Exh.1124 1282 (J-SC 317/10)
para-112 was correct. Default reports of these three
officers were sent after 12.07.2010. The witness denied
that making inquiry was not the part of investigation
of this case. He never thought that the inquiry be made
by any other independent officer who was not connected
with investigation of this case. It was a mistake on
his part that it was not filed before the Court. The
witness on his own deposed that if the Court directed
it would be produced. The witness denied that this was
the intimidation that he was giving to the witnesses.
He had not placed any material before the Court to show
that, they were punished. The witness denied that, he
was deposing false to prejudice the Court and that, he
had supervised and controlled the entire investigation
with prejudice against the accused.
1162. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that it was his decision to arrest accused
nos.6,7 and 10. Whenever he got admissible evidence, he
used to arrest the accused. Vinayak Shinde was arrested
on 19.01.2010. On being asked, whether accused Vinayak
Shinde was identified by any of the witnesses prior to
his arrest by the SIT, the witness answered in
affirmative. The witness who named Vinayak Shinde was
Mr. Anil Bheda. Anil Bheda identified Vinayak Shinde.
His answer was only that, the witness Anil Bheda named
Vinayak Shinde and not identified him prior to arrest
...1283/-
Exh.1124 1283 (J-SC 317/10)
of Vinayak Shinde. The witness on his own deposed that
Subhash Lefty also named Vinayak Shinde. The witness
recorded statement of Anil Bheda only once prior to the
arrest of Vinayak Shinde. He thought so that, name of
Vinayak Shinde came in the said statement of Anil
Bheda. The said statement was recorded on 03.09.2009.
The witness on his own deposed that the SIT during the
course of investigation came to know that, Mr.Vinayak
Shinde was involved in this case. On being asked, name
of Vinayak Shinde was not reflected in the statement of
Anil Bheda as on 03.9.2009, the witness answered that,
he could not say whether the name of Vinayak Shinde
reflected in the statement of Anil Bheda dated
03.9.2009.
1163. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that before the arrest of Vinayak Shinde,
the SIT did not inform the Court that, Vinayak Shinde
was a wanted accused in this case. He did not remember
whether he recorded statement of Subhash Lefty either
before or after the arrest of Vinayak Shinde. The
witness denied that statement of Subhash Lefty did not
reflect name of Vinayak Shinde. He did not remember
whether the said statement came to be recorded prior to
or after the arrest of Vinayak Shinde. He did not
remember as to whether the SIT stated in the remand
application while producing Vinayak Shinde after his
...1284/-
Exh.1124 1284 (J-SC 317/10)
arrest that, Vinayak Shinde had been named by Anil
Bheda and Subhash Lefty. Every police station in Mumbai
City got a Sr.PI who was Incharge of the police
station. There was also P.I. (Administration) in a
police station. Generally, Sr.PIs assigned duties to
officers and staff in the police station. There were
four P.Is and one Sr. PI in a police station in Mumbai
City. There was one PI(Administration), another was PI
(Crimes), third was PI (Prevention) and fourth was PI
(Community/PR). They all worked under overall
supervision of Sr.PI. PI(Administration) was
responsible to maintain the records related to the
distribution of the duties. It was the Order Book. He
did not seize the Order Book from DN Nagar police
station pertaining to the duties dated 11.11.2006. He
did not record statement of then PI (Administration) of
DN Nagar police station. He issued a letter to Sr.PI,DN
Nagar police station to produce the relevant Order
Book, but he did not produce the Register. He sent
extracts of the Register pertaining to 11.11.2006.
Ideally speaking Sr.PI was supposed to see what part of
work was to be done by a particular constable in a
police station, but practically this was looked after
by the In-charge Hawaldar under the directions of PI
(Administration). The Order Book was not submitted to
ACP or DCP. It was not submitted to Sr.PI. Approvals
were taken in writing by PI (Administration) as regards
...1285/-
Exh.1124 1285 (J-SC 317/10)
to assignment of duties. During the course of
investigation, the SIT learned that, Mr.Vinayak Shinde
was deputed from Versova police station to DN Nagar
police station on 18.10.20006. The SIT collected
documents to that effect. During the course of
investigation and recording of statements from police
personnel from DN Nagar police station, no one produced
any document before him showing that, Mr.Vinayak Shinde
was working under a Specific PI from DN Nagar police
station. The witness denied that he did not ask the
witnesses from DN Nagar police station to produce the
Order Book of the relevant date i.e. after 11.11.2006.
The witness on his own deposed that the SIT learned
that, Vinayak Shinde was on deputation and was working
under PI Mr.Pradeep Sharma, then PI (Preventive) of DN
Nagar police station. He was performing regular duties
of DN Nagar police station. He was not assigned any
duties by the Hawaldar Incharge of DN Nagar police
station.
1164. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not get copy of the order
book, which could show that, Mr. Vinayak Shinde was
working under a particular Officer at the relevant time
in D.N. Nagar police station, however, he got a letter
from Sr. PI, D.N. Nagar police station dated 04.02.2010
addressed to the SIT stating that, Mr. Vinayak Shinde
...1286/-
Exh.1124 1286 (J-SC 317/10)
was working in the squad of Mr. Pradeep Sharma in D.N.
Nagar police station. He had recorded statement of then
Sr.PI Mr. Ajendrasingh Thakur. He asked him as to why
Mr.Vinayak Shinde's posting did not reflect in the
Order Book of D.N.Nagar police station. He gave
explanation orally. That oral explanation of
Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur was not recorded in his
statement. The witness did not remember if there was
anything reflected in his statement. It was not there
in the statement of Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur. The witness
denied that he had fabricated evidence against accused
n.7 and that, he deposed false that Mr.Vinayak Shinde
was working under Mr.Pradeep Sharma. The witness denied
that, there was no existence of any squad.
1165. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that the SIT got evidence to show that,
Akil Khan@ Bobby was coming to DN Nagar police station.
In relation to it, he recorded statements of then Sr.
PI Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur and other staff from DN Nagar
police station. He did not remember if he asked
Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur as to since what date Akil Khan
@ Bobby used to come to DN Nagar police station. It
was an important aspect to ask Mr. Ajendrasingh Thakur
and the staff from DN Nagar police station as to since
what date Akil Khan @ Bobby used to come to DN Nagar
police station. The witness denied that he did not ask
...1287/-
Exh.1124 1287 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur and Staff from DN Nagar police
station as to from what date Akil Khan @ Bobby used to
come to DN Nagar police station. The witness denied
that he did not collect any document to that effect and
that, accused no.6 had been implicated in this case.
The witness denied that the SIT had not produced any
such documents as those documents would have gone
against the prosecution case.
1166. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 20.08.2009, he came to know about
the Qualis Car when it was mentioned by the complainant
in his statement. On that day, he did not get
registration number of the said Qualis Vehicle. The
colour of the Qualis car reflected in the FIR. It was
silver colour. The number referred in the FIR of the
Qualis vehicle was MH-12. He did not remember as to
whether the SIT had the the registered number of Qualis
vehicle prior to the arrest of accused no.10. He did
not remember the date on which for the first time, he
came to know the registration number of the Qualis
Vehicle. The Qualis vehicle was seized. It was seized
under panchanama Exh.182 after arrest of accused no.10
i.e. after 09.03.2010. The witness was shown Exh.182.
As per the said panchanama, the Qualis vehicle seized
by the SIT was MH 04 AW 8824 and Chassies no. was LF
50102197401, Engine no.966692. He did not call
...1288/-
Exh.1124 1288 (J-SC 317/10)
explanation from the complainant as regards to the
number of the vehicle mentioned in the FIR of Qualis
Vehicle and the number mentioned in Exh.182. The
witness was shown Exh.180, which was collected by the
SIT during the course of investigation pertaining to
the vehicle bearing registration No. MH 04 AW 8824. As
per Exh.180, Engine No. of the said vehicle was
9646692. There was difference in Engine Number as
mentioned in Exh.180 and Exh.182. He did not call
explanation from the concerned in this behalf. The
witness was shown Exh.177-A. He did not know whether
Exh.177A was the R.C. Book of the same vehicle i.e. MH
04 AW 8824. The colour of the vehicle mentioned in Exh.
177-A was 'B. Silver'. As per Exh.177A, Engine No.is
966692.
1167. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Exh.180 stated chassies no. of
vehicle bearing No.MH-04-AW-8824 as LF 501021974
01/01. The witness was shown Exh.363. As per this
document, chassies no.of the vehicle was LF501021974 01
(Engine No. is 966692). The witness was shown Exh.359.
As per document Exh.359, as on 11.11.2006, the vehicle
was in the name of Ashok J. Shah. This was a private
vehicle. Legally speaking, the private vehicles could
not be used as Taxies unless RTO permits. If a person
was found using a private vehicle as a taxi, he could
...1289/-
Exh.1124 1289 (J-SC 317/10)
be prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act. The SIT did not
find any delivery note in the name of any person in
respect of this car. The car was seized from the
custody of Mr.Sujit Mhatre. The SIT did not get any
document as regards to the vehicle being in the custody
of Mr.Sujit Mhatre and that the vehicle stood in the
name of Sujit Mhatre except that of panchanama. The SIT
did not take any action against the registered owner or
the person found in possession of the vehicle for
violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. The SIT did not get
any document except recording panchanama showing
possession of Mr.Mhatre on 10.11.2006 and 11.11.2006.
1168. The witness denied that, the SIT fabricated
evidence against accused no.10 and implicated him in
this case. The defence produced a certified copy of
the fourth, fifth and sixth Progress Reports submitted
by the SIT before the Hon'ble High Court, which were
marked as Exh.894,895 and 896 respectively. The witness
deposed that, Exhs.894,895 and 896 were the same
Reports filed by him having his signature. Contents
therein were true and correct.
1169. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, documents, i.e. Panchanama of empties
of accused no.9, spot panchanama and inquest panchanama
and panchanama of empties of Mr.Sarvankar and
...1290/-
Exh.1124 1290 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Palande from Cr.No.302/06 registered in Versova
Police Station were annexed with the Charge-Sheet in
Cr.No.246/09. The witness was shown FIR in Cr.No.302/06
at Exh.278. As per this FIR it was filed by accused no.
9 from the present case as per section 307, 353, of the
IPC r/w.3,25,27 of the arm/s Act. As per this FIR the
members of the raiding party were P.I. Mr.Suryawanshi,
API Mr.Sartape, PSI Mr.Pattade, P.H.C.18839, P.N.26645
and P.C.10502, API Mr.Palande, API Mr.Sarvankar, PSI
Mr.Harpude, P.C.31963, 31241, 33492. The proforma was
already marked Exh.278 and the signature below FIR was
marked Exh.281.
1170. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during the course of investigation
the SIT came to know that, a case vide 302/06 came to
be registered in Versova Police Station on the basis of
complaint of then P.I., D.N.Nagar Police Station Mr.
Pradeep Suryawanshi. He read the FIR. As per the FIR in
Cr.No.302/06 he came to know that, it was mentioned in
the FIR that, the deceased alighted from auto-rickshaw
and that he fired two rounds towards the raiding party
and in retaliation to save the public and to control
the deceased, accused no.9 fired two rounds, accused
no.11 Mr.Sartape fired one round, accused no.15 Mr.
Palande fired one round and accused no.22 Mr.Sarvankar
fired one round.
...1291/-
Exh.1124 1291 (J-SC 317/10)
1171. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, as per Exh. 279 it was supposed to be
the panchanama of empties produced by accused no. 9 as
on 11/11/2006 in Cr.No.302/06. The witness was shown
Exh.283. As per Exh.283 it was supposed to be the spot
panchanama dated 11/11/2006 in Cr.no.302/06. The
witness was shown Exh.286. As per this document it was
supposed to be the panchanama dated 12/11/2006 of the
empties produced by Mr.Palande accused no.15 and
Mr.Sarvankar accused no.22. During the course of
investigation the SIT recorded statements of
Photographers Mr.Shekhar Sharma, Mr.Vinayak Bharat
Raundal. The SIT also recorded statements of witnesses
Mr.Vijay Dattatray Jadhav, Mr.Pravin Rane and
Mr.Bhaskar Kelkar. They had been citied as witnesses in
the Charge-Sheet in Cr.No.246/09. He could not assign
any reason as to why these five witnesses had not been
examined as prosecution witnesses. The witness denied
that these five witnesses were supporting the defence
case therefore they had not been examined as
prosecution witnesses.
1172. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during the course of investigation
statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of various witnesses were
recorded. Statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of Mr.Ramrajpal
...1292/-
Exh.1124 1292 (J-SC 317/10)
Singh and Mr. Monohar Kulpe also came to be recorded,
on 12/01/2010 & 23/12/2009 respectively. Their
statements u/s.161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded by the
SIT. He remembered that, they gave their evidence
before the Judicial Magistrate, but he did not remember
whether they gave their evidence before the SLAO-IV.
Both of them were citied as witnesses in Cr.No.246/09.
They had not been summoned by the prosecution and they
had not given evidence before the Court. He could not
assign any reason as to why they had not been examined
as by the prosecution as prosecution witnesses. The
witness denied that, evidence of these witnesses was in
support of the defence therefore, the prosecution had
not examined them as prosecution witnesses. The witness
was shown Article nos.118 to 121. Article no.118 was an
affidavit filed by accused no.9 before the Hon'ble High
Court in Criminal Writ Petition no. 2473/06. Article
no.121 was an affidavit filed by accused no.9 before
the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
2473/06 on 21/01/2009. The witness was shown Article
Nos.119 & 120. Article no. 119 was the affidavit filed
by accused no.17 Mr.Harpude in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2473/06 dated 24/09/2008. Article No.120 was filed
by accused no.18 Mr. Pattade in Cr. Writ Petition No.
2473/06 dtd. 24/09/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court.
The witness denied that, he had gone through total
proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
...1293/-
Exh.1124 1293 (J-SC 317/10)
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. He had gone through
only report. The SIT obtained entire proceedings. The
witness was shown affidavit dated 19/03/2008, filed
before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. As per the
said document it appeared to have been filed by accused
no.9 Mr. Suryawanshi in the case before the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri. The witness was shown affidavit
dated 19/03/2008 filed before the Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri. As per the said document it appeared to have
been filed by accused no.22 Mr.Sarvankar in the case
before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. The witness
was shown affidavit dated 25/03/2008 filed before the
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. As per the said document
it appeared to have been filed by accused no.15 Mr.
Palande in the case before the Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri. The witness was shown Station Diary entry
dated 11/11/2006 at 18.05 hours of D.N.Nagar Police
Station. Generally when anytime the police officer left
the police station for any official work then entry in
the Station Diary was made. During the course of
investigation he came across the said Station Diary.
The entry was marked Exh.897 and its xerox copy was
marked Exh.897(A). The witness was shown Exh.666. As
per this document accused no.9 Mr. Suryawanshi was on
duty on 11/11/2006. He sent letters dated 16/09/2009,
19/10/2009, 22/10/2009, 31/10/2009 & 06/11/2009 to
various police stations during the course of
...1294/-
Exh.1124 1294 (J-SC 317/10)
investigation for calling criminal record of the
deceased form those police stations. Those letters did
not form the part of Charge-Sheet. The SIT had not
submitted sanction order u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. against the
police accused in the Charge-Sheet. The witness on his
own deposed that the SIT did not feel it necessary. It
was not necessary. Till that day the SIT had not made
any application to the Government for getting sanction
to prosecute the police officers who were accused in
this case. The SIT had not obtained sanction u/s. 161
of the Bombay Police Act for prosecuting the police
officers in this case. The witness was shown entries
dated 12/11/2006 at 02.10 hours and 04.40 hours from
the Station Diary of D.N.Nagar Police Station. The SIT
came across the said entries during the course of
investigation. As per the said entries the officers
concerned left the police station at 02.10 hours and
came back to the police station at 04.40 hours after
checking Hotels, Lodges, Pubs and Bars on 12/11/2006.
Entry at 02.10 hours was marked Exh.898. Its xerox copy
was marked Exh.898(A). Entry at 04.40 hours was marked
Exh.899. Its xerox copy wasmarked Exh. 899(A). The
witness was shown Station Diary Entry Exh.884(A). This
entry was not prepared in his presence. He did not have
personal knowledge of the said entry. The witness
denied that on 11/11/2006 at 04.45 p.m. accused no.9
Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi received information from his
...1295/-
Exh.1124 1295 (J-SC 317/10)
informant that one Ramnarayan@ Lakhan Bhayya Vishwanath
Gupta, a wanted and absconding accused in serious
crimes like murder, dacoity, extortion etc., was
meeting his accomplices at Nana-Nani Park, Seven
Bungalows, Andheri(W). The witness denied that, on
11/11/2006 at 05.15 p.m. then P.I. Mr.Pradeep
Suryawanshi informed his superior officers i.e. the ACP
D.N. Nagar Division, the DCP Zone-IX and the Additional
Commissioner of Police, West Region accordingly and
that the said officers ordered P.I. Mr.Suryawanshi to
arrest Ramnarayan Gupta with the additional help of
officers and Policemen of Versova Police Station. The
witness denied that, on 11/11/2006 at. 05.40 p.m.
P.I.Mr.Suryawanshi contacted P.I. Mr.Sonawane of
Versova Police station for help and requested him to
send available officers to D.N. Nagar Police Station
and that, on 11/11/2006 at 06.10 p.m. API Mr.Sartape,
PSI Mr.Harpude and P.N.26645 of Versova Police Station
attended D.N.Nagar Police station as ordered. The
witness denied that, on 11/11/2006 at 06.30 p.m. P.I.
Mr.Suryawanshi called his staff i.e. API Mr. Sarvankar,
API Mr.Palande, PSI Mr. Patade and other staff along-
with officers of Versvoa Police station to his cabin.
The witness denied that, on 11/11/2006 at 06.40 p.m.
P.I. Mr.Suryawanshi briefed all the staff about the
secret information given by the informant and the
informant described the absconding accused Ramnarayan
...1296/-
Exh.1124 1296 (J-SC 317/10)
and that a plan to arrest Ramnarayan was made and the
officers and men were given appropriate instructions
and that the wanted person was a hardcore criminal and
was always in possession of firearms and never
hesitated to use it and therefore, it was necessary to
plan the operation accordingly. The witness denied
that, on 11/11/2006 at 07.10 p.m. the police squad
reached the spot on Motor-Cycles and Rickshaws where
Ramnarayan was excepted to come to meet his accomplices
and that the squad was divided into two groups and P.I.
Mr.Suryawanshi, the informant, API Mr.Sartape, PSI
Mr.Patade, H.C.18839, P.N.26645, and P.C.10502 hid
themselves at the west side of Nana-Nani Park near the
compound and that the second group of API Mr.Palande,
API Mr.Sarvankar, API Mr.Harpude, P.C.31963, P.C.31241
and P.C.33492 were waiting at East side of Nana-Nani
Park opposite Trishul Building in such a way that, the
both groups could watch the road and vehicles on it but
were not visible to a causal onlooker from the road.
The witness denied that, on 11/11/2006 at. 08.10 p.m. a
rickshaw stopped near the Electric Pole at the South
side of end of Nana-Nani Park and that the approximate
distance of the passenger alighting from the rickshaw
from the both groups of the squad was about 50 feet.
and that the informant immediately gave a signal to
P.I. Mr. Suryawanshi that the passenger alighting from
the rickshaw was wanted accused Ramnarayan and that at
...1297/-
Exh.1124 1297 (J-SC 317/10)
08.11. p.m. P.I. Mr.Surywanshi alerted the other squad
under API Mr.Palande by the prearranged signal that
Ramnarayan had arrived. The witness denied that, on
11/11/2006 at 08.12 p.m. both the groups of Police
officers moved forward to arrest Ramnanarayan. However
perhaps due to the sudden movement of the first group
headed by P.I. Mr.Suryawanshi Ramnarayan became very
alert and knew that he was surrounded by Police and
that within a split of second, he took out his firearm
and pointed it towards the group of P.I.
Mr.Suryawanshi's men and that P.I. Suryawanshi shouted
and warned him that they were all police men and he
should surrender, (Lakhan hum Policewale hai, fire mat
karo. Surrender ho jao.), and that however Ramnarayan
fired a round towards P.I. Mr. Suryawanshi who evaded
the same by ducking down and that at the same moment
API Mr.Sarvankar also warned Ramnarayan to surrender
and that within a split of second Ramnarayan fired
another round towards the second group of officers.
1173. The witness also denied that, on 11/11/2006
at. 08.13 p.m. the police party, to save themselves and
to protect the innocent road users fired total five
rounds towards Ramnarayan. (Pradeep Suryawanshi two
rounds, API Mr.Sarvankar, API Mr. Palande and API Mr.
Sartape each one round) and that Ramnarayan fell down
along-with the firearm. The witness denied that on
...1298/-
Exh.1124 1298 (J-SC 317/10)
11/11/2006 at 08.14 p.m. the Police officers approached
wounded Ramnarayan from all the sides as they
apprehended that Ramnarayan might fire at them and
that, on closer inspection Ramnarayan was found alive
but seriously wounded and thereafter P.I.
Mr.Suryawanshi immediately at 08.15 p.m. reported the
incident to Police Control Room. The witness denied
that the Police Officers meanwhile requested other
private vehicles to take the wounded person to the
hospital but nobody cooperated therefore, wounded
Ramnarayan was put in Versova I Mobile Van which had
received the message from Control at 08.18 p.m. and
arrived at the spot at 08.28 p.m. because of the report
of P.I. Mr. Suryawanshi to the Police Control and that
the wounded person was loaded in the MobileI and it
started for hospital at 08.36 p.m. The witness denied
that on 11/11/2006 at 08.57 p.m. the wounded person was
brought to OPD of Cooper Hospital by the police. On
11/11/2006 at 09.00 p.m. Ramnarayan was declared dead
by the Causality Medical Officer. The witness denied
that, on 11/11/2006 accused no.9 was discharging duty
in the capacity of a public servant and that the act
done was done in the discharge of his duty in the
capacity of a public servant and that therefore,
sanction u/s.197 of the Cr.P.C. was mandatory for
prosecution of accused no.9. The witness denied that,
for the same purpose sanction u/s.161 of the Bombay
...1299/-
Exh.1124 1299 (J-SC 317/10)
Police Act was also mandatory to prosecute accused no.
9. He did not know what was the present status of
Cr.No.302/06 registered in Versova Police station and
transferred to Oshiwara Police Station. He did not make
any efforts to find out as to what was the present
status of Cr.No.302/06. The prosecution produced two
documents as those were called upon by the defence i.e.
by accused no.9. Out of those two documents certified
copy of the affidavit dated 25/03/2007 of Mr.A.N.Roy
the Ex-Commissioner of Police Mumbai filed before the
Hon'ble High Court was Marked Exh.900. The another
document was the affidavit dated 22/09/2008 filed by
Nitin G.Sartape (Accused no.11) before the Hon'ble High
Court. It was marked Article No.123. Article No.118
was marked Exh. 901 and Article no.119 was marked Exh.
902.
1174. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, P.W. 21 Mr. Kailash Devrao Ekilwale
did not state in his statement before him that,-I had
informed the police that he received one bottle
containing Threebullets (pertained to Three Bullets
only). P.W.32 Mr.Sumant Ramchandra Bhosale did not
state in his statements dated 02/02/2010 and 04/02/2010
before him that, Viru used to visit accused no.1
regularlyand that Ratnakar & Tanaji took him to one
house and that, It was the fact of accused no.9.
...1300/-
Exh.1124 1300 (J-SC 317/10)
1175. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that P.W.55 Mr. Milind Subhash More did not
state in his statement dtd. 02/02/2010 and 19/03/2010
before him that, I remained in the police station upto
12.00 Noon and then left for Petrolling duty and that I
returned from Petrolling duty at 09.30 p.m and that,
the encounter was done by Mr.Pradeep Sharma and that
Mr.Pradeep Suryawanshi was a member of said squad of
Pradeep Sharmaand that, I stated in my statement
before SIT on 02/02/2010 as regards to making entry of
the revolver and rounds in the register maintained in
D. N. Nagar Police Station and that, There were four
persons along-with me and Bhosale in the vehicle and
that , I had been taken to Bhatwadi Ghatkopar. P.W.59
Mr. Sushil Prabhu Kamble did not state in his statement
dtd.10/06/2010 before him that, Sr. P.I. rang to Mr.
Pradeep Sharma and told him to produce document as
directed by Naigaon Depot and that, he handed over
the ammunitions to Pravin Kasawalekar for keeping it in
Separate and safe custody. The witness denied that
P.W.95 Mr.Shashidhar Sitaram Shetty did not state
Portion Marked 'A' to E i.e. Exh.855 to Exh.859 in his
statement dated 24/09/2010 before him. The witness
denied that, P.W.103 Mr.Amit Patel did not state
Portions marked 'A' to 'I' i.e. Exhs.861 to Exh.869 in
his statement dtd. 04/09/2010 before him. The witness
...1301/-
Exh.1124 1301 (J-SC 317/10)
denied that, P.W. 104 Mr. Anant Tukaram Patil did not
state portions marked 'A' to 'I', i.e. Exhs.870 to Exh.
878 in his statement dtd. 29/01/2010 before him. The
witness denied that, all above mentioned Portion Marked
(Exhibits) in the statements of P.W. 95, P.W. 103, P.W.
104 had been intentionally incorporated in their
statements by the SIT. PW-22 Mr. Vishnu Bapurao Khatal
stated Portion Marked A' in his statement dtd.
12/03/2010 before him. Portion Marked 'A' was marked
Exh. 904. The witness denied that, accused no.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi had been falsely implicated.
1176. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he could not say as to whether,
inquest panchanama of the deceased was prepared on
11/11/2006 at Cooper Hospital. The witness denied that,
the said panchanama was prepared by an officer by name
Mr. Jadhav from Versova Police Station. He could not
say whether the said panchanama was concluded at 00.05
hours on 12/11/2006 and whether accused no. 11 was
present through out the said panchanama. During the
course of investigation the SIT recorded statement of
Mr.Vijay Sonawane. At the relevant time he was then
Sr.P.I. Of Versova Police Station. His statement was
the part of the Charge-Sheet. He could not say whether
accused no.11 who was then in Versova Police station
was sent by P.I. Sonawane as an Additional help to
...1302/-
Exh.1124 1302 (J-SC 317/10)
D.N.Nagar Police Station which was asked for by the
D.N.Nagar Police Station. He could not say whether, he
was sent in pursuant to the request made by then the
Additional C.P., Mumbai Mr.Bipin Bhihari. The witness
denied that, P.I. Mr.Sonawane was not supporting the
prosecution case therefore he was not examined as the
prosecution witness. The witness denied that, he
implicated accused nos. 11 and 18.
1177. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, it was his decision to arrest accused
nos.13,16 & 19. Prior to their arrests they were called
by the SIT and were interrogated by him at length.
Their statements were recorded. They co-operated the
investigating Agency. In the first week of January 2010
the SIT took decision to arrests these accused persons.
Prior to first week of January 2010 he did not arrest
them as then it was not necessary to arrest them. The
witness denied that, in the first week of January he
arrested the accused maliciously. He did not obtain
sanction to prosecute these accused u/s.197 Cr.P.C. and
161 Bombay Police Act.
1178. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, during the course of investigation he
felt it important to peruse Weapon Register & Station
Diary from Versova Police station. After perusal of the
...1303/-
Exh.1124 1303 (J-SC 317/10)
Weapon Register and Entry therein dated 11/11/2006 he
came to know that, Mr.Harpude did not carry any weapon
with him on 11/11/2006. SHO was the custodian of the
Station Diary. On 11/11/2006 API Mr.Bagwan was the day
duty SHO. Whenever an officer went outside of the
police station and if he informed the SHO accordingly,
that he was going for official duty, SHO was duty bound
to make the entry. Sometimes the officer himself made
entry in the Register in presence of the SHO. The
witness was shown Entry Exh.721. He did not have any
occasion to go through the said entry. The SIT recorded
statement of Mr.Bagwan. That statement was not the part
of the Charge-Sheet. No statement of any witness was
recorded in respect of Mr.Harpude leaving Versova
police station and coming back to the police Station on
11/11/2006. He did not remember whether Mr.Kishor Patil
was day duty SHO on 11/11/2006 in D.N.Nagar Police
Station. The SIT did not record statement of Mr. Kishor
Patil. No statement of any witness was recorded as to
when Mr.Harpude left Versova Police Station and reached
D.N.Nagar Police station on 11/11/2006. During the
course of investigation the SIT did not get any
information that then Sr.P.I. Versova got a call from
then the Additional C.P., Mr. Bipin Bihari to send The
Additional Force for help. He could not say whether,
Mr.Sonawane made a call to Versova Police station so as
to collect information about the available staff. The
...1304/-
Exh.1124 1304 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that, he knew it but he was willfully
deposing false that, these persons did not go to D. N.
Nagar Police station for help as per the order of then
Additional C.P. Mr.Bipin Bihari, taking advantage of
the fact that the record was not available. During
investigation it was revealed that there were two land
lines at Versova Police station. The SIT could not
collect record of calls of the said land-line numbers.
The SIT came to know mobile number of accused no. 17 as
on 11/11/2006. The witness denied that, the SIT did not
record statement of anyone from the Company concerned,
related to the call records of accused no.17. The
witness denied that, the SIT did not properly
investigate the case and that, accused no.17 had been
implicated in this case and that, the SIT did not
properly locate movements of accused no.17. The SIT did
not get sanction to prosecute accused no.17. On being
asked, in case of requirement of a police station,
additional staff from near by police station could be
called if available, the witness answered in
affirmative. The witness on his own deposed that, it
could be only after clearance from the competent
authority concerned. The competent authority in the
Commissionerate area was of and above the rank of ACP
of the concerned Division.
...1305/-
Exh.1124 1305 (J-SC 317/10)
1179. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he could not say whether, Mr.Kokam,
Mr.Sartape & Mr.Harpude were sent from Versova Police
station to D.N.Nagar Police Station, as an Additional
help. During the course of investigation he did not
come to know that, Mr.Kokam, Mr.Sartape and Mr. Harpude
were sent from Versova Police station to D.N.Nagar
Police Station, as an Additional help. Mr.Kokam, Mr.
Sartape and Mr. Harpude were posted at Versova Police
Station as on 11/11/2006. On being asked, in case of
urgency or emergency whether staff of one police
station could be sent to near by police Station, the
witness answered that, an officer of and above the rank
of ACP of a particular area could send additional
assistance in case of urgency or emergency, within his
Jurisdiction. He did not remember whether, he came
across any order or standing order in Criminal manual
or Police manual. The witness on his own deposed that,
however, an officer did not have to take any permission
while utilizing men and material provided to him, but
if sought additional help in terms of men and
material, he needed to take permission of the Sr.
officer concerned. On being asked that he was not put
question regarding material, the witness answered in
affirmative. On being asked, did he record statement
of Mr. Vijay Sonawane then Sr. P.I. Versova Police
Station as on 11/11/2006, the witness answered after
...1306/-
Exh.1124 1306 (J-SC 317/10)
going through the charge sheet that, he did not
remember if he recorded statement of Mr.Vijay Sonawane,
but the SIT recorded his statement. He recorded
statement dtd. 18/02/2010 of Mr.Vijay Sonawane. The
said statement was the part of the Charge-Sheet. The
SIT wanted to relay upon the said statement at the time
of submission of the Charge-Sheet. Therefore, the said
statement formed the part of the Charge-Sheet. It was
recorded as per his say. On being asked, whether it was
recorded correctly, the witness answered it was
recorded as per his say. Whatever, was stated before
him by him was correctly recorded.
1180. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he could not say, as to whether even
after recording statement of Mr.Vijay Sonawane, he
realized that, Mr.Kokam, Mr.Sartape and Mr. Harpude
were sent from Versova Police station to D.N.Nagar
Police Station on 11/11/2006. Name of Mr.Vijay Sonawane
was included in the list of witnesses. Mr.Vijay
Sonawane had not been examined as a prosecution witness
by the prosecution. It was the decision of the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the state as to
examination of witnesses for the prosecution. On being
asked, could he assign any reason as to why this
witness had not been examine, the witness answered in
negative. The witness denied that, the prosecution had
...1307/-
Exh.1124 1307 (J-SC 317/10)
deliberately not examined Mr. Vijay Sonawane as his
evidence would have gone contrary to the prosecution
case. Additional C.P. Mr. Hemant Nagrale made inquiry
in respect of complaint filed by Mr. Ramprasad Gupta
and annexed the covering letter with the report to the
affidavit filed by Ex-CP. Mr.A.N.Roy in W.P.2473/06.
The witness on his own deposed that, the Hon'ble High
Court, in one of its orders in Criminal Writ Petition
2473/06 directed the SIT not to relay upon any inquiry
and to make independent investigation by recording
statement of the complainant.
1181. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he recorded statement of Smt. Sharda
@Yashoda Divakar Sheety on 09/11/2009. On 07/01/2007,
Vashi Police Station recorded her statement. Both these
statements formed part of the Charge-Sheet. It was
revealed during investigation that, Smt.Sharda@ Yashoda
Divakar Sheety resided in the same building where
Mr.Anil Bheda resided as on 11/11/2006. It did not
transpire during the course of investigation that, on
11/11/2006 Anil Bheda called Smt.Sharda @ Yashoda
Divakar Sheety and asked her to give message to his
wife that, he was leaving for Shirdi at any time. The
witness was shown para no.6 from Exh. 894, which was
fourth Progress report dtd. 01/01/2010 submitted to the
Hon'ble High Court. The contents in para no. 6 were
...1308/-
Exh.1124 1308 (J-SC 317/10)
correct. It was marked Portion Marked A'. The witness
on his own deposed that, the report was prepared on the
basis of case papers available before him at that point
of time. After seeing the report at this point of time
he stated that, Anil Bheda did not call Smt. Sharda @
Yashoda Divakar Sheety on 11/11/2006 and he never
informed her that he was leaving for Shirdi on that
day. He did not remember if he recorded statement of
Smt. Sharda @ Yashoda Divakar Sheety to that effect.
She had been named a witness in the Charge-Sheet. He
did not remember whether he submitted in the subsequent
reports submitted to the Hon'ble High Court that, Anil
Bheda never called Smt. Sharda @ Yashoda Divakar Sheety
and never told her that he was leaving for Shirdi. The
witness had gone through Exh.895 & Exh.896. It was not
mentioned in these two reports. He did not remember as
to whether, he submitted any of the subsequent reports
submitted to the Hon'ble High Court that, the contents
in para no. 6 Portion Marked 'A' in Exh. 894 were not
correct. On being asked, he was not in a position to
produce any document to show that, he had intimated the
Honble High Court that, subsequent investigation
revealed that Anil Bheda had not called Smt. Sharda @
Yashoda Divakar Sheety, the witness answered in
affirmative. The witness could not assign any reason as
to why Smt. Sharda @ Yashoda Divakar Sheety had not
been examined before the Court. The witness denied
...1309/-
Exh.1124 1309 (J-SC 317/10)
that, Smt. Sharda @ Yashoda Divakar Sheety had not been
deliberately examined before the Court to suppress
material fact of Anil Bheda going to Shirdi. The
witness denied that, had she would been examined, her
evidence would have gone against the prosecution case.
He sent a letter to Dr. Gajanan Chavan who conducted
postmortem of the deceased, putting some quires to him,
but he did not remember on which date he sent the
letter. He did not mention in any of the reports
submitted to the Hon'ble High Court that, since and
prior to 11/11/2006 and onwards accused no.1 Pradeep
Sharma and accused no.2 Tanaji Desai were having
firearms. He did not ask Tanaji Desai to surrender the
firearm and bullets before him or the SIT. The witness
on his own deposed that, however the same were seized
by the SIT from Armory Naigaon.
1182. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on the day when Mr. Tanaji Desai's
statement was recorded by the SIT, the SIT got
knowledge that Tanaji Desai was having firearm with
him. He did not remember the date on which the SIT got
knowledge of it, but it was in the month of November
2009. He could not say as to how many days after
recording statement of Mr.Tanaji Desai, the SIT seized
his firearm from Naigaon Armory. On 10/12/2009 the SIT
took charge of the firearm of Mr.Tanaji Desai along-
...1310/-
Exh.1124 1310 (J-SC 317/10)
with six more firearms. The SIT called Mr. Tanaji Deasi
for inquiry on many occasions. He attended as per the
call given by the SIT. He fully cooperated the SIT. He
was called on three occasions by the SIT. He recorded
his statement only once. He did not remember as to
whether, he recorded his statement on first, second or
third occasion. When he came to know that, accused no.
2 was having a firearm in his name the SIT did not send
any of its officers to take possession of the said
firearm. In the first week of January 2010, he decided
to arrest Mr. Tanaji Desai. He arrested Tanaji Desai
prior to receipt of Ballistic report. The witness
denied that, he falsely involved accused no. 2 Tanaji
Desai in this crime without there being any evidence
against him. The witness denied that, Tanaji Desai was
arrested on 07 January 2010. He was apprehended on
07/01/2010. The witness was not present when Tanaji
Desai was apprehended by the SIT. When he was
apprehended he was not found along-with any firearm. He
did not remember whether before apprehension of Tanaji
Desai on 07/01/2010, the SIT called him to the SIT
office.
1183. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, there was no document related to the
interrogation of accused nos.1 and 2 and any other
accused persons to show that, it was revealed during
...1311/-
Exh.1124 1311 (J-SC 317/10)
interrogation of these two accused that they had
firearms with them as on 11/11/2006. The letters dtd.
23/10/2009 and 12/11/2009 sent by P.W.110 to Dr.Gajanan
Sheshrao Chavan and a letter dtd. 04/11/2009 addressed
to P.W. 110 and sent by Dr.G.S.Chavan, the Letter
along-with some pages from Modi's Jurisprudence and
Toxicology were taken on record. On 23/10/2009, he
wrote a letter to Dr.G.S.Chavan from J.J. Hospital. The
letter shown to him was same. It bore his signature.
Its contents were true and correct. The letter was
marked Exh.908. Dr.G.S.Chavan replied the said letter
vide his letter dated 04/11/2009. Vide this letter
Dr.G.S.Chavan replied the queries. The letter dtd.
04/11/2009 was marked Article No.124 (Colly) (Page nos.
1 to 6). The SIT received this letter in regular course
of its business. The SIT did not raise any dispute as
regards to the contents of letter Article No. 124. The
witness on his own deposed that, he sought further
clarification as regards to point no. 6 in the said
letter. On being asked, he did not seek clarification
on point nos.1 to 5 because he was satisfied by the
reply on those points, the witness answered that he did
not seek clarification on points 1 to 5 however, he
could not say clarification was not sought because the
reply given was satisfactory.
...1312/-
Exh.1124 1312 (J-SC 317/10)
1184. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he did not write to Dr.Chavan at any
point of time stating that, he was not satisfied by
point nos.1 to 5. Dr.Chavan had given clarification of
query no.3 in his letter dtd. 23/10/2009 (Exh. 908). As
per the reply given by Dr.Chavan vide letter dtd.
04/11/2009 that the injuries were caused due to the
fire from a distance of more than 2 feet i.e. 60 cms.
The query no.4 was as regards to the injuries sustained
by the deceased while he was standing or was lying on
the ground. As per the reply given by Dr. G.S. Chavan
the deceased sustained injuries while he was standing.
Query no.5 was that whether there were injuries other
than the injuries by the firearms. As per this reply
there were no injuries other than the injuries caused
by the firearms. He had gone through the postmortem
notes (Report). He did not remember as to whether, he
found injuries other than that of the firearms in the
postmortem report. He did not come across any document
showing that the deceased sustained injuries than that,
by the firearms. He sent a letter dtd. 12/11/2009 to
Dr.G.S. Chavan seeking clarification on point no.6. The
letter now shown to him was same. It had his signature.
Its contents were true and correct. The letter was
marked Exh.909. He did not remember if he received
reply to Exh.909. He neither denied nor admitted that
he did not receive a reply. He did not remember whether
...1313/-
Exh.1124 1313 (J-SC 317/10)
he sent any reminder to Dr. G.S. Chavan. Had the SIT
received any reply there would be a record of it. The
letter was received by the SIT on 01/12/2009 during the
regular courseof business. It had his signature and
endorsement of the SIT and Inward number vide Exh.910.
1185. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that Article no. 124 had his signature and
endorsement as well as Inward number. It was marked
Exh.911. He could not say whether he disputed contents
of document Exh 910. He did not remember whether he had
written for further clarification of contents in Exh.
910. This letter was received by the SIT in response
to the letter sent by the SIT on 12/11/2009. He had
gone through this letter after he received it. He could
not say whether, he was satisfied with the reply given
by Dr. Chavan to the query put by the SIT to him. The
letter did not say that, the person had fired but it
definitely said that, hand wash of both left hand and
right hand of the deceased was taken. On being asked,
whether hand wash was taken of the person who had fired
from the firearm to know as to whether there were
residues there, the witness answered that, hand wash
was taken to ascertain whether the person had fired or
not. During the course of investigation, he came to
know that hand wash of the deceased was taken in Cr.No.
302/06. Therefore, he made query no.6 vide letter
...1314/-
Exh.1124 1314 (J-SC 317/10)
dated, 04/11/2009. Similarly further he sought
clarification regarding the same. On being asked, on
the basis of reply of Dr. Chavan by his letter dtd.
16/11/2009 it was revealed on the basis of record that
the deceased had fired from his firearm and therefore,
during postmortem examination hand wash of right and
left hands of the deceased was taken, the witness
answered that, as per the said letter no officer
including the I.O, asked for hand wash, however the
hand wash was taken not because he had fired but the
hand wash was taken by Dr.G.S.Chavan not because he had
fired but because in the panchanama and in the ADR form
which was placed before him, during postmortem stated
that the deceased had fired.
1186. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that at the time of recording statement of
Mr.Dhiraj Mehta (P.W.38) on 27/08/2009 he thoroughly
interrogated him. He asked him to tell everything
during interrogation which was within his knowledge in
respect of this case. He did not leave anything aside
which he stated before him on 27/08/2009. He could not
say whether, he was satisfied that, whatever knowledge
he had he stated before him. On being asked, did he put
him any further questions to satisfy himself that he
had disclosed everything, the witness replied that, he
put him certain queries to know as to what he knew
...1315/-
Exh.1124 1315 (J-SC 317/10)
about the case. He responded to queries of the witness.
The witness could not say whether he was satisfied that
he had told him everything as regards to this case. He
was called twice. On first occasion he was called to
the SIT office Powai and on second occasion he came to
DCP Zone IX Office at Bandra. His statement was also
recorded outside Trisha Collections, New Mumbai. His
statement was also recorded when he came to office of
DCP Zone IX, Bandra. On 01/02/2010 he had come to DCP
Zone IX office at Bandra. The SIT recorded statement of
Sr.P.I.Mr.Sandeep Dal from Naigaon Armory. He did not
record his statement. PSI Mr.Chalke recorded his
statement. He had gone through the said statement,
after it was recorded. He could not say as to what was
the purpose behind recording his statement. He recorded
statement of Mr.Milind More(P.W.55). The witness denied
that, statement of Mr. Milind More was not recorded as
per his say and that it was recorded under pressure. He
did not remember as to on how many occasions he was
called to SIT office for recording his statements. The
witness denied that, he pressurized Mr.Milind More to
depose before the Court as per my say. On 02/02/2010
Mr. Milind More was posted to D.N.Nagar Police Station
which was within the jurisdiction of DCP Zone IX. He
was DCP Zone IX at the relevant time. He did not
remember whether Mr.Madan More, Mr.Naresh Phalke,
Mr.Sanjivan Shinge were also posted at D.N.Nagar Police
...1316/-
Exh.1124 1316 (J-SC 317/10)
station when their respective statements came to be
recorded by the SIT. He could not say whether, Mr.Madan
More, Mr.Naresh Phalke, Mr.Sanjivan Shinge were also
posted at D.N.Nagar Police station when their
respective statements came to be recorded by the SIT.
The witness denied that, their statements were taken
under pressure as desired by him. The witness denied
that, he pressurized these police personnel to depose
before the Court as per his say. Juhu, Versova and
Santacruz Police stations were also within the
jurisdiction of DCP, Zone IX at the relevant time. He
recorded statement dtd. 27/08/2010 of Mr.Shivaji Kisan
Emade. His statement was recorded either at the SIT
office Powai or at office of DCP Zone IX, Bandra. The
witness denied that, the SIT did not mention in the
statement of the witnesses the places where the
statements of witnesses were recorded. The places where
the statements were recorded were not mentioned below
his signatures on the said statements. The witness
denied that, he did not put date below his signatures
on the statements of witnesses. He did not put date
below his signature on the statement of Mr. Shivaji
Kisan Emade dtd. 15/08/2010. On being asked, his
signatures on the statements of Mr.Shivaji Emade and
Mr. Pramod Shridhar Sawant were totally different, the
witness answered that, both were his signatures. On
being asked, was there any difference in the
...1317/-
Exh.1124 1317 (J-SC 317/10)
handwriting as regards to wordsD&P, the witness
replied that he could not say whether there was any
difference but both were his signatures. On being
asked, in his signature on the statement of Mr. Pramod
Sawant there was distance between words D&P,
however in the signature on the statement of Mr.
Shivaji Kisan Emade, the word 'P' was written in
between word 'D' and there was no distance between the
word 'D' & 'P', the witness answered that, he could not
say even after seeing these signatures.
1187. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, on 17/08/2010, he recorded statements
of Mr.Tanaji Maruti Daddikar, Mr.Pramod Shirdhar Sawant
& Mr.Shivaji Kisan Emade. Except on the statement of
Mr.Emade he had put dates below his signatures on the
said statements. On being asked, whether his signatures
on the statements of Mr.Tanaji Maruti Daddikar and
Mr.Pramod Shirdhar Sawant were the same signatures, the
witness replied that, there could not be same
signatures. Mode of writing was same. He could not say
whether mode of writing in his signature on the
statement of Mr.Shivaji Emade was distinct and
different. The witness denied that, statement of Mr.
Shivaji Emade did not bear his signature and that, he
was falsely claiming it to be his signature. The
witness denied that, the SIT fabricated statements of
...1318/-
Exh.1124 1318 (J-SC 317/10)
the witnesses.
1188. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that he did not remember as to whether
MH-01-BA610 and MH-01-ZA360 were the same vehicles
which were used by the SIT as he did not remember the
numbers, but the SIT used two vehicles. Those were
government vehicles. One vehicle had been used by the
SIT since the time investigation started and the
another vehicle was used almost for three months during
the year 2010. Apart from these two vehicles he had
been using Indigo Car provided by Government of
Maharashtra. He could not tell the period during which
he was using Indigo Car. At the beginning of
investigation of this case the Indigo Car was with him.
He was using the said car even prior to investigation
of this case. He could not say as to whether same car
was used during the course of investigation of this
case. He did not know whether, there was a record of
allotment of Car's to DCP's. He could not say as to
whether the cars were alloted to DCP's without any
record. M.T. provided vehicles to various DCP's. On
being asked, whether there was a record of movements of
thevehicles alloted to him, the witness answered that,
there was a record mentioning movements of the said
vehicles on daily basis. Record was also kept in the
form of Log-Book. It was kept in the Car with the
...1319/-
Exh.1124 1319 (J-SC 317/10)
driver. The driver recorded movements of the car and
not of the officer. Name of officer using the car was
mentioned in the Log-Book. Document dtd. 19/05/2011 was
tendered to the witness during cross examination, it
was marked Exh.912.
1189. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, he did not know whether the Log-Books
were submitted to M.T. Department after the book was
completed. He did not ask the driver during his tenure
as to what was done with the said Log-Book. As per this
document at page no.2, number of the vehicle was
mentioned as 'MH-01-ZA 360'. As per this document at
page no. 2 his name was mentioned as a person who used
the said car. At page no.6 there was mention of Bollero
Jeep 'MH-01-BA610'. As per this document the vehicle
was being used by the SIT for the said period i.e. as
on the dates mentioned therein. Similar was the fact as
regards to maintenance of record of MH-01-BA610 as that
of other Government vehicle. Certain locations of the
DCP could be traced by way of wireless messages. In the
Control Room there was G.P. system. Certain locations
of the DCP could not be traced by way of wireless
messages. The witness denied that, location of a DCP
could be traced by G.P. System in Control Room. The
vehicle alloted to the DCP was equipped with Wireless
set. The witness denied that, the RTPC informed the
...1320/-
Exh.1124 1320 (J-SC 317/10)
Control when the DCP concerned left his residence for
official duty. He did not know whether the information
was passed to the Control Room when the DCP concerned
was in his office. Document dtd. 31/08/2012 was
tendered to the witness during cross examination, it
was marked Exh.913.
1190. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, as per this document page no.2
contained information of DCP Zone IX. The third column
(Preshak) mentions,Zone IX WCR. He could not say
whether this information was in respect of DCP Zone IX.
If any information was sought under RTI from the SIT
related to this case, the correspondence came to him.
He did not remember whether, he had provided any
information related under RTI to this case. Mr. Pradeep
Suryawanshi had sought information under RTI. He did
not remember whether it was provided. The required
information under RTI was provided through RTI officer.
As per page no.17 of Exh.913(colly) the requisite
information was not available in the office of DCP Zone
IX and for the said reason it was not provided to
accused Mr. Pradeep Surywanshi. The witness denied
that, he deliberately did not provide the requisite
information. The witness denied that, on 08/01/2010
accused nos. 2 to 6 were not produced in veils before
the Court. The witness denied that, the SIT did not
...1321/-
Exh.1124 1321 (J-SC 317/10)
follow the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
regards to arrests and detention of the accused persons
in this case. He interrogated accused nos.2 to 6 before
and after their arrests. He could not say the exact
time at which on 08/01/2010 he interrogated accused
nos.2 to 6. He had not maintained any Diary in respect
of the said interrogation. There was no record
maintained of interrogation. Day to day steps taken
during the course of investigation were the important
facts. The witness denied that, information as regards
to day to day investigation was recorded in Station
Diary. The witness on his own deposed that, to maintain
confidentiality during the course of investigation,
movements of officers and also the steps taken by them
were not deliberately mentioned in the Station Diary.
The Crime was registered at Versova Police Station. He
had not made any Station Diary in respect of this crime
in Versova Police Station. However the SIT officers
made station Diary entry of the crime in Versova Police
Station and Powai Police Station as and when it was
necessary. The SIT did not keep any Station Diary of
its own at the SIT office Powai in respect of this
case. The witness denied that, the SIT did not maintain
any record in respect of witnesses who were called by
the SIT. If the Court directed the SIT would produce
the record. The witness denied that, the SIT had
deliberately not maintained any record/station diary in
...1322/-
Exh.1124 1322 (J-SC 317/10)
respect of this case so as to fabricate statements and
evidence.

1191. The witness further deposed during cross
examination that, Mr.Dhiraj Mehta (P.W.38) stated
before him that,On 27/08/2009 wife of Anil Bheda would
come to my shop and I should take her to Vashi Police
station to lodge complaint and that I declined to do
so. Mrs.Aruna Anil Bheda(P.W.40) stated in her
statement dtd. 03/09/2009 before him that,I reached
Kolhapur on 13/11/2006 in the morning Portion Marked
'I' in her statement dtd. 03/09/2009. It was marked
Exh.914. Mrs. Aruna Anil Bheda (P.W. 40) did not state
in her statement dtd. 03/09/2009 that, Dhiraj was
friend of Anil. Mrs.Aruna Anil Bheda (P.W. 40) did not
state in her statement dtd. 03/09/2009 that, Earlier
two police men returned the next day morning. Mrs.
Aruna Anil Bheda (P.W.40) stated in her statement dtd.
03/09/2009 before him that, the said two police men
had given their mobile numbers for contactand she did
not state before him that, the name of person who gave
me phone number. Mrs.Aruna Anil Bheda (P.W.40) did not
state in her statement dtd. 03/09/2009 before him
that,I reached Kolhapur on 14/11/2006. Mrs.Aruna Anil
Bheda (P.W.40) stated in her statement dtd. 03/09/2009
before him, Portion Marked 'J'. It was marked Exh.
915. Witness Mr. Naresh Namdev Phalke (P.W.45) did
...1323/-
Exh.1124 1323 (J-SC 317/10)
not state in his statement dtd. 06/03/2010 that, I had
spoken with Anil. Mr.Mahendra Govind Tatkare (PW-77)
did not state in his statement dtd. 24/08/2010 that,
from Powai I went to Bandra. He had not taken
sanction to prosecute the accused as per section 197
Cr.P.C. and 161 Bombay Police Act., against the accused
who are from police department. The witness denied
that, he falsely arrested and Charge-Sheeted accused
nos.2,8,12,20 & 21. Statements dtd. 17/08/2010 u/s. 161
Cr.P.C. of Mr.Shivaji Kisan Emade and Mr.Tanaji Maruti
Daddikar were taken on record.
1192. The witness was shown Portion Marked A, B, C,
D, E, F, G & H and witness deposed that, P.W.40 Aruna
Bheda stated those portions in her statement dtd.
03/09/2009 before him. Those portions were recorded as
per her say Portion Marked 'A' was now marked Exh.
1066, Portion Marked 'B' was now marked Exh.1067,
Portion Marked 'C' was marked Exh.1068, Portion Marked
'D' was marked Exh.1069, Portion Marked 'E' was marked
Exh.1070, Portion Marked 'F' was marked Exh.1071,
Portion Marked 'G' was marked Exh.1072 and Portion
Marked 'H' was marked Exh.1073.
1193. It has come in evidence of Mr.Manohar
Pandurang Kulpe (DW-1) Exh.960 that, he resided at
Krushna Bhavan, Dusari Hasanabad Lane, Santacruz(W)
...1324/-
Exh.1124 1324 (J-SC 317/10)
Mumbai-400 054 since his birth. On 12.11.2006 police
inspector Mr.Sankhe called him in Versova police
station in respect of incident dated 11/11/2006. On
11/11/2006 in the evening, he proceeded from his
residence at Sanatcruz to meet his friend at Yari Road.
he was proceeding via road near Nana Nani Park at about
08.00 p.m. to 08.15 p.m. It was Versova Link Road. He
heard noise just like that of fire crackers. He stopped
his vehicle at the left of the road. He saw one person
holding a gun in his hand under the street light pole
and he saw him falling down backwards. The street light
was on as well as the head lights of his vehicle were
on. He saw this in the said lights. He was siting in
his vehicle at that time. He saw some persons rushing
towards the said person from his right side. One of
those persons came to him, who told him that they were
the policemen and one person was to be taken to the
hospital. The witness told him that he did not want to
get involved in the said matter. At that time he was
not having any mobile with him. The said person asked
him his name and his land-line number. Then he took U-
turn and from the side of Mithibai College he
proceeded towards home.
1194. The witness further deposed that, he reached
home at about 09.15 p.m. He watched on T.V. a news that
there was an encounter at Nana Nani Park. On 12/11/2006
...1325/-
Exh.1124 1325 (J-SC 317/10)
Mr.Sankhe from Versova Police Station called him to
Versova Police Station. At 10.30 a.m., he received a
call from him on his land line number. He reached
Versova Police Station at 11.30 a.m. He asked his name
and address. He made inquiry with the witness in
respect of the incident dated 11/11/2006 and recorded
his statement. In the year 2007, he received a letter
from Collector Office. He went to the Collector Office.
His statement was recorded in respect of incident dated
11/11/2006. In the year 2009 he received summons on two
occasions from Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. Judge
Mr.Kulkarni and Judge Mrs. Shaikh Madam recorded his
statements. Thereafter, he received summons from the
SIT, Powai. The SIT recorded his statement in respect
of incident dated 11/11/2006. In December 2009, he was
called in Andheri Court. His statement u/s. 164 was
recorded before Magistrate Mr. Chaudhary. The statement
dated 23/12/2009 before the Court was same. Its
contents were true and correct and it bore his
signature, vide Exh.961.
1195. Cross examination of the witness discloses
that, he was plying the taxi owned by him, which had
been hypothecated to UCO Bank and also that he was
paying installment Rs.5400 per month towards loan of
the bank. He got net profit of Rs. 550/- to Rs, 600/-
per day by plying the Taxi. Sometimes he hired a driver
...1326/-
Exh.1124 1326 (J-SC 317/10)
for plying the taxi if he had some other engagements
and he paid Rs.450/- to him for 12 hours. Prior to two
years, for a period of 5 to 6 years, he had one tourist
vehicle and he used to ply the said vehicle on hire. He
used to receive booking on his land-line and in his
absence, his wife would attend the call. He purchased a
mobile in the year 2007. The witness denied that, he
was having a mobile during the year 2006. His son also
had a mobile during the year 2006. He did not remember
the number of the mobile of his son, who studied in
second year in National College. The witness denied
that, his son was having the said mobile with him since
the year 2002. 9867777724 was the mobile number of his
son. He used the said mobile of his son for Booking. He
received his calls on the said mobile.
1196. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not obtain tourist permit of his
vehicle from RTO. He knew that a vehicle could not be
used as a tourist vehicle unless tourist permit was
obtained from the RTO. It would amount to an offence.
He had a driving license and a badge was allotted
bearing No. 32990/W/Taxi by RTO since 1980. He had
obtained permit in the year 1995. In the year 1995, he
sold the permit by entering into an agreement with a
Bhaiyya. It was a written agreement. The Taxi permit
was in his name. Allotting the permit to another person
...1327/-
Exh.1124 1327 (J-SC 317/10)
was an offence. Pajero used to ply in Konkan area and
the taxi used to ply in Greater Mumbai. Police never
booked him for not having T-Permit. He did not maintain
account of Pajero as it was given on hire basis. He
did not maintain account of the vehicle that day as it
was given on hire basis.
1197. The witness further deposed that, he did not
have any other source of income. His elder son was in
a service and the younger son was a student in a
college. He did not file Income Tax Returns till date.
He was having a PAN-Card for the last 7 to 8 years. He
might have sustained big loss if he was booked for
plying the vehicle without T-permit. He used to cover
Ratnagiri, Sawantwadi, Sindudurg, Khed, Chiplun and
Lanja from Konkan area. He never went to village
Saperli. The witness denied that, police obstructed his
vehicle for not having T-permit and that, he visited
Saperli in Khed along-with Mr.Palande (Accused no.15)
on many occasions and that, as he was not having T-
permit therefore he gave statements before police as
per the say of Mr. Palande (Accused no.15).
1198. The witness further deposed that, he had been
residing at the given address since his birth. If one
proceeded from Hasanabad Lane to Sir Cooper Hospital,
one had to go by Santacruz S.V.Road, Parla Station
...1328/-
Exh.1124 1328 (J-SC 317/10)
Signal, Mithibai College Road, and then to Cooper
Hospital. If there was full traffic it required 35 to
40 minutes to cross the said distance by the vehicle.
It required 10-15 minutes to cross distance between
Cooper Hospital and Juhu Circle by a vehicle during
traffic hours. It required 45 minutes to cross distance
between his house and J.V.P.D. circle if there was
heavy traffic and if there was no traffic it required
35 to 40 minutes to cross the said distance. There was
no traffic signal between J.V.P.D. circle along the
Yari Road.
1199. The witness further deposed that, if one
wanted to go to Nana-Nani Park he had to take a left
turn to Juhu Versova Link Road. Nana-Nani Park was
having length of 300 meters. There were two roads on
both sides of Nana-Nani Park. There was always two way
traffic on Juhu, Versova Link Road in the year 2006.
There was always two way traffic on the road running by
the right of Nana-Nani Park in the year 2006. Both
those roads reached to J.P. Road (Versova Road). He
did not know whether the vehicles used to ply by both
roads along side Nana-Nani Park to avoid congestion of
heavy traffic, due to which there used to be heavy
traffic on both roads along side Nana-Nani Park. There
was always heavy traffic after office hours and at the
weekend. It was the same position at Juhu and J.P.
...1329/-
Exh.1124 1329 (J-SC 317/10)
Road. The witness denied that, it was the same
position at Juhu-Versova Link Road.
1200. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, on 11/11/2006, he was going to meet a
person known to him. He was not his friend. He knew him
since 2002. He was a driver. He did not ply vehicle of
the witness. His name was Faruqee. He did not know
Shamim Khan. He had a friend by name Shamim. He was
dead. He did not know name of Shamim Ittifaq Khan. His
friend Shamim did not own a hotel. Welfo and Prince
were the hotels situated in Santacruz area (Station
Road). He did not know whether those two hotels
belonged to Shamim Ittifaq Khan. The witness denied
that, Shamim Ittifaq Khan was his friend and that he
was the owner of those two hotels and that, he was his
friend as well as that of Mr.Sharma (Accused no.1). The
witness did not know whether Shamim Ittifaq Khan was
brother-in-law of Mushtkim who was the brother of
Dawood Ibrahim. Dawood Ibrahim was world-wise infamous
gangster (Don). He did not remember the month in which
he received summons form the Court of Kulkarni Saheb.
The police who served the summons, came from the Court.
He did not make inquiry with him as to which police
station did he belong. He was called in the Court at
11.00 a.m., as per the said summons. He did not ask
the police as to for what purpose the summons was
...1330/-
Exh.1124 1330 (J-SC 317/10)
served on him. He had not committed any offence. He
did not feel that the summons was in respect of T-
permit. He did not think as to why the summons was
served on him. When summons was served on him, he did
not know as to why the summons was served on him. He
did not ask name, buckle number, police station of the
police constable who served summons on him. The summons
was served on him at about 10.00 a.m. He was called in
the Court on the following day of the day of service of
summons. He did not go to Railway Mobile Court, Andheri
to make inquiry on the day of service of summons. He
reached the Court at 11.00 a.m., on the following day.
He alone went to the Court. Prior to that he had been
to the Court only once for making an affidavit. He
never visited the Court hall prior to that. Before
11.00 a.m., he did not know as to why was he called in
the Court. His statement was recorded by Mr. Mohandas
Sankhe at Versova Police Station during approximately a
period of 30 to 45 minutes. Except this statement his
statement was not recorded till he was called by the
SLAO. When he was called in Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri he did not feel it that he might have been
called in connection with the statement recorded by Mr.
Mohandas Sankhe. He did not meet Mr. Sankhe for inquiry
after receipt of summons, to find out as to why was he
summoned in the Court as he had never received any
summons prior to that. He did not know that the police
...1331/-
Exh.1124 1331 (J-SC 317/10)
who asked his name and land-line number on 11/11/2006
belonged to Versova Police Station. He did not make
inquiry of name, designation and police station of the
said policeman on 11/11/2006. At that time, he was very
much frightened. Except bare verbatim of the said
person he did not have any other information to show
that he was a policeman. The witness further deposed
that, he did not remember whether accused no.15 before
the Court was the person who asked him his name and
landline number on 11.11.2006. That day he did not
bring with him the summons which he received from
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. He would produce the
same if he found it.
1201. The witness further deposed that, before going
to Railway Mobile Court, Andheri he had not seen Public
Notice issued by the said Court. He met a clerk in
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. The Court hall was full
of people. He handed over the summons to the Clerk of
the Court, who asked him to sit in the Court. Except
this no talks took place between him and the clerk of
the Court. He was called in the box during the lunch
hours. Till that time, he did not know as to why was he
called in the box. The Magistrate told him to state the
information that, he had as regards to the incident
dated 11/11/2006. The Magistrate recorded his statement
as per his say. He read the contents. Those were true
...1332/-
Exh.1124 1332 (J-SC 317/10)
and correct as per his say. Therefore, he put signature
on it. He did not tell the Magistrate that if required
he would again come to give statement. His statement
was recorded on oath.
1202. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that, he filed an affidavit in pursuance to
Public Notice issued by Railway Mobile Court, Andheri.
It did not happen that, he filed the said affidavit
during the course of Magisterial inquiry by
Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court Andheri,
as per directions of the said Court. It did not happen
that, he made a request to the Court to give him
permission to file supplementary affidavit if required
during the course of Magisterial inquiry. Affidavit
Exh.965 dated 31.3.2008 had his signature and its
contents were true and correct. The witness denied
that, he did not receive summons from the Court and
that, Mr.Palande took him to the Court with the
prepared affidavit after the Public Notice came to be
published and that, he submitted affidavit prepared by
Mr. Palande before the Court. The witness denied that,
his statement was not recorded before the Court.
1203. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he received a summons from the Court of
Shaikh Madam, Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile
...1333/-
Exh.1124 1333 (J-SC 317/10)
Court, Andheri. The summons was brought by another
policeman to him. He did not ask him his name, buckle
number and police station. He thought that he was
called in connection with the incident dated
11/11/2006. It was not mentioned in the Summons. He
also did not ask about it to the policeman who served
the summons. He was to attend the Court on the
following day of the day of service of summons. He did
not know as to why was he called on second occasion. He
did not make inquiry in the Court as to why was he
called on second occasion. He again met the Judicial
Clerk. He did not have talks with him except handing
over the summons to him. He again told the witness to
sit in the Court Hall.
1204. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he was called by Metropolitan
Magistrate Shaikh Madam after lunch time in her
chamber. It was between 01.30 p.m. to 02.00 p.m. No
other person as him was present in the chamber. He and
Madam only were present in the chamber. He was
administered oath. He told the Madam that, his
statement in this connection was already recorded. He
told Shaikh Madam that whatever information he had he
stated it before Kulkarni Saheb and that he did not
know anything more than that. Whatever he stated before
Shaikh Madam was typewritten by her. He stated before
...1334/-
Exh.1124 1334 (J-SC 317/10)
the Magistrate the incident that he had seen and that
he remembered. The incident was imprinted on his mind.
After his statement was recorded, it was handed over to
him for the purpose of reading it. He put signature on
it, as it was true and correct as per his say. It was
recorded in Marathi. The witness denied that, his
signatures were obtained at two places on the
statement. He again said that, the signatures were
similar to his signature. The witness was shown
statement dated 31.7.2008.
1205. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the policeman did not obtain his
signature on summons. Even prior to that, the policeman
did not obtain his signature on summons issued by
Metropolitan Magistrate Mr.Kulkarni. He received
summons from this Court. He received this summons on
12/12/2012. Policeman did not serve the said summons.
Clerk of the Court brought the summons. His signature
was obtained on the summons. He did not tell the said
Clerk that his signature was not obtained on summons on
prior two occasions. Report of summons was at Exh.967
and it had signature of the witness. He was educated
upto 10
th
standard through Marathi Medium. English was
one of the subjects since 5
th
Standard to 10
th
Standard.
He could read and write English. Statement Art.125 was
same and was recorded as per his say. Summons report
...1335/-
Exh.1124 1335 (J-SC 317/10)
submitted to the Court of Shaikh Madam was marked as
Exh.968.
1206. The witness further deposed that, he received
a letter from office of the Collector thorough post. He
could not tell as to whether it was sent by R.P.A.D. or
by simple post. He did not remember as to whether, he
put any signature while receiving the said letter. He
did not remember as to whether he received the said
letter in the month of September 2007. The purpose of
calling him to the Collector office was not mentioned
in the said letter. The date and time of attending
Collector office was mentioned in the letter. He was
to attend the Collector office three to four days after
receipt of the said letter. Till attending the
Collector office he did not know as to why was he
called there. he was not in any way concerned with the
Collector office. Even after receipt of the said letter
he was not confused. Prior to that he never visited
Collector Office. He did not go to the Collector office
to inquire as to why the said letter was sent to him.
He also did not make inquiry about the letter with any
other person. He met a Clerk in the office of the
Collector. He handed over the letter to the said Clerk.
He did not ask the said Clerk as to why was he called.
No other person like him were siting in the office. He
reached the Collector office between 11.30 a.m. to
...1336/-
Exh.1124 1336 (J-SC 317/10)
12.00 Noon. He was called by the Collector at 01.30
p.m. Meantime, he did not have talks with anyone. He
did not have any idea as to why was he called. At 01.30
p.m., he entered into the office of the Collector. He
did not know his name. The Collector was alone in his
office. The Collector told him that, his statement was
to be recorded. He not ask him as to why was he
called. He did not ask him as to in what connection his
statement was to be recorded. He started giving his
statement when the Collector told him that, his
statement was to be recorded. The statement was given
on oath. His statement was typewritten by a Typist.
While his statement was being recorded, he the
Collector and the Typist only were present in the said
office. His statement was recorded and the Collector
dictated it to the Typist as he went on stating. While
his statement was being recorded, the Collector did not
ask any questions to him. His statement was recorded in
Marathi language. He read it. His signature was
obtained on the statement. He did not remember whether
a copy of the said statement was handed over to him or
not and that, he put signature for acknowledgment of
copy.
1207. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, the witness denied that, at the time
of obtaining taxi permit, he had to file an affidavit
...1337/-
Exh.1124 1337 (J-SC 317/10)
undertaking that, he was not in Government Employment.
He was unemployed. He did not have any other source
of income. The witness denied that, taxi permit was
granted only after filing such an affidavit and that,
if there was breach of any of the conditions, the
permit was cancelled. If, the permit was alloted to
somebody else by the permit holder, then it stood
cancelled. He did not remember as to whether there was
ascend on Juhu Versova Link Road near Nana Nani Park.
The witness denied that, there was traffic on the said
road as it was Saturday. He did not remember whether
there were any other vehicles on the road when he was
on Juhu Versova Link Road near Nana-Nani Park. There
were no vehicles in-front of his vehicle. He did not
remember whether there were any vehicles behind and
around his vehicle. His vehicle was running at a speed
of 50 km/ph. He was driving the vehicle in a relaxed
state of mind. He had not heard the sound of firing of
a bullet by means of a revolver or a gun. Prior to
11/11/2006 there was Diwali festival. He did not know
whether children played with fire-crackers till
Tulashi-Marriage(rqG'kh fookg) since Diwali Festival. Fire-
crackers were blown in marriages, naming ceremonies and
Cricket match celebrations. He did not know whether,
the marriage season began from the day of Tulashi-
Marriage (rqG'kh fookg). In some marriage processions fire-
crackers were blown. Since childhood he had been
...1338/-
Exh.1124 1338 (J-SC 317/10)
hearing the noise of fire crackers.
1208. The witness further deposed that, while he was
proceeding by Juhu Versova Link Road near Nana-Nani
Park, he heard similar noise as that of fire-crackers.
He personally blew fire-crackers when he was a child.
His children also blew fire-crackers. The witness
denied that, he was not afraid of fire-crackers. He was
afraid of big fire-crackers and not of small fire-
crackers. He was afraid of sound of fire crackers. Big
fire-crackers were not blown in chain (series) (=: + |
= =). The sound of fire-crackers came from the direction
of Nana-Nani Park. It required only one minute to cross
the distance from Juhu Versova Link Road by taking
right turn and then left turn near Nana-Nani Park. It
would required only one minute to cross the distance
by walk between the road where he took left turn and
the road on right side of Nana Nani Park. He heard the
noise of fire-crackers after taking left turn. After
hearing the noise of fire-crackers he crossed distance
of approximately 30 ft. On hearing the noise he stopped
the vehicle on the same road. He stopped the vehicle
at the left side of the road. Distance between his
vehicle and the right side road of Nana-Nani Park might
be 15 ft. He stayed there for a period of 10 to 15
minutes before he took U-turn and went away. During
those 10 to 15 minutes, he remained only in the vehicle
...1339/-
Exh.1124 1339 (J-SC 317/10)
and did not get down of the vehicle. The persons coming
by his right side went to the place where the person
was lying. He could not tell as to for how much time
those persons were near the injured person. The person
who called himself to be a policeman came to him after
4 to 5 minutes. Five to six persons came by his right
side and went to the person who was lying there. No
vehicles were coming or going while he stayed there.
He did not see as to whether there were any vehicles
behind his vehicle. There were no vehicles in-front of
his vehicle during those 10 to 15 minutes. As a good
citizen he was supposed to help an injured person for
taking him to the hospital. As he was frightened and as
he did not want to get involved in the matter, he did
not take the injured to the hospital. One of the
reasons was that he did not want to get involved in the
matter related to police. The another reason was that
once a person got himself involved in the matter
related to police, he had to make useless trips to the
court on number of occasions. He did not ask the person
who told him that he was a policeman, as to why did he
ask his name and his land-line number. The said person
did not tell him that, he had to go to Versova Police
station for giving statement on the following day.
1209. Cross examination of the witness further
discloses that, he did not remember as to whether,
...1340/-
Exh.1124 1340 (J-SC 317/10)
those 5 to 6 persons were having weapons in their
hands. Those 5 to 6 persons went by his right side at a
distance of 20ft. from his vehicle. Though headlights
of his vehicle were on he did not see any weapons in
the hands of those 5 to 6 persons. He did not see the
pool of blood where the person fell down. The person
who came to him and asked him name and land-line
number, did not have weapon in his hand. When he heard
the noise like fire-crackers and saw the person falling
down backwards, he thought that there was some trouble.
As he was afraid he remained there for 5 to 6 minutes
and did not go away by taking right turn. He did not
inform his friend in advance that he was going to Yari
Road to meet him. He did not inform him while taking U-
Turn that he was to come to meet him but he could not.
It required one hour or one hour and fifteen minutes to
reach home from the place where he took U-Turn. He
reached home at about 09.00 p.m. to 09.15 p.m.
1210. The witness further deposed that, when he
watched this news on T.V. he did not feel it that he
should inform this to Versova Police Station. Except
his wife he did not tell this to his friends or
relatives. Except his wife no one else knew this till
his statement was recorded at 11.30 a.m. on the
following day. On 12/11/2006 the caller told him that,
he was to meet Mr. Sankhe in Versova Police Station. He
...1341/-
Exh.1124 1341 (J-SC 317/10)
did not know whether the call was made by Mr. Sankhe.
He did not ask the caller as to why was he called in
Versova Police Station. Prior to that, he did not visit
any police station. He had question in his mind as to
why was he called to Versova Police Station. The
witness on his own deposed that, he thought that he
might have been called in relation with the incident
dated 11/11/2006. Till date, he did not tell anyone
that he thought that he might have been called in
relation with the incident dated 11/11/2006. He did not
feel it necessary to take somebody with him while going
to the Police Station as it was his first turn to visit
the Police Station. He told a policeman in Versova
Police Station that, he wanted to meet Mr. Sankhe.
1211. The witness further deposed that, he made
inquiry with Mr.Sankhe as to why was he called in
Versova Police Station, to which he said that his
statement was to be recorded in respect of the
happenings dated 11/11/2006. His statement was
typewritten by a policeman in presence of Mr. Sankhe.
It required one hour to record his statement. His
statement was recorded as per his say and it was
correct. Omissions, On 11/11/2006 in the evening he
proceeded from his residence at Sanatcruz to meet his
friend at Yari Road, has been brought on record
through statement dated 12.11.2006 before PI of Versova
...1342/-
Exh.1124 1342 (J-SC 317/10)
police station, Mumbai. The witness could not assign
any reason as to why said portion did not appear in his
statement.
1212. Portion marked A that, he was carrying on
business of Private Tourist Vehicle for a period of 10
years prior to 12/11/2006 has been brought on record
through cross examination of this witness. Omissions,
I saw one person holding a gun in his hand under the
street light pole and I saw him falling backwards has
been brought on record. Portion marked B that, he
saw said person falling in a pool of blood, has been
brought on record. Omissions, The street light was on
as well as the headlights of his vehicle were on. He
saw this in the said lights have been brought on
record. Portion marked C that, thereafter within
sometime he saw that some persons were moving from
Nana-Nani Park to the road at the southern side of
Nana-Nani Park., has been brought on record through
cross examination. The witness further deposed that, it
did happen that, some of those people were having
pistol like weapons in their hands. Omissions, At that
time, he was not having any mobile with him and Then
he took U-Turn and from the side of Mithibai College he
proceeded, I reached home at about 09.15 p.m. I
watched on T.V. a News that there was an encounter at
Nana-Nani Park have been brought on record through
...1343/-
Exh.1124 1343 (J-SC 317/10)
cross examination. The witness could not tell as to why
portion marked D i.e. P.I. Mr.Sankhe personally made
a call to him and called him to the police station was
so mentioned in his statement dated 12.11.2006.
Omission as regards to, timing i.e. At. 10.30 a.m he
received a call from him on his land-line number and
that, I reached Versova Police Station at 11.30 a.m,
have been brought on record.
1213. Omissions, I was going from my residence to
meet my friend from the statement dated 24.9.2007
before SLAO-IV and also, the street lights were on as
well as headlights of my vehicle were on and I saw this
in the said lights and also that, I saw one person
holding a gun in his hand under the street light pole
and I saw him falling down backwards from the
statement before SLAO-IV have been brought on record.
The witness further deposed that, it did not happen
that, a person came to him and told him that, an
injured was to be taken to the hospital. He refused to
do so. Then he told him that he was a policeman.

1214. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state before the SLAO-IV that, At that time I was not
having any mobile with me. Omission, Then he took U-
Turn and from the side of Mithibai College he proceeded
towards home from the statement of the SLAO-IV has
...1344/-
Exh.1124 1344 (J-SC 317/10)
been brought on record. Portion marked A i.e. After
taking my address and telephone number I went to Yari
Road for my work has been brought on record by the
prosecution. Omission, I reached home at about 09.15
p.m. I watched on T.V. a News that there was an
encounter at Nana-Nani Park have been brought on
record from statement dated 24.09.2007 before the SLAO-
IV. The witness further deposed that, it did not
happen that, Mr. Sankhe personally called him on phone
and told him to come to the Police Station. He could
not assign any reason as to why portion marked B
appeared in his statement dated 24.09.2007 before the
SLAO-IV. He did not state in his statement before the
SLAO-IV that, he received a call from Mr. Sankhe at
10.30 a.m.. He stated before the SLAO-IV that, He
asked my name. It did not happen that, the SLAO-IV put
some questions to him. The SLAO-IV made inquiry ('-)
with him, but did not ask him questions. He asked
whether, the statement given by him was correct.
Except this no other inquiry ('-) was made with him.
After inquiry was made with him he stated portion
marked C. It did happen that, he did not make inquiry
as to why did the said person fall down.
1215. The witness further deposed that, he did not
bring with him the summons issued to him by the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri (Kulkarni Saheb). He could not
...1345/-
Exh.1124 1345 (J-SC 317/10)
trace and find out the summons. He did not see the
policeman who had come to him, making inquiry with some
other persons. He did not see the persons near the
injured, making inquiry with other persons. As he was
afraid he did not feel that, he should leave the spot
during those 5 to 6 minutes before the policeman came
to him. He was at the said place for 10 to 15 minutes.
It did happen that he submitted his affidavit before
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri presided over by
Shri.V.S. Kulkarni. It did happen that, the said Court
issued a Public Notice therefore, he submitted his
affidavit. He did not understand yesterday therefore,
he deposed before the Court that, It did not happen
that, he filed an affidavit in pursuance to Public
Notice issued by Railway Mobile Court, Andheri (Para
no.25). Portion markedA in affidavit dated 31/03/2008
(Exh.965) was correct. He did not understand therefore,
on 20/12/2012 he deposed before the Court that, It did
not happen that, he filed the said affidavit during
the course of Magisterial inquiry by Metropolitan
Magistrate Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, as per
directions of the said Court. He deposed Portion
Marked 'B' before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri
presided over by Shri V.S. Kulkarni. On 20/12/2012 he
deposed before this Court that, It did not happen
that, he made a request to the Court to give him
permission to file supplementary affidavit if required
...1346/-
Exh.1124 1346 (J-SC 317/10)
during the course of Magisterial inquiry, as he did
not understand it. He had deposed before the Court with
proper understanding that day.
1216. The witness further deposed that, he did not
see and he did not know that, there was a Public Notice
issued by Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. Nobody told
him that, such Public Notice was issued by the said
Court. Since he had not heard or seen or informed by
anyone about the Public Notice issued by the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, question of his filing
affidavit, in pursuance there of did not arise. The
witness categorically deposed that, he did not depose
false in respect of knowledge of Public Notice issued
by Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, and filing an
affidavit in pursuance to the said Notice. He did not
know difference between Public Notice and a summons. He
knew Public Notice, a letter and a summons. Summons was
addressed to a person and it was in the name of said
person. The witness denied that, he was deposing a
blatant false and that, he deposed false in affidavit
Exh.965. That day, he was deposing before the Court
and not tendering (submitting) (= =). The witness
answered to a question that he submitted his affidavit
before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, but denied that,
the said affidavit was prepared as per the directions
of the said Court. Submitting a document from one's
...1347/-
Exh.1124 1347 (J-SC 317/10)
custody means submitting (== =) a document before the
Court. He craved leave of the Court to allow him to
submit supplementary affidavit as mentioned in Portion
Marked 'B' of Exh. 965. He did not mention in his
affidavit Exh. 965 that, he received a summons from
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri presided over by Shri
V.S.Kulkarni. Pratidnyapatra ('+.+) meant affidavit.
Affidavit was prepared on a Stamp-Paper.
1217. The witness denied that, whatever he had
deposed that day in respect of affidavit and evidence
dated 20/12/2012 was blatant false as tutored by
advocates of accused nos.1, 9 and 15. Omissions, The
street light was on as well as the headlights of his
vehicle were on. He saw this in the said lights and
that, he saw one person holding a gun in his hand
under the street light pole and that, he saw him
falling down backwards and that, he saw some persons
rushing towards the said person, are the omissions
brought on record from affidavit dated 31.03.2008
before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. The witness
further deposed that, it did not happen that, he saw 4
to 5 persons coming there. It did not happen that,
those 4 to 5 persons were in plainclothes and that they
were holding firearms in their hands. Portion marked
C was stated by him in Exh.965. He also stated that,
Those persons came from my right side, but said
...1348/-
Exh.1124 1348 (J-SC 317/10)
portion did not appear in it. He did not state in Exh.
965 that, At that time, he was not having any mobile
with him and that, Then he took U-Turn and from the
side of Mithibai College he proceeded towards home and
that, he reached home at 09.15 p.m. He watched on T.V.
a news that, there was an encounter at Nana-Nani Park
and that, On 12/11/2006 Mr.Sankhe from Versova Police
Station called him to Versova Police Station. At 10.30
a.m. he received a call from him on his land-line
number. He reached Versova Police Station at 11.30 a.m.
He asked his name and address. He made inquiry with him
in respect of the incident dated 11/11/2006. He
recorded his statement and that, In the year 2007, he
received a letter from Collector Office. He went to the
Collector Office. His statement was recorded in respect
of incident dated 11/11/2006.
1218. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state in his statement dated 31/07/2008 before the
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri presided over by Mrs.
R.K. Shaikh that, The street light was on as well as
the headlights of his vehicle were on. He saw this in
the said lights and that, he saw one person holding a
gun in his hand under the street light pole and that,
he saw him falling down backwards and that, he saw
some persons rushing towards the said person and
that, At that time, he was not having any mobile with
...1349/-
Exh.1124 1349 (J-SC 317/10)
me and that, Then he took U-Turn and from the side of
Mithibai College he proceeded towards home and that,
he reached home at 09.15 p.m. he watched on T.V. a
News that, there was an encounter at Nana-Nani Park
and that, In the year 2007, he received a letter from
Collector Office. He went to the Collector Office. His
statement was recorded in respect of incident dated
11/11/2006. It did not happen that, initially he was
asked for help and when he refused then the said person
told him that, he was a policeman. He did not state in
his statement dated 31/07/2008 before Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri that, he refused to give help. Then he
told him that, they were police. He could not assign
any reason as to why, said portion appeared in his
statement dated 31/07/2008 before the Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri.
1219. He did not state in his statement dated
31/07/2008 before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri that,
The said person asked him, his name and that, In
the year 2009, he received summons from Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri and Judge Kulkarni recorded his
statement. He did not state in his 164 Cr.P.C.
statement dated 23/12/2009 before Metropolitan
Magistrate Shri. Chaudhary that, In the evening he
proceeded from his residence at Santacruz to meet his
friend and that, he saw one person holding a gun in
...1350/-
Exh.1124 1350 (J-SC 317/10)
his hand under the street light pole and he saw him
falling down backwards and that, The street light was
on as well as the headlights of his vehicle were on. He
saw this in the said lights and that, he saw some
persons and that, At that time, he was not having any
mobile with him and that, he reached home at 09.15
p.m. He watched on T.V. a news that there was an
encounter at Nana-Nani Park. It did not happen that,
Mr.Sankhe personally made him a call. He could not
assign any reason as to why portion marked 'A' was so
written in his statement before the Metropolitan
Magistrate 22
nd
Court, Andheri.
1220. The witness further deposed that, it did
happen that, the policeman asked him his name and land-
line (Telephone) number and wrote it down. He stated
in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. that, SIT recorded
his statement. He could not assign any reason as to why
said portion did not appear in his statement u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. He did not state before the SLAO-IV that, he
saw some persons rushing towards the said person from
my right side. It did happen that, 5 to 6 persons
came.
1221. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that, on 11/11/2006 in the evening he proceeded from
his residence at Santacruz to meet his friend at Yari
...1351/-
Exh.1124 1351 (J-SC 317/10)
Road and that, he proceeded via road near Nana-Nani
Park and that therefore, question of hearing noise of
firecrackers, staying at the said place and seeing the
person having gun with him, falling down backwards
below the street light pole and that, some persons
coming there and one of the person asking him his name
and land-line number did not arise and that, he had
deposed false at the instance of accused nos. 1, 9 and
15 and their respective advocates and that, he was
deposing false. The witness further denied that, he
deposed false that, at that time he did not have any
mobile with him because his location would have been
traced on the basis of the mobile and that, on
12/11/2006 Mr. Sankhe did not call him to Versova
Police Station and that, he did not go to Versova
Police Station and also that, Mr.Sankhe did not record
his statement. He also denied that, his statement
before Mr.Sankhe and affidavit before Judge Shri.
Kulkarni was prepared by accused nos. 1, 9 & 15 and
were given to him and that, he never received any
letter from the SLAO-IV. He also denied that, he did
not receive any summons from the Court of Judge Shri.
Kulkarni and that, therefore, he could not produce
those documents before the Court and that, he deposed
false that, he handed over the letter in the office of
the SLAO-IV and that, the statements before the SLAO-
IV, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Shri. Kulkarni,
...1352/-
Exh.1124 1352 (J-SC 317/10)
Mrs.Shaikh Madam were given by him as tutored by the
accused who took him to the said office/ Court's. The
witness denied that, he gave statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C.
as tutored by the accused and that, he and accused nos.
1,9&15 were acquainted to each other since long. The
witness further denied that, he deposed false that, the
summons from this court was served on him by the Clerk
of the Court but that, it was served on him by a person
belonging to the accused and that, he deposed false
before this court at the instance of advocates of
accused nos.1, 9 and 15.
1222. It has come in evidence of Mr.Dagdu Bandu
Patil (DW-2), Exh.973, that, he joined Police Force in
the year 1986. In the year, 2006 he was posted as a
Police Inspector Crime in Vashi Police Station,Navi
Mumbai Commissionerate. He was posted there since the
year 2005 till 3
rd
May 2007. On 11/11/2006 as usual he
came to the police station at 09.00 a.m. On 11/11/2006
at 21.00 hours API Mr. Bamble (SHO) and Mr. Ambole
(H.C.) reported to him that, a message was received
from Control Room Navi Mumbai, passed by constable
Bhosale, stating that, on that day Anil Bheda and
Ramnarayan Gupta were taken through a Qualis vehicle by
plainclothes policemen. One address along-with name was
mentioned as Aruna Bheda, Diamond Apartment, Sector No.
29, Vashi. As per this message it was also stated that,
...1353/-
Exh.1124 1353 (J-SC 317/10)
this address should be checked. Police Constable Mr.
Barve was deputed to verify the said address. The SHO
effected an entry of the said message as well as that
of deputation of Mr. Barve (P.C.) for checking the said
address. The Control passed the message at 17.45 hours
(Exh.974). The report was made to him after the missing
report was entered into the Station Diary. The SHO also
told him that, one Aruna Bheda came to Vashi Police
Station at 18.40 hours and she gave her full name and
address. She told that, at about 10.30 a.m., her
husband Anil Bheda went for refilling mobile. She also
gave two mobile numbers to the SHO. Anil Bheda told her
that, Ram Gupta was to meet him. Then he would return
home. As Anil Bheda did not return, Aruna Bheda
contacted him from P.C.O., but she could not contact as
the mobile of Anil Bheda could not be contacted. She
awaited for Anil Bheda and them she came to the police
Station to file complaint. At that time the SHO
informed Aruna Bheda that a message was received from
Control Room, Navi Mumbai, which had received a fax.
The SHO asked Aruna Bheda as to whether the said fax in
her name was sent by her. Aruna Bheda told the SHO that
she did not send the fax or did not make a phone call.
1223. The witness further deposed that, thereafter,
information was taken from Aruna Bheda along-with
description of Anil Bheda. The SHO noted down the
...1354/-
Exh.1124 1354 (J-SC 317/10)
description and also recorded detail statement of Aruna
Bheda. After recording the statement the SHO registered
adult person missing complaint in the register at
serial no.51 of 2006. Meantime the SHO received a phone
call from Constable Mr.Barve stating that, he reached
at the address and found that the house was locked. The
SHO told Mr. Barve that, a missing report pertaining to
the said address was lodged in the police station and
accordingly the police station would inform the Control
Room. The entry as regards to this missing was effected
in the Station Diary. The information of missing
complaint was passed on to all police stations and to
the Control Room. He suggested the SHO to again call
the complainant woman on the following day and also
directed to call the fax from the Control Room. Police
Head Constable Mr.Patil (Buckle no.82) was the beat
Ammaldar. The inquiry was marked in his name on
12/11/2006. Mr.Shaikh was Sr.P.I., at the relevant
time. On 12/11/2006, Sr. P.I.Mr.Shaikh directed him to
make inquiry in respect of the Fax.
1224. The witness further deposed that, on
12/11/2006 at 06.00 p.m. Mrs.Aruna Bheda along-with
Mr.Anil Bheda met him. Initially she along-with her
husband reported to SHO ASI Mr.Patil and stated that,
her husband came home and she along-with her husband
came to the police station and that, she wanted to
...1355/-
Exh.1124 1355 (J-SC 317/10)
report to the police station about it. ASI Mr.Patil
recorded statement of Mrs.Aruna Bheda and detailed
statement of Mr.Anil Bheda. On 12/11/2006 they made
secret inquiry as regards to the missing complaint. No
information could be gathered therefore entry to that
effect was taken in the Station Diary. ASI Mr.Patil
along-with Aruna Bheda, Mr.Anil Bheda and their
statements came to him. Prior to that, the fax reached
to the police station and then to him. He read the fax.
He read the statements given by Mrs. Aruna Bheda and
Mr.Anil Bheda. He read over the fax to Mr.Anil Bheda
and Mrs. Aruna Bheda and also handed over the said fax
to them for reading. He asked Mrs. Aruna Bheda her
medium of instructions and as to whether she was able
to read English. She told him that, her medium of
instructions was Gujarati and could read English. He
told Mr.Anil Bheda to read the fax. Mrs. Aruna Bheda
read the fax and told him that, she did not send the
said Fax. He again recorded detailed statement of Mrs.
Aruna Bheda in relation to the said fax. He made
inquiry with Mr. Anil Bheda. He was informed by Mr.
Anil Bheda that, on 11/11/2006 at 10.30 a.m. he went
for refilling mobile and he met his friend Ram Gupta
below the building. From there they went to APMC,
Market. After the work at APMC Market was over they
went to Sanpada Railway Station by an Auto-rickshaw.
Ramnarayan Gupta went to Sion, Mumbai by train and Anil
...1356/-
Exh.1124 1356 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda went to Thane by Railway. His friend Mr. Jayesh
Kariya met him at Thane. Anil Bheda told Jayesh that,
he was going to Shirdi and as to whether he would come
to Shirdi. Jayesh told him that, he would not go to
Shirdi. Before going to Shirdi he made a call to his
neighbour Smt. Sharada Shetty and told her to inform
his wife that he was going to Shirdi.
1225. The witness further deposed that, on
11/11/2006 Anil Bheda went to Shirdi and reached at
Shirdi in the early morning on 12/11/2006. He offered
prays to Saibaba. Then he returned by a Bus. He reached
home at 05.00 p.m. Thereafter, they came to the police
station on learning of the missing complaint filed by
Mrs. Aruna Bheda. Thereafter, the SHO cancelled the
entry in the Missing Register. He had seen the said
entry Exh.307 from the Adult Person Missing Register.
The endorsement in the name of Head Constable Mr.Patil
Buckle no.82 was in his handwriting. It bore his
signature and date below it. SHO ASI Mr.Patil made
endorsement of cancellation of missing complaint on
12/11/2006. The entry of cancellation of adult person
Missing complaint was also effected in the Station
Diary (Exh.975). These were two entries at 18:15 hours
and 20:50 hours. He recorded statement of Anil Bheda
on 12/11/2006. Portion Marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G were
recorded as per the say of Aruna Bheda. Those were
...1357/-
Exh.1124 1357 (J-SC 317/10)
marked Exh.976, Exh.977, Exh.978, Exh.979, Exh.980,
Exh.981 & Exh.982 (respectively). The witness was shown
reminder-1 dated 15/01/2007 issued by The Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Vashi Division addressed to
him. He received the said letter after the Sr.P.I. had
marked it to him. It bore signature of then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Mr. Ashok Pandhare. He could
identify his signature as he was his superior. It also
bore signature of Mr. Mujib Shaikh. He could identify
his signature. The letter was marked to him for
submitting a report in respect of inquiry made
pertaining to Aruna Bheda. He submitted report. He sent
the report dated 16/01/2007 through Sr. P.I. to
Assistant Commissioner of Police Vashi Division. The
reference in the report might be of the letter and not
of the reminder-1. It bore his signature. Its contents
were true and correct. It was marked Exh. 983.
1226. The witness further deposed that, he annexed
xerox copies of the statements of witnesses 1. Mr.Anil
Bheda dated 07/01/2007, 2. Mrs.Aruna Bheda dated
08/01/2007, 3. Mrs.Sharda Shetty dated 07/01/2007, 4.
Mr. Jayesh Kesaria dated 08/01/2007. The original
statements were before the Court. Those were marked
Articles 126,127,128 & 129(respectively). In this
connection his statements were recorded before the
SLAO-IV, Bandra and The Metropolitan Magistrate Railway
...1358/-
Exh.1124 1358 (J-SC 317/10)
Mobile Court, Andheri and before DCP Bandra Mr.
Prasanna. His statement dated 11/10/2007 before the
SLAO-IV, had his signature and its contents were true
and correct. He had submitted his affidavit before The
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. (presided over by Shri.
Kulkarni.). Affidavit was marked Exh.984.
1227. Cross examination by Ld. SPP for the State
further discloses that, original Station Diaries were
preserved in the police stations and were not
destroyed. If the Station Diary was destroyed, its
entry was taken in the relevant record in the police
station. Original Station Diaries from Vashi police
station of the year 2006 were not destroyed till he was
in Vashi police station in the year 2007. In the year
2005, 2006 and 2007 there was no T.V. in Vashi police
station. The witness on his own deposed that, if
somebody personally had brought the T.V., to the police
station, he had no knowledge of it. He read
newspapers. He did not remember as to whether he read
newspapers on 12.11.2006. He read newspapers daily as
and when he got time. He could not tell specifically
as to whether on 12.11.2006 he read newspapers and that
he came to know the news of encounter of Ramnarayan@
Lakhan Bhaiya on 11.11.2006 at Nana Nani Park. When
asked as to when did he come to know about the
encounter, he replied that, he could not tell a
...1359/-
Exh.1124 1359 (J-SC 317/10)
particular date, but he came to know later on. Again
he was asked after how many days did he come to know
about the encounter, he replied he could not tell as to
after how many days did he come to know about the
encounter. He could not tell as to whether he came to
know it after about four days, eight days, 15 days or a
month and that, as to whether he was present in the
police station for the whole day or had gone outside
for sometime on 11.11.2006. On 11.11.2006, in the
evening, he was in the police station. On that day,
he did not see Aruna Bheda in the police station.
Except the knowledge that he got from reporting by API
Mr. Bhamble and HC Mr. Ambavale, he did not know
anything personally about Aruna Bheda as on 11.11.2006.
He saw Aruna Bheda for the first time when she came to
him along with ASI Mr. Patil and Anil Bheda in Vashi
police station on 12.11.2006. He saw Anil Bheda for
the first time when he came along with Aruna Bheda and
ASI Mr.Patil to him in his cabin in Vashi police
station on 12.11.2006. He did not have personal
knowledge as to when and how Aruna Bheda and Anil Bheda
came to the police station. The witness on his own
deposed that, he came to know from ASI Mr. Patil that,
they came to the police station at 6 pm. On receipt of
fax message from Control Room at 21.00 hours, he
personally did not make any inquiry in that respect on
11.11.2006. He directed API Mr. Bhamble to call the fax
...1360/-
Exh.1124 1360 (J-SC 317/10)
message from Control Room. The fax message was received
by Vashi police station on 12.11.2006. The witness was
shown Exh.986. The witness could not tell whether the
original fax or telegram or xerox fax of telegram was
received from the Control Room generally in an inquiry
or investigation. If such telegrams or fax or any other
correspondence was received by the police station, its
entry was taken in the Inward Register. The date of
receipt was mentioned in the register. He was not aware
as to whether time was mentioned or not in the
register. There was no mention in the said register as
to whether it was original document or a copy of a
document.
1228. The witness was shown a telegram dated
28.11.2006 addressed to the Commissioner of Police,
Thane. The witness was shown forwarding letter dated
4.1.2007 from the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime
Branch, Navi Mumbai, having marked to P.I. (Crime) and
addressed to Sr. PI, Vashi police station, Navi Mumbai
along with the telegram. The witness further deposed
that, the booking date on telegram was not visible due
to stamp, but time 16.08 hours was visible. Vashi
police station received the letter and telegram on
04.01.2007. The letter was at Exh.987 and telegram was
at Exh.988. The witness was shown another forwarding
letter along with telegram. The letter was dated
...1361/-
Exh.1124 1361 (J-SC 317/10)
17.11.2006 from Office of the DCP, Crime, Navi Mumbai,
addressed to Sr. PI Vashi police station, Navi Mumbai.
It was marked in his name. It was received on
20.11.2006 by the police station. The letter was marked
Exh.989 and the telegram was marked Exh.990. The
forwarding letter (xerox) along with telegram (Exh.356)
addressed to the C.P., Mumbai was received by Vashi
police station on 07.12.2006. It was marked to P.I
(Crime), Exh.991.
1229. The witness further deposed that, he could
not tell the time at which on 12.11.2006 the police
station received the fax from Control Room, Navi
Mumbai. He received it in the morning hours. He
remembered that, he made inquiry with the Control Room
as regards to the adult missing person, after receipt
of said fax from Control Room. He made inquiry as to
whether they had information as to whether the missing
person was traced out. He also instructed HC Mr.Patil,
Buckle No.82. He also made remarks to that effect in
the Missing Person Register (Exh.307 and 307A). When
asked as to whether he made inquiry in respect of the
fax that was received on 12.11.2006 and about the
message received on 11.11.2006 at 17.45 hours, the
witness replied that, he perused documents. Aruna Bheda
stated in her statement that, she did not send the fax
and she did not know as to who mentioned her name in
...1362/-
Exh.1124 1362 (J-SC 317/10)
the fax. The witness instructed his staff and HC Buckle
No.82 Mr.Patil to trace out the missing person. He also
instructed to call the wife of missing person and to
make detail inquiry. He handed over inquiry to HC
Buckle No.82. HC Mr.Patil, Buckle No.82 did not submit
any report to him. The witness on his own deposed that,
meantime, Sr.PI marked the fax and documents to him for
inquiry. HC Mr.Patil did not make any inquiry.
Mr.Bhamble had shown him the missing complaint
registered at Sr.No.51/2006, filed by Aruna Bheda in
Vashi police station. Complaint dated 11.11.2006 at
Exh.306 was tendered to the witness. The witness
confirmed that it was the same complaint, which was
shown to him by Mr. Bhamble and Mr. Ambavale. The
complaint was registered at 18.40 hours. As per the
contents of the said complaint, Anil Bheda was going to
meet Ramnarayan Gupta. The message was received from
Control Room 55 minutes prior to registration of this
complaint i.e. at 17:45 hours. As per the contents of
the said message from Control Room, Anil Bheda and
Ramnarayan Gupta were taken away through a silver
Qualis vehicle from Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai by
plainclothes policemen. The fax message was received on
telephone. Its entry was taken in Station Diary. He
had perused the Station Diary. When asked whether he
told Mr.Bhamble and Mr.Ambavale to make inquiry about
Ramnarayan Gupta, who along with Anil Bheda, was taken
...1363/-
Exh.1124 1363 (J-SC 317/10)
away by plainclothes policemen as per the fax message
and as Aruna Bheda stated in her statement that Anil
Bheda had gone to meet Ramanarayan Gupta, the witness
answered that, he did not tell Mr. Bhamble and Mr.
Ambavale to make the said inquiry. On 12.11.2006, at 9
am, he came to Vashi police station. On 11.11.2006, at
9 pm, he told Mr. Bhambale and Mr. Ambavale to produce
Aruna Bheda before him in the morning on 12.11.2006.
On 12.11.2006, he sent staff at the address of Aruna
and Anil Bheda, but the staff reported that Aruna Bheda
was not at home. He did not remember the time at which
he sent the staff but he sent the staff during the
whole day. He could not tell particular name of the
staff. He did not effect Station Diary Entry as
regards to sending the staff to the residence of Aruna
Bheda and the staff reporting to him.
1230. The witness further deposed that, without
perusing papers concerned from the police station, he
could not tell as to whether he effected its entry
anywhere else and that, whether all papers related to
missing complaint no.51 of 2006 were produced before
the Court or not, till the year 2007. The documents
before the Court were complete and total documents as
per the list annexed to it. He had attached all
documents to this file, which was in respect of inquiry
in missing complaint No. 51 of 2006 of Vashi police
...1364/-
Exh.1124 1364 (J-SC 317/10)
station. There was no document in the said file
showing that he directed his staff to visit the house
of Aruna Bheda and that they submitted report to him.
The compilation of this file was done during his
posting at Vashi police station. He did not paste the
cutting of Sakaal newspaper dated 14.11.2006 to this
file. The witness on his own deposed that, this might
have been done by the officer, who sent this file to
the Court. The witness was shown a message dated
13.12.2006 received by Sr. PI of Vashi police station,
which was sent by the Commissioner of Police, Navi
Mumbai. It had signatures of then Sr. PI of Vashi
Police Station Mr. Shaikh Mujib vide Exh.993. As per
the said message, in the capacity of Investigating
Officer, he, along with all papers, was to remain
present before the DCP as on 14.12.2006. Accordingly,
he, along with all papers, reported to the DCP. He did
not remember whether he effected entry in respect of
his reporting to the DCP, anywhere in the police
station. Even after perusal of the said documents
before the Court, he could not tell as to whether he
effected entry in respect of his reporting to the DCP,
anywhere in the police station. The witness on his own
deposed that, without perusing the station diary, he
could not conclusively depose in this behalf.
...1365/-
Exh.1124 1365 (J-SC 317/10)
1231. The witness further deposed that, he recorded
statement of Aruna Bheda only on 12.11.2006 prior to
going to the office of the D.C.P on 14.12.2006. Only
statements of Aruna Bheda and Anil Bheda were recorded
till his visit to office of the DCP on 14.12.2006. It
could not be said that, he did not feel it necessary to
record statements of other witnesses for verifying the
facts till 14.12.2006. Even then till 14.12.2006 he did
not record statements of witnesses other than Anil
Bheda and Aruna Bheda. He made inquiry with Aruna Bheda
and Anil Bheda during which he was told that, the fax
was not sent by Aruna Bheda. They also told that, they
did not know as to who mentioned name of Aruna Bheda in
the said fax. As he made inquiry with Aruna Bheda and
Anil Bheda and it was made clear by them during inquiry
that the fax was not sent by Aruna Bheda and Anil Bheda
also made it clear in his statement recorded by ASI Mr.
Patil that, Ramnarayan Gupta met him on 11.11.2006,
went to APMC Market by an auto rickshaw and from there
to Sanpada Railway Station and then he went to Thane
and Ramnarayan Gupta went to Sion, Mumbai. They also
made it clear that, they had no doubt about anyone. He
told Anil Bheda to bring to him Sharda Shetty and
Jayesh Karia. They did not come to their office till
14.12.2006, therefore, he did not record statements of
anyone other than Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda. Sharada
Shetty and Jayesh Karia were called time and again to
...1366/-
Exh.1124 1366 (J-SC 317/10)
their office, but they did not come to their office.
He was deposing for the first time before the Court
that, Sharada Shetty and Jayesh Karia were called time
and again to come to their office and that, its entry
was nowhere taken in their office. Sharada Shetty was
residing in the building, in which Anil and Aruna Bheda
were residing. Jayesh Karia was residing in Thane. He
had asked the addresses of Sharada Shetty and Jayesh
Karia. He got address of Sharada Shetty but could not
get address of Jayesh Karia. He did not send any of
his subordinates to the residence of Sharada Shetty to
record her statement. For the first time, he recorded
statement of Sharada Shetty on 07.01.2007 (Art.128).
Anil Bheda told him that, he did not know complete
address of Jayesh Karia. He asked Anil Bheda whether he
knew the place where Jayesh Karia resided. He told
Anil Bheda to bring Jayesh Karia to his office, as Anil
Bheda knew the place where Jayesh Karia resided. The
witness denied that, Jayesh Karia did not come to his
office even though he was called by him through Anil
Bheda. Meantime, Anil Bheda was not found at his home,
therefore, he could not send his subordinates with Anil
Bheda to Jayesh Karia. On 13.11.2006, he did not call
Anil Bheda to his office. He could not tell as to
whether on 14.11.2006 he called Anil Bheda to his
office. The witness on his own deposed that, he had
called Anil Bheda but he was unable to give specific
...1367/-
Exh.1124 1367 (J-SC 317/10)
date. He could not tell as to on how many occasions
he called Anil Bheda to his office since 13.11.2006 to
14.12.2006. He sent his staff to Anil Bheda. He was
not at home. He could not tell whether any other family
members were at home or not. Two mobile numbers of Anil
Bheda were given by Aruna Bheda while recording her
statement in missing complaint no.51/2006. Those were
9324378877 and 9323053863. He did not try to contact
Anil Bheda on these two numbers till 14.12.2006. On
11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006, he tried to contact Anil
Bheda on those two numbers but those numbers were
switched off. He did not effect entry in any record
stating that, he sent his subordinates to Anil Bheda's
residence and that he tried to contact on the said
mobile numbers. Photo (Exh.308) attached to Exh.306 was
the photo of Anil Bheda.
1232. The witness further deposed that, he did not
effect entry in any record as regards to the happenings
in the meeting between hm and the DCP. He received a
letter from the ACP on 10.01.2007. It was addressed to
him and was marked by Sr.PI. He knew signature of the
ACP on the said letter and that of the Sr.PI. The
letter was marked Exh.996. There was a reference of
report dated 27.12.2006 in Exh.996. The first paragraph
of Exh.996 was in respect of the report submitted by
him on 27.12.2006. Report dated 27.12.2006 was in
...1368/-
Exh.1124 1368 (J-SC 317/10)
respect of the telegram sent to the Dy. C.M., State of
Maharashtra, in respect of the encounter. The contents
in the telegram sent to Commissioner of Police, Navi
Mumbai Mr.D.Shivanandan were different than the
contents in telegram sent to the Dy. C.M of Maharashtra
State. The witness on his own deposed that, the words
in those two telegrams were different but meaning was
same. Without perusing the report, he could not tell as
to what inquiry he made before submitting report to the
DCP. The said Report was not before the Court.
1233. The witness further deposed that, he made
following inquiry :-
On 11.11.2006, API Mr.Bhamble and HC Mr.
Ambavale were on Station House Duty. At about 9 pm,
they reported to him that, a Fax Message was received
from Control Room, Navi Mumbai. When asked what inquiry
he made in respect of the telegrams received on
20.11.2006 and 07.12.2006, the witness answered that,
he perused the telegrams as well as the fax dated
11.11.2006 received on 12.11.2006 from Control Room,
Navi Mumbai. The contents in the telegrams and the fax
were same. On 12.11.2006, he recorded statement of
Aruna Bheda. He made inquiry with Anil Bheda and Aruna
Bheda about the fax message. A station diary entry was
effected as regards to Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda
coming to the Police Station on 12.11.2006(Station
...1369/-
Exh.1124 1369 (J-SC 317/10)
Diary No.45). Accordingly, station diary entry was
effected by him and the SHO. He made oral inquiry with
Anil Bheda on 12.11.2006. On 14.12.2006, one report was
submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai.
1234. The witness further deposed that, the report
was prepared on the basis of inquiry made by him.
Whatever inquiry he made he had deposed before the
Court and the report submitted by him was on the basis
of said inquiry. The report was sent by Sr. PI and not
by him. The said report dated 14.12.2006 was in respect
of the incidents dated 11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006. The
witness denied that, he did not send any report in
respect of the telegram dated 11.11.2006 which was
received to Vashi police station on 20.11.2006,
07.12.2006 and 04.01.2007. It was mentioned in the
letter dated 10.01.2007 (Exh.996) that, the report
submitted by him on 27.12.2006 was marked by the ACP
sakhol choukashi keleli deesun yet nahi (It appeared
that, a detailed inquiry was not carried out). As he
did not submit report in pursuance to the letter dated
10.01.2007, therefore, a reminder dated 15.01.2007 was
sent by the ACP. He recorded statement of Sharada
Shetty on 07.01.2007 and that of Jayesh Karia (Kesaria)
on 08.01.2007 for the first time. He recorded statement
of Anil Bheda on 07.01.2007. Date mentioned above the
signature of Anil Bheda on the statement dated
...1370/-
Exh.1124 1370 (J-SC 317/10)
07.01.2007 is '08.01.2007'. He recorded statement of
Anil Bheda for the first time.
1235. The witness was shown Exh.983. It was not
mentioned in Exh.983 that, statement of Aruna Bheda was
annexed to Exh.983. There was no mention in Exh.983
that, he recorded statement of Aruna Bheda. The witness
denied that, statements dated 12.11.2006 of Aruna Bheda
and Anil Bheda were not annexed to the report submitted
to the ACP because the meaning of contents in fax and
that in telegrams was one and the same. The witness on
his own deposed that, this could be ascertained only
after perusal of the report sent to the ACP. It was not
mentioned in report dated 16.01.2007(Exh.983) that,
statements dated 12.11.2006 of Aruna Bheda and Anil
Bheda were recorded and were annexed to the report
submitted to the ACP on 27.12.2006. He did not record
statement of Mr.Barve, Constable from Vashi police
station. The witness was shown diary entry dated
11.11.2006 at Sr.No.41 of Vashi police station. It was
the same station diary entry extract. It was marked
Exh.997. The witness was shown two station diary
entries Exh.975. The first entry at 18.15 hours (Sr.No.
42). As per the said entry, statement of the missing
person was recorded. It did not mention that, statement
of Aruna Bheda was recorded. The second entry was at
Sr. No.45 at 20.50 hours. As per this entry, Aruna
...1371/-
Exh.1124 1371 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda gave her statement in writing. He directed the
SHO to make its entry. Entry no.45 did not state that
statement of Anil Bheda was recorded. Thereafter, the
inquiry was handed over to him.
1236. The witness further deposed that, when on
12.11.2006, Anil Bheda informed him that, he had been
to Shirdi, he did not ask him to produce bus ticket
before him. He made inquiry with him as to whether he
went alone or along with somebody else to Shirdi. He
told him that, he alone went to Shirdi. Except
recording his statement, he did not ask him to produce
any proof showing that he had gone to Shirdi. The
witness on his own deposed that, Anil Bheda had
informed his friend Jayesh Karia (Kesaria) as regards
to going to Shirdi. He also informed his neighbour
about going to Shirdi. When asked, did he ask Anil
Bheda to give proof of his having gone to Shirdi, the
witness answered that, except information given to
Jayesh Kesaria and telephonic message left with the
neighbour, no other proof was called for from Anil
Bheda having gone to Shirdi. There was a difference
between person intending to go and had gone. He did
not try to know location of Anil Bheda as on 11.11.2006
and 12.11.2006 by calling CDRs and site locations. He
knew that, mobiles were prepaid and post-paid. He could
not tell whether balance amount of a prepaid mobile
...1372/-
Exh.1124 1372 (J-SC 317/10)
came to an end, the incoming call continued to come on
the same mobile. He had a postpaid mobile. Since 1986
to 2005, he was posted in Mumbai. He was posted in
Crime Branch, Unit-X, Teli Galli, Andheri(E), in the
year 2001 and 2002. Mr.Sharma was also in Crime
Branch. He did not know that, Mr.Palande was in Crime
Branch. The witness could not identify accused no.9
Pradeep Suryawanshi though he was shown to him. Again
he was asked as to whether he had ever before seen
accused no.9 and accused no.15, who were present before
the Court, the witness answered that, they came in
contact during their service. He had never before seen
accused no.9 and accused no.15, who were present before
the Court.
1237. The witness further deposed that, since 1987,
he had investigated many crimes. In the capacity of an
I.O., he had deposed before the Court in many cases. He
could not even approximately tell as to in how many
cases he deposed before the Court. He also deposed
before the Court of Sessions. He knew that, many
questions were put to the I.O during cross examination.
When asked as to whether during cross examination, some
answers given to the questions might be damaging to the
calling party, the witness answered that, being an
officer, he had to depose as per the record. He could
not tell whether during cross examination some answers
...1373/-
Exh.1124 1373 (J-SC 317/10)
given to the questions might be damaging to the calling
party. The witness denied that, he was giving evasive
answers, as he would have to give damaging answers to
the defence. He did not record statements of anyone in
respect of the secret inquiry as regards to the missing
complaint. Entry Diary No.21 (Exh.703) was the entry in
respect of the secret inquiry as regards to the missing
complaint. There was no mention of the secret inquiry
in the said diary entry. This diary entry was of
Control Room, Navi Mumbai. The witness on his own
deposed that the entry was taken on the basis of his
information. There was no separate entry as regards to
the secret inquiry. The witness denied that, he deposed
for the first time before the Court in respect of
holding the secret inquiry.
1238. The witness further deposed that, there was
no mention of holding the secret inquiry in the report
dated 16.01.2007(Exh.983). There was no mention of the
secret inquiry in station diary entry (Exh.703). There
was no mention of the 'secret inquiry' in his statement
before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. There was no
mention of the 'secret inquiry' in his statement before
the SLAO-IV. There was no entry in the station diary as
regards to information gathered during the secret
inquiry. There was no mention about station diary entry
as regards to no information gathered during the secret
...1374/-
Exh.1124 1374 (J-SC 317/10)
inquiry, in the statements before the SLAO-IV, in Exhs.
983 and 984. The SIT sent a summons to him for
recording his statement. He did not have an occasion to
attend the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over
by Mrs. R.K. Shaikh. When asked, when did he come to
know for the first time that, an inquiry was being held
by the SLAO-IV with respect to the encounter at Nana
Nani Park on 11.11.2006, the witness answered that, he
could not tell without perusing record. When asked,
how did he come to know about such an inquiry, he
replied that either he had received a message or a
letter from the concerned. When asked, did he ever do
an encounter or whether he was a part of an encounter
team, the witness answered in affirmative. He could not
give a particular number of encounters in which he took
part. He had participated in more than one encounters.
He could not tell a particular figure. Without perusing
record, he could not tell as to which police station
was he attached when he participated in the encounters.
Those encounters took place in Mumbai City. As per
rules, the inquiry of an encounter was done by the
officers of the rank of Dy.Collector. The inquiry
officer gave intimation of inquiry to the police
station in which jurisdiction the encounter had taken
place. Some witnesses remained present on their own
before the inquiry officer and some witnesses were
produced by the officers concerned from the police
...1375/-
Exh.1124 1375 (J-SC 317/10)
station. The letter/ summons that he received from
the SLAO-IV was not available with him. He could not
approximately tell as to how many encounters did he do
or participate in during his tenure of service in
police department. He could not tell as to who brought
the letter or message to him and that, as to whether
the letter or message was brought from Versova or it
came directly from Vashi and that, as to whether he
personally received the said message/ letter.
1239. The witness further deposed that, when he
went to the office of the SLAO-IV to attend the
inquiry, he carried with him the inquiry papers, which
were before the Court. His statement before the SLAO-
IV was based upon the said papers. His statement was
recorded on solemn affirmation before the SLAO-IV. He
did not state in his statement before the SLAO-IV as
regards to recording statement of Mrs. Sharada Shetty
in adult missing complaint No.51/06 of Vashi police
station. He received the message or the letter at
Taloja. He might have effected its entry in the station
diary of Taloja police station. The witness on his own
deposed that, without perusing the relevant record, he
could not conclusively depose about it. The record
meant the 'Movement Diary'. He did not remember whether
he effected entry in the diary, while he was going to
Bandra Office. When asked, this diary should have been
...1376/-
Exh.1124 1376 (J-SC 317/10)
of his leaving for Bandra Office and not of receipt of
message/letter. He was again suggested to give answers
as to whether he effected any entry as regards to
receipt of message or letter, to which the witness
answered that, he could not tell as regards to
effecting the said entry without perusing Inward and
Outward Registers of Taloja police station. The said
message was a written message. He had seen the message
or the letter. Without perusing the message or the
letter, he could not tell as to whether it had a
Outward Number. The message did not bear an inward
number. Without perusing the letter, he could not tell
as to from where the said letter came. The RTPC or the
Station House Officer might have given the message to
him. If it was a letter, it might have been given by
the Dispatch Clerk to him. By following the same
procedure, he received the letter/ message. Entry of
telephonic message was taken in Telephone Message Book.
If it was a wireless message, the RTPC makes its entry.
The SHO or the RTPC makes report of the message to the
Sr. PI and in his absence to Duty PI. Finally the
message reached to him. When asked, did he ask the
constable as to from where the message had come, the
witness answered that, he could not answer this without
perusing the record. When asked, would it be correct
to say that, he could not tell even that day as to from
where did the letter or message come to him, he
...1377/-
Exh.1124 1377 (J-SC 317/10)
answered that the letter or message had come from
Bandra Office. He did not remember as to whether he
carried the said letter with him to the Bandra Office.
Except the letter or the message, he did not receive
any other communication. He could not produce the said
letter as it was not with him.
1240. The witness denied that, he did not receive
any message or letter from Bandra Office and that, some
of the accused persons (officers) from this case took
him to Bandra Office and that he gave statement in the
inquiry as per the say of these accused (officers). He
could not tell the date on which he came to know about
the inquiry but he came to know about it through the
letter that he received. He did not read the Public
Notice issued by the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. He
could not even approximately tell as to how many days
did he receive the letter prior to giving statement
before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. He did not
know about the inquiry prior to receipt of letter. He
could not tell whether it was a summons or a letter. He
personally read the letter. He received the letter by
the same procedure as mentioned above. He could not
tell then as to who sent the said letter. He did not
know as to who brought the said letter to him. He
received the said letter in Taloja police station. The
said letter had Outward and Inward Number on it. He
...1378/-
Exh.1124 1378 (J-SC 317/10)
could not tell as to of which Office the outward number
was entered on the said letter. He had submitted an
affidavit before the Inquiry Officer Shri Kulkarni in
the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri and it was based on
the documents which were before the Court pertaining to
the inquiry in adult missing complaint no.51/06. He did
not remember as to whether he was told to get prepared
an affidavit and submit it and that, accordingly he got
the affidavit prepared and submitted it before the
Inquiry Officer. He submitted the affidavit and also
craved leave of the inquiry officer to furnish
additional affidavit, if it was necessary. The
affidavit was submitted as per the directions of the
Inquiry Officer. He received these directions at the
time of his receiving the letter. The said letter was
not available in the papers relating to the Judicial
Inquiry and in the file of missing complaint no.51/06
though copy of his affidavit was there in missing
complaint no.51/06. The letter from the SLAO-IV was
also not available in the papers of missing complaint
no.51/06, which were before the Court. His original
statement before the SLAO-IV was available in the said
missing complaint no.51/06 file.
1241. The witness further deposed that, incidents'
report was to be maintained on day to day basis in an
inquiry as regards to missing complaint. When Anil
...1379/-
Exh.1124 1379 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda reported to their police station, the missing
complaint was closed. The SHO had effected the entries
in Incidents' Report as regards to Anil Bheda, on day
to day basis. There was no separate incidents' report
than the station diary. He did not conduct separate
inquiry after 12.11.2006 as regards to the fax received
from Control Room, Navi Mumbai. The witness on his own
deposed that, inquiry as regards to the said fax was
conducted in pursuance to missing complaint no.51/06.
1242. The witness was shown statement of Aruna
Bheda dated 12.11.2006, which was annexed to Exh.340.
The writing in the said statement was of the staff from
Vashi police station. Words he leehun dile and words
sahee and the date 12.11.2006 was in the handwriting
of the same staff. The handwriting was of ASI Mr. B.B.
Patil from Vashi police station. On 11.11.2006, he did
not make inquiry about Ramnarayan Gupta and he also did
not tell any other staff/ officer to make inquiry of
Ramnarayan Gupta. On 12.11.2006, except recording
statements of Anil Bheda and Aruna Bheda and making
inquiry with them, he did not make inquiry with anyone
else as on 12.11.2006. He also did not direct his
staff/ officer to make inquiry of Ramnarayan Gupta as
on 12.11.2006. When asked, whether he made inquiry of
Ramnarayan Gupta on and after 13.11.2006, the witness
answered that, on 13.11.2006, he came to know that,
...1380/-
Exh.1124 1380 (J-SC 317/10)
Ramnarayan Gupta was killed in an encounter. Therefore,
he did not make inquiry about Ramnarayan Gupta. He
received information of the Writ Petition filed by
Ramprasad Gupta, the brother of Ramnarayan Gupta. The
witness on his own deposed that, he came to know it
later on. He could not tell as to after how many days
did he come to know it, without perusing the record. On
perusal of record, he could say that, he received
information of the Writ Petition of Ramprasad Gupta, on
13.12.2007, from DG Office through Vashi police
station. The said message was forwarded to him where
he was transferred from Vashi police station. He did
not remember as to whether said message was passed to
him at his new posting or he personally went to Vashi
police station. When asked, as to whether he came to
know about the writ petition filed by Ramprasad Gupta
on or before 11.10.2007, the witness answered that, he
could not tell. He did not know as to whether the said
writ petition was filed challenging the encounter at
Nana Nani Park. He could not tell the date on which he
came to know about the subject matter of the writ
petition but he came to know it through newspapers. He
could not tell the month and the year in which he came
to know about the subject matter of the writ petition.
He could not tell the date prior to 29.3.2008, on which
he came to know about the inquiry before Shri Kulkarni.
He did not collect information prior to 11.10.2007 as
...1381/-
Exh.1124 1381 (J-SC 317/10)
to in which context the inquiry was being held before
the SLAO-IV.
1243. The witness denied that, he deposed for the
first time before this Court that, They also told that
they did not know as to who mentioned name of Aruna
Bheda in the said fax and that, he was deposing false.
He did not state in his statement before the SLAO-IV;
before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over
by Shri Kulkarni and in Report Exh.983 that, On
11.11.2006 at 21.00 hours API Mr. Bamble(SHO) and Mr.
Ambavale (H.C.) reported to him. He did not state in
his statement before the SLAO-IV; before the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by Shri Kulkarni
and in Report Exh.983 that, The report was made to him
after the missing report was entered into the Station
Diary. The SHO also told him that. He stated in his
statement before the SLAO-IV that, Aruna Bheda told
the SHO that she did not send a Fax or did not make a
phone call. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that the said portion appeared in his statement before
the SLAO-IV. He did not state in his Report Exh.983
that, Aruna Bheda told the SHO that she did not send a
Fax or did not make a phone call. He stated in his
statement before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri presided
over by Mr. Kulkarni that, Aruna Bheda told the SHO
that she did not send a fax or did not make a phone
...1382/-
Exh.1124 1382 (J-SC 317/10)
call. The witness denied that, he had deposed false
that the said portion appeared in his statement before
the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. He did not state in
his statement before the SLAO-IV; before the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by Shri Kulkarni
and in Report Exh.983 that, he suggested the SHO to
again call the complaint woman on the following day and
also directed to call the Fax from the Control Room.
1244. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state in his statement before the SLAO-IV; before the
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by Shri
Kulkarni(Exh.984) and in Report Exh.983 that, On
12/11/2006, Sr.P.I.Mr.Shaikh directed him to make
inquiry in respect of the Fax. Exh.986 being a xerox
copy, it did not appear on the said xerox copy that,
the Sr. PI marked the said fax to him. It was the same
copy that he had received. There was no endorsement of
the Sr.PI marking it to him. The witness denied that,
it was false that, the Sr. PI marked the said fax for
inquiry to him. He did not state in his statement
before the SLAO-IV; before the Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri, presided over by Shri Kulkarni (Exh.984) and
in Report Exh.983 that, On 12/11/2006 at 06.00 p.m.
Mrs. Aruna Bheda along-with Mr.Anil Bheda met him. He
did not state in his statement before the Railway
Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by Shri Kulkarni
...1383/-
Exh.1124 1383 (J-SC 317/10)
(Exh.984) and in Report Exh.983 that, On 12/11/2006
they made secret inquiry as regards to the missing
complaint. No information could be gathered therefore
entry to that effect was taken in the Station Diary.
He did not state in his statement before the SLAO-IV;
before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over
by Shri Kulkarni (Exh.984) and in Report Exh.983 that,
ASI Mr.Patil along-with Aruna Bheda, Mr. Anil Bheda
and their statements came to him.
1245. He did not state in his statement before the
SLAO-IV; before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri,
presided over by Shri Kulkarni(Exh.984) and in Report
Exh.983 that, he read the statement given by Mrs.
Aruna Bheda and Mr. Anil Bheda. He read over the Fax to
Mr.Anil Bheda and Mrs. Aruna Bheda and also handed over
the said Fax to them for reading. He asked Mrs. Aruna
Bheda her medium of instructions and as to whether she
was able to read English. She told him that, her medium
of instruction was Gujarati and could read English. He
told Mr.Anil Bheda to read the Fax. Mrs.Aruna Bheda
read the Fax. The witness on his own deposed that,
some portions as regards to showing fax to Aruna Bheda
and Anil Bheda and they stating that the fax was not
sent by them and that they did not know anything about
the fax Exh.984 and in the SLAO-IV statement. The
witness denied that, the portion volunteered by him did
...1384/-
Exh.1124 1384 (J-SC 317/10)
not appear in Exh.984 and in statement before the SLAO-
IV. He did not state in Report Exh.983 that, he again
recorded detailed statement of Mrs. Aruna Bheda in
relation to the said Fax. He stated in his statement
before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by
Shri Kulkarni (Exh.984) that, he again recorded
detailed statement of Mrs. Aruna Bheda in relation to
the said Fax. The witness denied that, on 12.11.2006,
he did not record statement of Aruna Bheda.
1246. Further cross examination of the witness
discloses that, he did not state in Report Exh.983
that, he was informed by Mr.Anil Bheda that, on
11/11/2006 at 10.30 a.m. he went for refilling mobile
and he met his friend Ram Gupta below the building.
From there they went to APMC, Market. After the work at
APMC Market was over they went to Sanpada Railway
Station by an Auto-rickshaw. Ramnarayan Gupta went to
Sion, Mumbai by train and Anil Bheda went to Thane by
Railway. He stated the above mentioned portion before
the SLAO-IV. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that, above mentioned portion was informed by Anil
Bheda to him and that, it was not so mentioned in his
statement before the SLAO-IV. He did not state before
the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by
Shri Kulkarni (Exh.984), Ramnarayan Gupta went to
Sion, Mumbai by train. He did not state before Railway
...1385/-
Exh.1124 1385 (J-SC 317/10)
Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by Shri Kulkarni
(Exh.984) that, Anil Bheda told Jayesh that, he was
going to Shirdi and as to whether he would come to
Shirdi. Jayesh told him that, he would not go to
Shirdi. He did not state in his statement before the
SLAO-IV and in Report Exh.983 that, .........as to
whether he would come to Shirdi. Jayesh told him that,
he would not go to Shirdi. The witness on his own
deposed that, both of them met each other at Thane and
told about going to Shirdi.
1247. The witness deposed that he did not state
before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by
Shri Kulkarni (Exh.984) that, .......reached at Shirdi
in the early morning on 12/11/2006. He offered prayers
to Saibaba. He did not state in Report Exh.983 that,
in the early morning on 12/11/2006. He offered prays
to Saibaba. Then he returned by a Bus. He reached home
at 05.00 p.m. He did not state in his statement before
the SLAO-IV that, On 11/11/2006 Anil Bheda went to
Shirdi and reached at Shirdi in the early morning on
12/11/2006. He offered prayers to Saibaba. Then he
returned by a Bus. He reached home at 05.00 p.m.
1248. The witness further deposed that, he did not
state in his statement before the SLAO-IV and before
the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, presided over by
...1386/-
Exh.1124 1386 (J-SC 317/10)
Shri Kulkarni(Exh.984) that, reminder-1 dtd. 15/1/2007
issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vashi
Division addressed to him. He received the said letter
after the Sr.P.I. had marked it to him. It bore
signature of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr.Ashok
Pandhare. He could identify his signature as he was his
superior. It also bore signature of Mr. Mujib Shaikh.
He could identify his signature. The letter was marked
to him for submitting a report in respect of inquiry
made pertaining to Aruna Bheda. He submitted report.
He sent report dtd. 16/01/2007 through the Sr.P.I. To
the Assistant Commissioner of Police Vashi Division.
The reference in the report might be of the letter and
not of the reminder-1. It bore his signature. Its
contents were true and correct AND he annexed the
xerox copies of statements of witnesses 1.Mr.Anil Bheda
dtd. 07/01/2007, 2.Mrs.Aruna Bheda dtd. 08/01/2007,
3.Mrs. Sharda Shetty dtd. 07/01/2007, 4.Mr.Jayesh
Kesaria dtd. 08/01/2007.
1249. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that, on 11.11.2006, at about 9 pm, Bhamble and
Ambavale reported to him and that on 11.11.2006, during
night time, he came to know that, Ramnarayan Gupta and
Anil Bheda were taken away and encounter of Ramnarayan
Gupta took place at Nana Nani Park and that, therefore,
he did not make inquiry about Ramnarayan Gupta. The
...1387/-
Exh.1124 1387 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that, therefore, he did not make any
inquiry except recording so called statements of Aruna
Bheda and Anil Bheda in Adult Missing Complaint No.
51/06 and that, he did not hold any inquiry in respect
of fax message and that, on 12.11.2006, he did not
record any statement of Aruna Bheda. The witness also
denied that, Aruna Bheda did not state in her statement
portions marked A to G i.e. Exhs.976 to 982 and
that, he, on his own, prepared statement in the name of
Aruna Bheda after 12.11.2006, to help the accused
persons who were from Police Department. The witness
denied that, Anil or Aruna Bheda did not state before
him at any point of time that, Anil had been to Shirdi
and that, statements of Anil Bheda, Aruna Bheda,
Jayesh Karia (Kesaria) and Sharada Shetty dated
07.01.2007 and 08.01.2007 (Articles 126 to 129) were
prepared by him and were not as per their say. The
witness denied that, he obtained their signatures on
already prepared statements by him and that, he
effected false station diary entries with a view to
protect the accused who were from police department and
that, he did not make any inquiry as regards to the
telegrams. The witness further denied that, the accused
persons took him to Railway Mobile Court, Andheri and
to the SLAO-IV and that he gave statements as per the
say of accused persons and that, he submitted a false
report at Exh.983 and that, he had deliberately not
...1388/-
Exh.1124 1388 (J-SC 317/10)
annexed the report dated 27.12.2006 submitted to the
ACP along with the papers before the Court, because it
would have revealed that he did not do anything in the
inquiry. The witness denied that, he deposed false
that, he asked Anil Bheda and that Anil Bheda narrated
the facts before him and that, he did not receive any
letters/ messages from the Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri and the SLAO-IV. The witness denied that, he
deposed false before this Court so as to help accused
persons.
1250. Ld. SPP Ms.Vidya Kasle for the State has
argued that, it is evident that as to how did the team
fix the place there at Southern part of Nana Nani Park
though informant did not suggest any specific part of
it i.e. North JP Road/ South-Juhu Link Road. Reference
was made to Affidavit Exh.848 of Accused No.11 Sartape
in W.P.No.181 of 2009 filed by him. It is shown in para
no.3 and chart of Exh.823. Sr. Nos.1,7 and 8 denotes
near Nana Nani Park and the same case was put to PW-110
DCP Mr. Prasanna. In absence of specification of spot
by informant how trap was laid at Southern side of Nana
Nani Park. Hence, it was argued that, no information
was received, no groups were formed and the accused did
not come there and no encounter at the alleged site
took place. ACP Mr. Awate (PW-63) Exh.566- para 7
learned of firing at 8.00 pm to 8.15 pm from Sr. PI Mr.
...1389/-
Exh.1124 1389 (J-SC 317/10)
Vijay Sonawane of Versova police station. This negates
the contention of accused no.9 as regards to giving
information to ACP Mr. Awate. Cross by defence in para
11 of PW-63 falsifies case of accused no.9 about
information to ACP and nothing has been brought on
record as accused no.9 has declined to cross examine.
DCP PW-61 Mr. Vinaykumar Choube, Exh.517 did not give
evidence of knowing of the firing. Addl.C.P (PW-78) Mr.
Bipin Bihari learned during night time on 11.11.2006
that, there was firing between police and criminal. No
cross to that effect was done, but there were mere
suggestions to PW-110 in para no.343 and para no.254.
Affidavit of accused no.9 was not corroborated by ACP,
DCP and Addl. C.P. Entry Exh.897A of Versova police
station at 18.05 hours of leaving police station on
11.11.2006 for D.N.Nagar was brought on record by
accused no.9 during cross examination. Mr. Bipin Bihari
(PW-78) was not questioned about it. Accused nos.11 and
18 objected to putting questions in respect of Exh.897.
Entry Exh.669 at 18.55 hrs.,(Sr.24) of D.N.Nagar police
station was as regards to PI Suryawanshi and others
leaving police station for Nana Nani Park, but did not
make any reference of orders of superiors and
additional help. Station diary entry Exh.884 (20.15
hours) DN Nagar police station was as regards to parade
conducted by Mr.Ajendrasingh Thakur (PW-87). Accused
No.1 Sharma and Accused no.22 Sarwankar were shown
...1390/-
Exh.1124 1390 (J-SC 317/10)
present at the said parade. But it has come on record
that, Sarwankar was present at the alleged encounter
place and said r= +||=n|= r` 33492 (accused no.20 Sardar)
- A-1 one of those who shot and killed Ramnarayan Gupta.
Entry Exh.884 was made to protect accused no.1 at 20.15
hours in DN Nagar police station. The Duty Order Book
entry Exh.666-A of D.N.Nagar police station dated
11.11.2006 at Sr.No.8 shows accused no.1 as reserved.
Sr. No.18 shows name of Suryawanshi had been cancelled
and added at Sr.No.8. Sr.No.3 Palande was on day duty
and Sarwankar was on duty during night time. This could
be read in connection with Duty Register Exh.208A of
Constables D.N.Nagar police station on 11.11.2006.
Sr.No.510502-Sakpal (accused no.13) is shown assisting
to Police Inspector. Though staff was available
additional help was called from Versova police station.
Entry at Exh.670 D.N. Nagar station diary was entry as
regards to return and as per evidence of Ajendra Thakur
(PW-87), para no.26, it was handwritten by Mr.Patade
(accused no.15) and this entry was against the contents
in Exh.884 (station diary entry). Mr.Ajendrasingh
Thakur, Sr.PI, was kept in dark about the joint
operation of two police stations. He learned it on
wireless between between 8 to 8.30 pm. He was also not
not cross examined about receiving information prior to
the incident. He came to know about the operation on
13.11.2006 from record i.e. Exh.670, entry of return of
...1391/-
Exh.1124 1391 (J-SC 317/10)
staff to D.N.Nagar police station. As per Exh.278 FIR
in CR No.302 of 2006 filed by Pradeep Suryawanshi
(accused no.9) and additional affidavit of accused no.9
Exh.823 as well as evidence of PW-39 discloses that,
two rounds were fired by accused no.9 Suryawanshi and
empties were produced under panchanama. One round was
fired by accused no.15 Palande and empty was produced
under panchanama. One round was fired by accused no.11
Sartape and empty was produced under panchanama. One
round was fired by accused no.22 and empty was produced
under panchanama. Total three bullets were found on the
body of the deceased. One bullet was of Suryawanshi
(accused no.9), one as of Palande (accused no.15) and
one was of Sharma (accused no.1) as per CR No.246 of
2009. As per CR No.302 of 2006 weapons were not sent to
the FSL.
1251. It is further argued on behalf of the
prosecution that, DW-1 Manohar Kulpe, Exh.960, saw 5-6
persons and not more and he did not see firearms in
their hands. He did not see team of accused no.9 and
did not know as to why the per son fell down. Accused
no.15 gave this information to Manohar Kulpe. As per
PW-39, accused no.15 Palande came and gave name and
number of Manohar Kulpe. Record is silent as to who
gave information of Ramrajpalsingh. As per evidence of
this witness, no vehicles were coming and going. The
...1392/-
Exh.1124 1392 (J-SC 317/10)
witness denied that there was traffic only to show that
his view was not obstructed and he saw things clearly.
Omissions in this respect were brought on record
through PW-39. pool of blood (Versova statement),
person falling down holding weapon are the omissions
from all statements of DW-1. He did not know anything
then what prevented him from going to his destination
without going home and also from going to the fallen
person. His conduct is unnatural. He turned to go home,
he should have seen Versova-1 Mobile before leaving
20-28 hours. The witness did not produce any letter of
the SLAO-IV, calling him for statement dated
24.09.2007. It has further brought on record that, the
witness did not refer to gun, the hand and fallen
person, in his statement before Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri.
1252. Versova-1 Mobile was the first vehicle to
reach after the alleged incident dated 11.11.2006 at
20.28 hours. As per PW-26 Anil Kadam. PW-81 Pramod
Sawant (Exh.630) (Wireless operator, peter mobile,
Versova, vehicle of Sr.PI.) Versova removed the injured
at 08.36 pm. Affidavit Exh.823 of PW-39 shows same
fact. PW-51 Anil More (Exh.379) collected samples and
revolver. There was no mention regarding panchanama,
about presence of Sankhe and Harpude. PW-39 Sankhe
recorded statements of those who were members of the
...1393/-
Exh.1124 1393 (J-SC 317/10)
encounter team. Exh.823 affidavit of accused no.9,
Sr.No.7, Exh.278 FIR page no.4 corroborates about the
team members. There was suggestion to PW-110 Mr.
Prasanna as regards to accused attending their duties
and in respect of squad divided into two groups. PW-77
Mahendra Tatkare (Exh.622) Mobile-II Versova
corroborates PW-81. PI Sankhe was at the spot who was
supposed to be in the police station recording the FIR.
There is no mention of recording panchanama.
Suryawanshi was giving bytes to the TV Channels. At
8.35 to 8.40, message was sent to Mobile-II. He
collected articles prior to 9.30 pm. Spot panchanama
Exh.283 was recorded at 11 pm on 11.11.2006 to 1.35 am
on 12.11.2006. Name of Umesh Revandkar, Exh.633,
Detection branch, resumes his duty, but his name was
not reflected in diary Exh.637 of Night Parade. Exh.283
mentions presence of PW-83, PW-73, accused no.9,
Sankhe, accused no.15 and accused no.18. There was no
mention of Mr.Harpude in Exh.283. Other PWs have
referred to him with reference of collecting articles
in plastic bags which were handed over to him. PW-83
has denied contents in Exh.283 and Exh.617 not being at
the spot. He went for patrolling. Panchanama was
written by Kandalgaonkar. There was reference to Exh.
637, which was station diary entry. Vilas Kandalgaonkar
(PW-73), Exh.614 scribe of panchanama Exh.283. Para 3,
omission para 6, para 7 and para 11 falsified FIR,
...1394/-
Exh.1124 1394 (J-SC 317/10)
panchanama and affidavit of accused no.9. He also
falsified the case that panchanama was drawn at the
spot. Timing was also falsified by this witness. Exh.
279 showed that accused no.9 produced empty before Mr.
Sankhe. Finger print report by Mr Sawnat Exh.284. And
Exh.673 was in respect of weapon of the deceased (BL
Report 940/06) in CR No.302/06.
1253. It has been further brought on record that
PW-1 Ramprasad Gupta was at the spot at 10.30 pm.
Panchanama was recorded at 11 pm, accused no.15 Palande
and accused no.18 Patade should have been present
there. On the contrary, PW-2 Ganesh Iyer deposed that,
no one was at the spot. Blood was covered by a paper
and a stone. Evidence of Anil Kadam (Buckle No.970043)
of Versova-I Mobile(PW-26) discloses that, articles and
case papers were handed over to him by doctor at 20.36
hours. He put the injured in the van and at 20.57
hours, reached Cooper Hospital. At 22.30 hours, he went
to Versova. Sartape and Sarwankar, while going to
Cooper Hospital were in the van. Exh.174A is MLC
Register. Entry was made by Dr.Sunil Shinde. There is
description of articles found on the person of the
deceased and handed over to Anil More, Buckle No.
970043. Dr.Shinde did not show injury at the right side
ear in his initial examination and diagram. Articles
were handed over to Duty Officer, PSI Mr. Jadhav
...1395/-
Exh.1124 1395 (J-SC 317/10)
(Articles 11,12,13 and 14). At 22. 30 hours, Sartape
(accused no.11) was in the hospital. PW-11 Dr. Shinde
referred to MLC Exhs.174 and 174A, MLC Register Sr. No.
22278, MLC Register No.45/2006. PW-19 deposed that,
accused no.11 deposited 5 rounds, one round was less as
one round used in CR No.302 of 2006 Versova. Accused
no.11 in his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C did not
answer question no.111 on this point, therefore,
adverse inference be drawn against him. Dr.Sunil Shinde
deposed about clothes and body handed over to PC 970043
and also deposed that, he mentioned injuries cursorily.
Station diary entry Exhs.285 and 285A refer to at 2 am
on 12.11.2006 property taken charge of. Sr.No.2 inquest
mentioned injury at right side ear, which was missing
in the MLC by Dr. Shinde. Empty and bullet in the body
of the deceased was of accused Desai and that of
accused no.1 respectively. There was no mention of two
railway tickets, which were subsequently added. There
was addition in the last line of Muddemal Entry.
Station diary Exh.285A was made after Muddemal Entry.
Station diary entry Exh.287A was in the hand of PSI
Jadhav and railway ticket entry was not there. Exh.299A
and Exh.299 Muddemal Register, Sr. No.8, mentioned
about two railway tickets. Cross examination to that
effect was done to PW-110 Mr. Prasanna and PW-107 Mr.
Chalke. Genuineness was not doubted but as to when the
ticket found place in muddemal were planted later on.
...1396/-
Exh.1124 1396 (J-SC 317/10)
Dr.Gajanan Chavan (PW-29), Exh.236, mentioned PM Report
Exh.237, wherein he mentioned entry wounds 1,2,3,4 and
5. injury one-bullet found on forehead. Injury two-
bullet found over right ear pinna, injury three right
side chest, injury four- entry wound left anterior
chest, one intact bullet retrieved, injury five- entry
wound over left side of chest/ exit wound bullet passed
out. Sr.No.5 mentioned of 'police firing'. There was
no mention of 'encounter'.
1254. By referring to Exh.535, Ld. SPP argued that,
Mobile No.9821552987 of Hitesh Solanki was used by
Accused No.1 Mr.Sharma. There is also reference to Exh.
539- 538, Exh.535, Exh.548, Cell ID 11891, 17691 and
17692 of Nana Nani Park, at internal page no.7 of Exh.
548 are referred to and calls between Mr.Bipin Bihari
on 9892753333 and above mentioned mobile are refereed
to and it is argued that, endevour is made to show
that, accused no.1 was on reserve duty and not part of
encounter team and that, he was not connected but his
location is shown at Nana Nani Park. Accused no.2 was
part of the team and it is argued with reference to
mobile no. 9870341323. Exh.278 FIR, Exh.669 station
diary entry and Exh.521 CDR of Desai (accused no.2) are
referred. At 19.34 hrs., accused no.9 should have been
at Nana Nani Park but his location is DN Nagar police
station till 21.27 hrs. Accused no.3 Ratnakar Kamble is
...1397/-
Exh.1124 1397 (J-SC 317/10)
having mobile no.9870213457. Till 19.33 he is at DN
Nagar, Exh.548. He was keeping watch at Nana Nani Park
as per CR No.302 of 2006. There was no calls since
then he was in Nana Nani Park and continued to be there
till 21.36 hrs., as per Exh.669 and Exh.278. Then there
is reference to SDR/CDR/Cell ID of mobile no.9867156442
of accused no.9. Pradeep Suryawanshi. It is with
reference to Exhs.572,573,579,581,537,571,823,278. Then
with reference to mobile no.9870162052 of accused no.11
Sartape, Exhs.521, 548 are referred. He was one of the
persons who fired and kept watch. Anil Kadam from
Mobile-I corroborates this documentary evidence. Mobile
no.9821247293 stands in the name of accused no.13
Devidas Sakpal as per Exh.521. He called Sarvankar.
There are incoming and outgoing calls from accused no.9
when he was at Juhu Tara Road. There is also reference
to Exh.548.
1255. Mobile No.9870153538 as per Exh.521 stands in
the name of accused no.15 Palande. As per Exh.548,
there is conversation between him and Sharma (accused
no.1) and he is in constant touch with Sarvankar.
Mobile no.9819348210 stands in the name of accused no.
17 Ganesh Harpude. There is reference to Exh.936 CDR.
Mobile no.9870332362 is in the name of Mangesh Sawant
used by accused no.18 Anand Patade. Reference is made
to CDR Exh.521. At the relevant time, he should have
...1398/-
Exh.1124 1398 (J-SC 317/10)
been at Nana Nani Park, but he is in DN Nagar police
station. Pattade and Palande were supposed to guard
pool of blood at Nana Nani Park(Spot), which is
corroborated by PW-1 and PW-2, but when they visited
the spot both of them were not present at the spot.
Mobile No. 9870293395 is in the name of accused no.20
Sandeep Sardar. With reference to Exh.521, he was
supposed to be at Nana Nani Park, but he is at DN Nagar
police station. Mobile No.9870106188 stands in the
name of accused no.22 Sarvankar. With reference to Exh.
521, his location was DN Nagar police station. Prior to
that, his location was at Juhu and he was not present
in the meeting. He is constantly in touch with Palande
(accused no.15) after encounter had taken place. None
of these accused persons were present at the spot since
7 pm onwards and were not keeping watch for Lakhan's
arrival.
1256. Ld. SPP further argued about evidence of
Ballistic Expert Mr.Ghadge(PW-86) Exh.658. Reference is
made to 19 sealed packets, hand wash Exh.673, Exh.14-
empty found on the spot, which tallied with those fired
with Ex.7 belonging to Desai-Butt No.786. It is argued
that, he is not there on the spot as per the location.
He has not fired then how it is so that his empties
were found there on the spot. 18A, 18B, 18C retrieved
from the body of Ramnanarayan Gupta, tallied with
...1399/-
Exh.1124 1399 (J-SC 317/10)
accused no.9's weapon, accused no.1's weapon and
accused no.15's weapon. Accused no.1 was not part of
the team. Entry Exh.884A shows that, accused no.1 was
attending DN Nagar police station at 20.15 hrs. The
Night Call is brought on record by Accused no.15 and
accused no.22. Exh.664 PW-87 Ajendrasingh Thakur in
para 20 of his evidence deposed that, he was not at the
parade but was at Umang Sports Complex. Then there
is reference of conclusion of the SLAO-IV and the NHRC
enquiries in which papers of CR No.302 of 2006 were put
before them. PW-61 Vinaykumar Choube Exh.517 also
deposed on the basis of CR 302/06 and the report. DW-1
Manohar Kulpe is silent about sound coming from the
place where Lakhan was lying. With reference to Exh.399
CDR of Ramrajpal Singh, mobile No.9820323799, it is
argued that, he was regularly in touch with accused no.
1 Pradeep Sharma since 5
th
November 2011 and he did not
disclose name of Mr.Pradeep Sharma. With reference to
evidence of PW-110 Mr. Prasanna Exh.837 and Exhs. 190,
191, 192, it is argued that, case i.e CR No.302 of 2006
was already transferred to Oshiwara police station and
DN Nagar did not have anything to do with it. Even then
Avdhut Chavan sent Exhs.190, 191 and 192 to then CMM
without knowledge of Ajendrasingh Thakur during
pendency of writ petition. Evidence of PW-1
corroborates evidence of PW-110 Prasanna in this
behalf. The order made by Avdhut Chavan was used by
...1400/-
Exh.1124 1400 (J-SC 317/10)
accused Pattade. At the relevant time, he was
intervener in WP No.2473/06. There is reference to Exh.
241, 242, 244, 246, 247 mainly correspondence between
ACP Dattatray Sankhe, Sr.PI Sonone and DCP. Mr.Sankhe
noted down harassment and put it to his superiors. By
referring to evidence of PW -109 Mr. Gaonkar, paras
223- 124 and Exh.907 it is tried to bring on record as
to what extent ACP Mr. Suryawanshi could go to help his
brother. Sartape filed a writ petition 181/2009 Exh.
848 challenging order of Ld. M.M Mrs.Shaikh. There is
reference Exhs.850,851,852,853, 854; SLP Exh.135 and
Vakalatnama of Adv. Mr. Gautam Agaraval for petitioner/
appellant in SLP of adv. Mr. Gautam Agarwal. It is
argued that, statements in SLP and WPs filed by accused
would amount to admissions. A question is raised
whether a 'particular defence' can be used as 'self
incriminating' part or evidence for 'corroboration
against' the said accused.
1257. It is further argued that, Nilesh, who
witnessed the abduction, could not be traced by the
SIT. Dhiraj is owner of Mobile Shop and a friend of
Anil Bheda. A reference is made to the letters sent to
C.M., Dy.C.M on 13.11.2006, to C.P. and SHRC on
14.11.2006 to NHRC on 16.11.2006 and the complainant
receiving calls from PCO about API Prakash Bhandari
taking away Anil and Ramnarayan. There is reference of
...1401/-
Exh.1124 1401 (J-SC 317/10)
Exh.560, 564 and telegram Exh.117, Exh.823 affidavit of
accused no.9, statement of Gangadhar Tukaram Sawant,
having no signature of Dattatray Sankhe. There is
referene to handwriting of Ganesh Iyer Exh.120,
signature of Ganesh Iyer Exh.118, fax Exh.986. Exh.401-
CDR of Ganesh Iyer and Exh.157 PW-3 Shyamsunder Gupta
in respect of mobile no.9867016540. Accused no.13
Sakpal was present at JJ Hospital, PM Center when
Shyamsunder went there to identify dead body of
Ramnarayan and this is corroborated by CDR (Exh.548)-
Exh.564. He is in contact with accused no.9 and accused
no.6. PW-6 Adv. Mr.Mahesh Mule having mobile no.
9820078646, Exh.163 gave fax numbers/ phone numbers.
Mobile no.9820044302 is of Shrirang Shrimane. It is
further argued that, document Exh.668 has been
fabricated by accused no.9 as Exhs.190, 191,192. Duty
Register Entry dated 11.11.2006 Exh.208 does not
mention that PW-20 Sanjeevan Shinge was assisting PI
Crime Mr. Suryawanshi. PW-6 Mahesh Mule is not telling
truth before the Court. PW-8 Amit Jambotkar, Advocate,
is having mobile no.9867588555 having conversation with
Ramprasad Gupta. It is further argued that, Dhiraj
Mehta (PW-38) was selling precious stones as per Zodiac
Signs at Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Trisha
Collections road was not visible from his shop. There
is reference to CDR Exh.543. Hitesh Solanki called to
Dhiraj at 09.10 pm on 11.11.2006. (Cell ID 11891 at
...1402/-
Exh.1124 1402 (J-SC 317/10)
Nana Nani Park. Avi i.e. Santosh Shettiyar is friend
of PW-95 Shashidhar Shetty and their meeting has been
referred to. It is argued that, Sawant and Nilesh could
not be traced. Exh.652 shows location of Lakhan at
relevant time near Reliance, near Trisha Collections.
Exh.685 shows mobile no.9324378877 of Anil Bheda was
used by Lakhan. It is corroborated by PW-38. Aruna
Bheda(PW-40) who has deposed that, mobile no.9323053863
was used by Anil Bheda. There is reference to Exh.443
CDR, Cell ID of mobile no.9769010500 of Adv.Falguni
Brambhatt, Cell ID 11024. Adv.Falguni Brambhatt
appeared for accused no.1, which is not challenged by
the defence. Exh.60 is CDR of Dhiraj of mobile no.
9224394910, cell ID Location 13937 Nerul, Navi Mumbai-
4722- Nerul, Navi Mumbai. CDR corroborated that part of
evidence of Dhiraj. While in Pawai, Falguni was in
constant touch with accused no.4. Exh.585-Avi (Santosh
Shettiyar) and Shailendra (Pinki) were interconnected.
Evidence of PW-38 at page-7 stated about Santosh
Shettiyar.
1258. It is further argued that, constables accused
no.2, accused no.3-Desai and Ratnakar Kamble and
accused no.5 Hitesh Solanki accompanied Aruna Bheda
(PW-40) to Kolhapur. Exh.386 is a letter from the
Principal of the school of Parth Bheda. Exh.387 is the
leaving certificate. Exh.388 is Attendance Register
...1403/-
Exh.1124 1403 (J-SC 317/10)
extract from St.Mary's Multipurpose High School showing
parth was absent. There is reference to threats on
mobile of Anil. Aruna was sent a letter allegedly in
the name of her husband. There is a reference to Exh.
310 Arunas statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and Exh.316 a
letter by Anil allegedly sent by him. WP No.754/11 Exh.
334 was filed by Aruna Bheda, in which she reiterated
the same thing. There is reference to letter Exh.316
and Article 127 signature of Anil Bheda dated
07.01.2007. Exh.523 is SDR of Tanaji Desai, Ratnakar
Kamble and Devidas Sakpal. Exh.539 is site address and
coverage area of cell IDs- November 2006. Exh.679 is
cell ID- tower location of Reliance. Accused no.2 cell
ID is 11373, Vashi Sector 17, BIS Address, Sector 17.
Accused no.3 is having same location of accused no.2
and accused no.3. At 16.08 hrs., there is call of
Tanaji Desai to accused no.4 Shailendra from near Vashi
police station. Meantime, accused no.3 is in touch with
accused no.2. Exh.310 is statement u/s. 164 of Aruna.
In her evidence, PW-40 deposed that, there was danger
to the life of Anil Bheda. He did not disclose the
fact. Exh.539 is CDR, Exh.411 is Cell ID, Exh.550 of
Tanaji Desai's mobile no.9870341323 and Ratnakar
Kamble's mobile no.9870213457. PW-37 referred to to
two PCO numbers i.e. 25099140 and 25150405, which stood
in the name of Ramji Nanji Sangoi (father of Aruna
Bheda at Bhatwadi). Exh.411 discloses that, accused no.
...1404/-
Exh.1124 1404 (J-SC 317/10)
5 used mobile bearing No..9820995118 that stood in the
name of one Shaikh and Aruna contacted on this number,
as per Exhs.411 and 404. There is reference to evidence
of PW-51 Mr. Shankar @ Girish Dal Singh. Exh.750 PW-107
corroborated evidence of PW-1 about going to the office
of C.P, Mumbai. PW-107 Mr. Chalke, Exh.750 deposed in
respect of presence of PW-1 at Crime Branch office,
Navi Mumbai. Exhs.560, 564 are CDR of complaint and
site location Cell ID is 14022-CBD Belapur on
11.11.2006. Exh.401 is of Adv. Ganesh Iyer and PW-1
showing location of Belapur. 0713 is Cell ID of
Matunga. Ganesh Iyer is at Dadar at 18.05, cell ID is
1282- Parsi Colony. At 18.12/ 18.33 he is at Senapati
Bapat Marg and cell ID 17452 Exhs.560,538,564 shows,
PW-1 at Matunga and Dadar at 16.12 hrs. and cell ID is
17452 Matunga, Dadar as per Exh.562 dated 11.11.2006.
There is reference of sending telegram and fax by PW-1.
These are at Exhs.114,115,116,117,118,119,120,129, 130,
133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140. Exhs.126, 127,128
are applications by complainant to various authorities.
Ramnarayan resided with Anil Bheda prior to the
incident. PW-2 Ganesh Iyer (Exh.148) deposed that,
Gupta did not tell about Ramnarayan to Ganesh Iyer or
anybody else. Due to antecedents of Ramnarayan, he did
not want to disclose that he was his brother. Evidence
of PW-4 Wankhede (Exh.158) is as regards to telegrams
Exh.114 to 118 dated 11.11.2006 and receipts Exh.119.
...1405/-
Exh.1124 1405 (J-SC 317/10)
Letter by the SIT is Exh.159 and forwarding letter is
Exh.160. Evidence of PW-5 Rachna Ramesh Vanjare (Exh.
161) is about Exh.129, 130, 131, and 150. Evidence of
PW-41 Vasudeo Channe (Exh.323) is about Exhs.
324,325,325A, 326,326A,327 and that of PW-42 Bhavka
Maruti Bhangare is about Exhs.114, 119 and 329A, 330A.
Then there is reference of telegram received by Mr.
A.N. Roy, then C.P., Mumbai, at Exh.356, C.P. Navi
Mumbai Exh.990 and C.P. Thane Exh.988. PW-44 Arjun
Satam deposed about Exh.349,117,118,119 (Colly.) and
PW-18 Bhimrao Sonawane deposed in respect Exh.198 and
RTI reply Exhs.133,134,199 and 200.
1259. PW-46 Lakkaraju Narsimha Sai Rao, ACP,
referred to entry no.19/2010 and Exhs.352, 353, Station
diary in respect of destruction of original Register
i.e. Charge Book in CP Office, which were of the year
2002 to 2006 and were destroyed on 12.03.2010. Exh.900
is Affidavit of Mr.AN Roy. PW-47 Santosh Naik from CP
Office deposed that, he received the telegram dated
11.11.2006 and its entry was at Exh.355 and 356. PW-49
Ravindra Kulkarni deposed in respect of portion marked
B. His initials were on Exh.356 telegrams and
relevant entry. Exh.694 is an affidavit of PW-92
Mr.Dinkar Thakur in respect of destruction of original
fax message book. Evidence of PW-93 Sadashiv Borale
(Exh.695) is in respect of Exh.696 fax message book
...1406/-
Exh.1124 1406 (J-SC 317/10)
entry in CP, Navi Mumbai Office.
1260. Then Ld. SPP referred to evidence of PW-94
Mr.Sunil Sampatrao Somvanshi (Exh.701) and Station
diary entries Exhs.702, 702A, 703, 703A and that of
DW-2 Dagadu Patil, Exh.973 is in respect of message
station diary entries Exh.974 and Control Room message
at 17.45 hrs. are as regards to missing entry No.51/06
and 18.40 hrs. Exh.306. Ld.SPP also referred to Exhs.
986,987,988,989,990,991,356,307,307A. Aruna did not
disclose fact of abduction and lodged missing complaint
only despite the fact that Dhiraj told her about
abduction. Exh.975 station diary entry dated 12.11.2006
Vashi police station at 18.15, 20.15- Sr. 42- Sr.45 are
referred to by Ld. SPP. Exhs.306 306, 307A, 340, 322
are also referred with reference to evidence of PW-38
Dhiraj Mehta. Aruna and Dhiraj decided further course
of action. At 19.05 hrs. Aruna was in police station.
Station diary entry Exh.974 at 17.45 hrs. states that,
Police Constable Mr.Barve, Buckle No.729, was sent for
enquiry. There is reference to omission from statement
of of Aruna dated 12.11.2006 at Exh.976 to 982 and
statement dated 12.11.2006 were not annexed to report
Exh.983. Exh.993 diary entries of wireless message from
Control Room are referred to. All story is created to
help the accused. On 12.11.2006 Anil returned home,
but meantime, he was not at home. DW-2 did not cross
...1407/-
Exh.1124 1407 (J-SC 317/10)
check the fact of Anil going to Shirdi. There is no
mention of secret enquiry in Exh.983,703,984. It is
further argued that, on 11.11.2006, Anil was picked up.
On 12.11.2006, he was brought at Vashi police station.
Meantime, he was not at home. On 12.11.2006, he was at
Bhatwadi. On 13.11.2006, he was in DN Nagar police
station. Desai, Veeru, Rattu were in the vehicle as per
evidence of PW-1 Ramprasad and PW-32 Sumant Bhosale.
There is reference to evidence of PW-55 Milind Subhash
More at Exh.466 and to entry Exh.467 made by PW Khatal.
The witness referred to panchanama Exh.753 and duty
register Exh.209A of DN Nagar police station dated
12.11.2006. Evidence of PW-43 Madan Tanaji More, Exh.
331 discloses active role of accused no.9. Anil Bheda
was detained in Hotel Mid-town and PW-55 Milind More
deposed about it. He also deposed about accused no.13
Virendra. PW-40 Aruna Bheda also deposed that at 12.15
pm she last saw Anil vide CDR Exh.550 and Exh.411. 164
statement of Aruna Exh.310 also shows this fact.
1261. PW-36 is Sr. Jailer of Thane Central Prison.
Exh.620 is station diary entry about refusal to give
specimen signature and handwriting by accused no.5 vide
Exh.620. PW-76 PH Buckle No.27386, SHO also deposed
this fact. No registers from the Hotel Majestic were
seized. Entry by accused no.5 in Hotel was not brought
on record. Only oral evidence of these witnesses is
...1408/-
Exh.1124 1408 (J-SC 317/10)
available. Exh.411 CDR of accused no.5 is shown in
roaming. Exh.753 is running panchanama and sketch is at
Exh.753A. Aruna pointed out the room of Hotel Majestic
with reference to panchanama Exh.775 and sketch Exh.
775A. PW-110 Mr. Prasanna also deposed in this behalf.
Exhs.670A, 899, 898, 898A, written diary entry by
Encounter Team is also referred. Evidence of PW-107
Mr. Chalke and PW-109 Mr.Gaonkar is also as regards to
running panchanama.
1262. Ld. SPP further argued about evidence as
regards to forming of the squad. Evidence of Sanjeevan
Singh (PW-20), Exh.207 is referred to. It is argued
that, accused nos.2,3,7,9,15,16,18 and 22 were not only
persons from the squad but there were more persons in
the said squad, who are not made accused. Accused no.13
was supposed to work under accused nos.1 and 9, as per
office order. Evidence of PW-25 Dhiraj Koli, Exh.227
PSI, Juhu, is in respect of station diary entry Exh.228
and about deputation of Mr.Kamble to DN Nagar. No diary
entry is there of accused no.3 in DN Nagar police
station stating that, Mr.Kamble joined the police
station. Ld. SPP further argued about, 1)secret
information, 2) Nana Nani Park, 3)Location of encounter
team, 4)location of the team members, 5)spot-location,
6)panchanamas, 7)FIR, 8)medical, 9)Cooper Hospital,
10)Railway Judicial enquiry, 11)eye witnesses in CR
...1409/-
Exh.1124 1409 (J-SC 317/10)
302/06, 12) ACP Suryawanshi- applications for 164
statements, 13) complainant receiving information-
telegrams/fax-Vashi-action thereof, 14)detention of
Anil Bheda, 15)missing complaint/s by Aruna Bheda.
1263. Ld. SPP further referred to PW-32 Sumant
Bhosale Exh.257, PW-43 Madan More Exh.331, PW-45 Naresh
Phalke, Exh.350, duty registers Exhs.208A, 209A, where
duty of accused nos.2,3,7 and 16 is not mentioned in
these registers. PW-55 Milind More deposed in respect
of independent unit of the main police station. PW-72
Mr. Manohar Desai, PSI, at Exh.610 referred to letter
Exhs.611A, 612A, 613A, 628. PC 31241 Tanaji Desai and
VInayak Shinde- PC 31743 were transferred from Crime
Branch Unit-11 to Versova and were deputed to DN Nagar
police station. Exh.687A, 688A are the personal details
diaries of Shinde and Desai. Ld. SPP referred to
question nos. 358, 340 of statement u/s.313 of accused
no.7 and question nos. 358 and 340 of statement u/s.313
of accused no.2. There is reference to evidence of
Bipin Bihari (PW-78), Exh.624, then ACP, West Zone and
that of PW-63 Arun Vasantrao Awate, Exh.566. It is
argued that, accused no.15 was in the squad. Then there
is reference to evidence of PW-79 Prataprao Baburao
Kharate (API), Exh.625 and to Exh.526A Diary about
Shinde and Desai. Exh.613 memo/ letter to DN Nagar
from Versova police station and entry Exh.626A made by
...1410/-
Exh.1124 1410 (J-SC 317/10)
Faniband about Tanaji Desai and Vinayak Shinde. Ld. SPP
referred to statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, question no.357
to which accused no.2 answered that, he did not know.
Accused no.7 answered it is true. Accused no.15 also
answred it to be true. PW-82 Samir Faniband (PSI)
supported contention of PW-79 in respect of Exh.626.
PW-87 Ajendrasingh Thakur, Sr.PI, DN Nagar police
station, Exh.664 deposed in respect of Exh.665A, 666A,
667A, 671A and office order Exh.668 with signature of
accused no.9. Exhs.539 and 543 are CDR of Accused No.
1. On 12.11.2006, accused no.1 was on weekly off, but
was in the police station for whole day, though he
denied to be at police station. PW-90 Sanjay Laxman
Apage, Section Clerk of Versova police station took
personal entries of accused Shinde and accused Desai
vide Exhs.687 and 688. Shinde's mobile stood in the
name of his brother. This fact has been supported by
PW-110 Mr. Prasanna.
1264. Ld. SPP further referred to point of keeping
watch on the deceased since 10.11.2006 and 11.11.2006
with reference to evidence of PW-1 Ramprasad wherein it
was disclosed that, the deceased was residing with Anil
Bheda. PW-3 Shyamsunder Gupta also referred to it.
PW-38 Dhiraj Mehta deposed that, Pandey and Anil Bheda
were close friends. PW-40 Aruna Bheda also deposed
that, Ramnarayan and Dhiraj were friends of Anil and
...1411/-
Exh.1124 1411 (J-SC 317/10)
since 2005 they were on visiting terms. Ld. SPP further
referred to Exhs.571, 572, 573, 576- site location and
Exh.581CDR, Exh.579SDR of accused no.4 Shailendra
Pandey, his location on 10.11.2006 was Vashi
Koparkhairane i.e. Sector 29. Those were 16921, 16922
till 9.48 pm, he contacted accused no.6 and Subhash
Lefty on Chandolkar's mobile. On 11.11.2006, he was at
Koparkhairane, Sector 29- and called Subhash Lefty.
571 Cell ID till 12.26 pm 0.61 am. There is talk
between accused no.4 and accused no.7. He was at Sector
29 at 12:27 pm. Then they moved from Sector 29 to
Sector 19. At 12.59 they were at Airoli. At 1.08 pm,
cell ID is 16171, Bhandup (E) and then at
Bhandup(W)-18381. Subhash Ramji Patel i.e. Subhash
Lefty SDR Exh.431 of Mobile No. 983379277 was in the
name of Chandolkar and was used by Subhash Lefty. It
has been there in evidence of PW-12 Naresh Chandolkar
in Exh.175 and Exhs.421 & 431. Exh.410 CDR of Subhash
Lefty on 10.11.2006 at 00.12 hrs. Cell ID was APMC
Market, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. At 18.29 hrs. he was at
Sector-19A Vashi, at 10.04 hrs. he was at
Koparkhairane, at 19.04 19.21 he was at Koparkhairane,
near a Nala. At 20.24 hrs., he was at Sector 29- Vashi.
At 20.29 hrs., he was at Vashi. At 20.31 hrs., he was
at Koparkhairane and on 11.11.2006, then at 11-09 to
12.25 he was Koparkhairane. At 12.26, he was at APMC
Market, Vashi, at 12.29, he was at Sector 9 in-front
...1412/-
Exh.1124 1412 (J-SC 317/10)
of Trisha Collections and cell ID is 5092, 5091 as per
Exh.406. Location of accused no.7 Vinayak Shinde was
having mobile no. 9820330551 which stood in the name of
his brother Avinash Shinde. CDR/ SDR are at Exhs.455,
688, 409, 406, 421. Residence of accused no.7 is at
Kalwa, Thane. Exh.431 is of Akhil Khan (accused no.6)
of 10.11.2006. His Mobile and Address is at Exhs.
408,421, 406, 431. Cell ID is 21942 (Exh.421)- Mulund
Toll Naka (W). Cell ID 2184 at 19.32 hrs. is Sector 12
Koparkhairane and cell ID is 5001 at 19.41 hrs.- Sector
2, Vashi. Location of accused no.2 Tanaji Desai as on
10.11.2006 is Worli as per Exhs.543, 548 (CDR/ SDR).
At 16.38 hrs., he is shown at Mulund (W) (15003). Then
at Sagar Garden (14401, 18122), then at Vashi (14233
and 14652), then at Diamond Society (10311), Exh.596.
1265. Location of accused no.3 Ratnakar Kamble,
mobile no.9870213457. Exhs.543 and 548 shows his
location. All accused were at Vashi and were in
constant touch with each other. It is on 10.11.2006 and
11.11.2006. Location of Lakhan Bhaiya and Anil Bheda on
10.11.2006 and 11.11.2006 is also shown to be at Vashi.
Then Ld. SPP referred to Exhs.652, 678, 679, 684, 685.
Exh.652 is CDR on 11.11.2006. Exh.692 is also referred
to by Ld. SPP.
...1413/-
Exh.1124 1413 (J-SC 317/10)
1266. Ld. SPP further argued as regards to abduction
by referring to evidence of PW-1 and FIR Exh.121.
Enquiry in CR No.302 of 2006 does not mention that,
Lakhan was wanted except bare words about information
that Lakhan was coming. There was no verification about
Lakhan antecedents. List came on record after the
event. No precautionary measures were taken to arrest
Lakhan. The cases against Lakhan were not from West
Region. Abduction and subsequent killing has nothing to
do with these cases. The motive was not to arrest, but
to abduct and kill, but this could not come on record.
PW-103 Amit Patel Exh.740 has turned hostile. Evidence
of PW-88 Mohammad Usman Lliyas Shaikh, Exh.674 speaks
about accused no.4 Pinki speaking on mobile bearing No.
9821056311 by Pinki on 38 occasions. Evidence of PW-2
Ganesh Iyer, Exh.148, statement of accused no.4
Shailendra u/s.313 Cr.P.C tallies with story of Kulpe.
PW-3 Shyamsunder Gupta, PW-38 Dhiraj Mehta also support
this fact. Exh..753A Sketch of Trisha Collections shows
situation of Shop of Dhiraj Mehta. Exh.312 FIR of Aruna
Bheda at Vashi police station about second abduction
dated 13.03.2011FIR (124/11), Exh.121 FIR 246/09 of
Versova and Exh.335 affidavit are confronted by the
defence. There is evidence of PW-50 Jayesh Kesariya/
Kariya, that of DW-2 Dagadu Patil and that of PW-57-
Girish Dalsingh, Exh.481 along with Exh.703A station
diary entry is referred to by Ld.SPP. There is
...1414/-
Exh.1124 1414 (J-SC 317/10)
reference to Silver Colour Qualis bearing No. MH 04AW
8824 and Mr. Negandhi with reference to mention of
silver colour Qualish vehicle by PW-1, telephone number
and fax messages. PW-16- Sujeet Mhatre, Exh.193 is not
the owner of the vehicle. Ashok Shah was the owner of
the vehicle but he is not examined. Mhatre was in
possession of the vehicle in November 2006. At the
relevant dates, Sunil Solanki (accused no.10) hired the
vehicle from him. Again, evidence of PW-108 Mr.
Ghorpade, API, SIT, Exh.771 and PW-14 Parmanand Sitaram
Desai has been referred to with entry of accused no.10
in BMC Register, Exh.188A showing that, on 9.11.2011,
10.11.2011, 11.11.2011 he was absent. Exh.188 was a
letter by the SIT and Exh.187 was reply to the letter.
Then evidence of PW-107 Mr.Manoj Chalke, PSI, is
referred to in connection with running panchanama dated
19.01.2010 at Exh.753, which started at Trisha, then to
Bhandup Complex, then to DN Nagar police station
backside, hotel Mid Town, Ghatkopar- Bhatwadi and
concluded at F/7 house of Nanji Sangaee. PW-108 Mr.
Ghorpade also deposed in this behalf and in respect of
sketch Exh.753 and Exh.753A. PW-10 Mr.Prasanna also
deposed in this behalf. PW-2 Ganesh Iyer, Exh.148
contradicted evidence of Aruna Bheda.
1267. Then Ld. SPP referred to seizure of weapons
from Naigaon Armoury vide panchanama Exh.232, dated
...1415/-
Exh.1124 1415 (J-SC 317/10)
10.12.2009, panchanama dated 17.12.2009 at Exh.261,
evidence of PW-56 Pravin Purushottam Kasavlekar and
diary entry dated 1.9.2008 at Exh.477, Exh.4 78, Exh.
479, Exh.480 and evidence of PW-98 PI Mr. Dal from
Naigaon Armoury, Exh.713. Then there is reference to
statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C of accused no.1 Pradeep
Sharma and answering it to be true. It is further
argued that, since 01.9.2008 to 12.12.2009, weapon of
accused no.1 was not deposited. On 12.12.2009 the
weapon was deposited as PW-110 called for weapon of
accused no.1 from Naigaon vide letter dated 04.12.2009
at Exh.495. There is reference to seizure of weapons
and evidence of PW-58 Vilas Laxman Uttekar. Seizure
of six cartridges, under panchanama dated 22.3.2010.
Exh.486 referred to handing over the cartridges to Sr.
PI. Then there is evidence of PW-59 Sushil Kamble, PI,
Dharavi, about station diary entry Exh.477, Exh.480,
Exh.478, Exh.488, 479, Exh.491. Then evidence of PW-60
Maruti Yashwant Patil, HC, from Naigaon Armoury is
referred with reference to Exh.593. There is also
reference of Exh.593. There is also reference of Exh.
495A, Exh.493, Exhs. 494, 495, 493A, 496, 497, 497A,
498, 499, 499A, 500, 500A, 501, 501A, 502, 503A, 504A,
505A, 506A, 507A, 508A, 509A, 510A, 512A, 511A, 514A
and Exh.408A and Exh.497A. There is also reference to
evidence of PW-60 about seizure of weapons of accused
no.2. PW-64 Mr.Sawant from Naigaon Armoury, Repair
...1416/-
Exh.1124 1416 (J-SC 317/10)
Section referred to Exhs.478,510,502,500,491 and 478.
There is evidence of PW-66 Shabbir Mehboob Sayyad, Exh.
588, HC from Naigaon Armoury as regards to entry Exh.
589, 590, 592, 591,512 and Art.69 with reference to
Exh.512 and Exh.593 allotted to accused no.1. There is
reference to evidence of PW-67 Manoj Desai, Magazine
Section, Naigaon and weapon butt no.294 allotted to DN
Nagar dated 6.8.1990, Exh.601 taken by accused Pattade
on 11.11.2006, Exh.602, butt no.468 allotted to DN
Nagar police station used by Mr.Sarwankar on
11.11.2006. Exh.603, butt 475 of DN Nagar used by
Accused no.9 on 11.11.2006 and that of PW-80 Pravin
Bhosale, Exh.627, Magazine Section with reference to
Exh.513 pistol butt no. 786 to Tanaji Desai and Exh.
628 letter received by the Armoury. There is also
reference to PW-98 Sandeep Dal and his evidence as
regards to Exhs.488, 476, 479, 502. PW-106- Lalitkumar
Motilal Tak, panch, Exh.749 spoke about seizure of six
rounds from Dharavi police station under panchanama
Exh.486. PW-107 Manoj Chalke spoke about eight weapons
seized under panchanama Exh.232, 261 and station diary
entry Exh.751 and muddemal entry Exh.298. There were
19 sealed packets taken to FSL. Exh.299 is muddemal
entry as regards to Exhs.751,656. The six rounds were
deposited by accused no.1 in Dharavi police station
after his dismissal, though no rounds were issued to
him after year 2001.
...1417/-
Exh.1124 1417 (J-SC 317/10)
1268. Evidence of PW-101 Shreepad Anant Ranjekar,
Exh.726 is argued along with Exhs.727, 728, 731, 733
and 729. Then the question is as to how accused no.1
was in possession of rounds of 2001 that he deposited
in 2008 and as per Exh.733 the rounds were supplied to
Maharashtra Police (ready for supply) in the month of
March, 2002 as per Exhs.729, 730. As per Exh.730 supply
was ready in March, 2002. 60,000 rounds were supplied
on 18.06.2002 vide gate pass No. 534073. Panchanama
Exh.286 in CR 302/06, dated 12.11.2006 shows that,
bullet found in the body of the deceased. Empty
deposited by Sarwankar was KF.98- 380.2 (1), that of
Palande-KF.01 380-2 (1), which tallies with weapon of
Accused no.1 347.38 revolver. Then there is reference
to evidence of PW-108 Mr. Ghorpade, Exh.232 and Exhs.
659, 486. There is also reference of evidence of PW-109
Mr.Gaonkar and Exhs.494, 493A, 495, 496, 727, 728, 833,
834, 839, 840.
1269. Ld. SPP further argued as regards to
weapons of the accused on 11.11.2006, with reference to
evidence of PW-17 Hanumant Girappa Kambli. As per which
butt no.2912 was allotted to Accused no.11 Sartape one
pistol and six rounds (Exh.197) Weapon Movement
Register. One round was found to be deficit. In
Statement 313, accused Sartape has admitted taking
...1418/-
Exh.1124 1418 (J-SC 317/10)
weapons and six rounds, but did not answer question no.
11. He stated that, he did not want to answer. PW-19
Jyotiram Phasale, Exh.201 deposed that, accused Sartape
deposited pistol 2912 and five rounds on 11.11.2006 and
one round was used by him in CR 302/06 (Exh.197 and
Exh.202). Accused Statement question no.161 accused
no.11 Sartape's answer is true. PW-39 Mohandas Sankhe
also deposed that, fifth shot was fired by Accused no.
11. Accused no.11s empty on the spot tallies with
weapon of Accused no.2 Tanaji Desai. Exh.848 is Writ
Petition filed by Accused no.11, challenging Report
filed by MM Court. Then evidence of PW-19 Phasale is
referred to. PW-22 Vishnu Bapurao Khatal who handed
over arms and ammunitions to these accused on
11.11.2006. Exhs.216,217,218,219 were entries in Weapon
Register. Suryawanshi was having Butt No.475 and fired
two rounds and deposited four rounds; Sarvankar was
having butt No.468, who fired one round and deposited
four rounds; Palande was having Butt No.624, who fired
one round and deposited five; Pattade was having Butt
No.294, who fired one round and deposited five rounds
on 12.11.2006. Accused Sarvankar to question Nos.123,
124, 125 about handing over and depositing arms and
ammunitions his answer is I do not know. Then there
is reference to PW-23 Shavaka Tadvi and Exhs.221, 222,
223, 224 and Exhs.216 to 219. PW-39 Mohandas Sankhe
spoke about seizure of two bullet shells under
...1419/-
Exh.1124 1419 (J-SC 317/10)
panchanama Exh.279 from Suryawanshi. (Exh.281
(FIR-302/06). Accused no.9 producing empties Exhs. 282,
285, 287, 297. Accused no.11 tried to cut off himself
from encounter team. But W.P and other evidence show
that, he was part of the encounter team and had fired.
A question was put to PW-110 by the Defence to that
effect. In Statement u/s. 313, accused no.11 admitted
that, additional help was provided (last question).
Consistent stand is not taken by Accused no.11. PW-71
has mistaken Palande and accused no.9. There is
reference to panchanama Exh.286, Intervention
Application in WP 2473/06 was filed by Accused nos.22,
11 and 15.
1270. Ld.SPP further argued about promulgation
against accused nos.20 and 22. Evidence of PW-24 Suraj
Kanojiya, panchanama Exhs.226 and 754 and 755A, panch
witness PW-30 Jitendra Shivekar, supported panchanaam
Exh.239 and proclamation of accused no.20, Exh.24, but
did not fully support Exh.756 station diary. PW-33 Anil
Anant Hegiste has fully supported. There is reference
to evidence of PW-107 Mr.Chalke and PW-109 Gaonkar in
this behalf. Ld.SPP also referred to order of the
Honble High Court at Exhs.155 and 846 as regards to
initiation of action and suspension of accused, who are
police officers. Exh.802 is a copy of police notice of
accused no.22. and Exh.804 is a copy of police notice
...1420/-
Exh.1124 1420 (J-SC 317/10)
in respect of accused no.20, which have come through
evidence of PI Mr.Gaonkar (PW-109). PW-108 API Mr.
Ghorpade also deposed in this behalf. Exh.754 is
proclamation of Accused no.22. SLP filed by accused no.
20 has been dismissed and order of suspension was
passed on 05.07.2010.
1271. Ld. SPP further argued about threats issued
and tampering by the accused persons and then argued
that, C.R.302/06 is nothing but total manipulation.
Reference is made to evidence of Dattatray Sankhe and
Mohan Sankhe, Khandalgaonkar, Revandkar, Avadhoot
Chavan, Ajendra Thakur, PI Sonawane and Exhs.
190,191,192, ACP Suryawanshi's interference after the
report of Railway Mobile Court was there. There was
interference by accused no.9 and also threats to
Railway Mobile Court, with reference to petition no.
10/10 contempt sou moto initiated and decided on
18.1.2011. On 11.4.2011, Honble Supreme Court
dismissed appeal against Honble High Court's order
(reported in 2011 (1) BCR (Cri)703) Exh.374 annexed. A
question is raised as to why accused no.9 from Andheri
called Mr.Sawant for recording his statement.
Mr.Sankhe put those notes before D.C.P., as regards to
pressure by ACP Suryawanshi. PI Sonawane also supported
it. His reply to ACP Sonawane is at Exh.264 and Exh.
242. Evidence of PW-2 Ganesh Iyer shows that, his
...1421/-
Exh.1124 1421 (J-SC 317/10)
statement was recorded by Accused no.9 as per his
desire. All witnesses about Accused no.1 turned hostile
except on the point of the squad and this was an
attempt to defeat ends of justice. There is reference
to evidence of PW-84 Satish Rane, Special MM and T.I.Ps
at Exh.346, Exh.641, Exh.643, Exh.645, Exh.647. All
accused were identified by Anil and accused nos. 2,3,5
were identified by Aruna also. Anil received threats on
10.3.2011, 11.3.2011, 12.3.2011, as he was the only eye
witness. There were threats to Dhiraj Mehta. Santosh
Shettiyar @ Avi is not examined. Falguni Bramhabhatt
was constantly in touch with this witness and tried to
tamper witnesses. There is reference to Exh.886
Progress Report and Art.42. The accused tried to trace
new address of Dhiraj Mehta. PW-40 Aruna Bheda was
asked by accused no.5 to change the area. Article 65
i.e. letter Exh.316 is shown purportedly written by
Anil Bheda. Articles 66, 68 are letters by Aruna dated
21.4.2011 as regards to abduction and threats to the
life of Anil Bheda. Then there is reference to Exh.757
and CD (Article 67). Exh.335- affidavit of Aruna before
Railway Mobile Court. Affidavit of accused no.5 at Exh.
335 mentioned that, A.T.Patil had mediated. SDR/ CDR of
A.T.Patil at Exh.403 showing communication between
Sharma and AT Patil. Cell Site location is at Exh.421
(Sr.No.205) showing location of AT Patil in DN Nagar
police station. Cell Site Location is at Exh.429 Nehru
...1422/-
Exh.1124 1422 (J-SC 317/10)
Nagar, Kurla(East). Ld. SPP also referred to guidelines
in Encounters by Bombay High Court, para 6 Criminal
Manual and Peoples Union V/s. State of Maharashtra,
(1999) 4 Bom. CR 608. There is reference to evidence of
PW-104 AT Patil and Exh.744, his notarized application
dated 31.05.2010, CDR Exh.429 of AT Patil and his
location at the relevant time, Exh.144 statement u/s.
164 dated 02.02.2010. He was aware of cases against
Anil Bheda. Exh.402 is requisition letter by the SIT to
Vodafone. Evidence of PW-107 Mr.Chalke is as regards
to two calls on 12.3.2011 from mobile of Anil Bheda
having heard by him. CDR of Anil Bheda is at Exh.427
and SDR is at Exh.445. The threatening calls on
11.3.2011 were for tampering this witness. This has
also come through evidence of Mr.Gaonkar and Mr.
Ghorpade.
1272. Ld. SPP further argued about mobile no. of
Accused No.1 i.e. 9821552987, which was in the name of
accused no.5 Hitesh Solanki @ Dabbu. All witnesses in
this context turned hostile. Mr.Bipin Bihari stated
that, he did not know as to whom the number belonged
though admitted to have received calls on it. PWs
68,78,104,105,75 have turned hostile. Accused no.5 had
another number in his name i.e. 9821471156, which was
used by himself i.e. Hitesh Solanki. Exh.543 is of Loop
Mobile Company and CDR of Accused No.1. Tower location
...1423/-
Exh.1124 1423 (J-SC 317/10)
and coverage area of cell ID is pinpointing him.
1273. There is also reference to mobile no.
9821433947 of PW-105 Sanjay Vhanmane of Maharashtra
Times Newspaper with reference to CDR Exh.543 showing
outgoing calls to mobile of Mr. Sharma from his mobile
and receiving calls from this witness when Mr. Sharma
was at Delhi. There are CDRs of mobile of accused no.5
Exhs.548, 543, 556 showing location of accused no.1,
which included calls from accused no.5. Accused no.1
and accused no.5 were constantly in touch with each
other and there was constant watch by accused no.5 on
11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006. Ld.SPP further argued
evidence of nodal officers PW-54 Changdeo Godse, PW-97
Mr.Fulkar, PW-62 Rakesehchandra Prajapati, PW-65 Yogesh
Rajapurkar, PW-69 Mr.Shekhar Palande, PW-89 Rajesh
Gaikwad and PW-85 Divakar Rao as regards to requisite
information supplied by the respective nodal officers
to the SIT.
1274. Then Ld.SPP referred to evidence of PW-110
Mr.Prasanna and running panchanama Exh.753 dated
19.3.2010 with reference to Exhs.408,409,410,581,
421,406,409 and presence of accused no.7,contact with
accused no.4, accused no.6, accused no.1 and outgoing
calls from accused no.2. Exh.581 CDR of accused no.4
corresponds to running panchanama. Then there is
...1424/-
Exh.1124 1424 (J-SC 317/10)
reference to Exhs.571,572,573 and 575, call made to
Subhash Lefty, incoming call from accused no.6,
incoming call from accused no.7, call to Subhash Lefty,
persons at different places mentioned in the running
panchanama, including Bhandup Complex, Andheri JP
Nagar, accused no.4 verifying the spot at Nana Nani
Park, and call to accused no.1 from there. It is also
argued that, accused no.6 Akhil Khan @ Bobby resided at
Andheri, but mobile no.9819058070 and the CDR are
corresponding to Running Panchanama showing various
calls from accused no.7, accused no.1, accused no.4 and
accused no.2. Then there is reference to CDR of Tanani
Desai(accused no.2) corresponding to running panchanama
Exh.753 and that of accused no.3 Ratnakar Kamble with
reference to Exh.521 and 548.
1275. Ld. SPP further referred to Ballistic Expert's
evidence with reference to PW-98 Gajanan Chavan Exh.
236, who examined deceased Ramnarayan Gupta in CR
302/06, retrieved bullets from the dead body of Lakhan,
sealed bullets and hand-wash and handed over to PW-81
from Versova. Blood samples, hand-wash and bullets were
handed over. There is reference to evidence of PW-21
Kailash Ekilwale of Versova police station, Exh.210 and
that of PW-39 Mohanlal Sankhe, Exh.277. His evidence
discloses that, weapons were not sent to FSL in C.R.
302/06. Exhs.290, 291, 292, 292B,293, 294, 294A were
...1425/-
Exh.1124 1425 (J-SC 317/10)
letters by Versova to FSL. Exhs.285A is station diary
dated 12.11.2006 of Mr.Sankhe, 287A is station diary of
Accused no.15 and accused no.22 Palande and Sarvankar.
There is reference to articles seized under panchanama
and also panchanama of the spot. Exh.284 is Finger
Print Expert Report. Evidence of PW-53 Vishvajeet
Chavan, PW-91 Sadu Pattade and PW-99 Suresh Nalawade is
as regards to sending muddemal and receipt of muddemal
from FSL. Then there is reference to evidence of PW-107
PSI Chalke of the SIT as regards to taking charge of
muddemal for sending to FSL and documents at Exhs.656,
656A, 251A, 253A, 254A, Exh.764A (panchanama dated
23.6.2010) and that of PW-108 Vinay Ghorpade, Exh.771
with Exh.659 regarding getting back the muddemal. PW-86
Mr.Gautam Ghadge (Ballistic Expert) and his evidence
with reference to articles sent for examination and
opinion, analysis done by him, preparation of hand
notes, photographs in juxtaposition etc. These are his
personal experiments and findings.
1276. Ld. SPP further argued as regards to legal
aspect of the case. She has relied on Prithpal Singh
V/s. State of Punjab, reported in 2011 Laws (SC)
-11-11 (2011 SC Cri R-2-1877, 2011- Crimes (SC) 4, 259.
(paras 2 to 5,7 to 13, 18,20,22 to 27,29,31,33,35 to
38, 41 to 47).
...1426/-
Exh.1124 1426 (J-SC 317/10)
1277. It is argued that, eye witnesses Subhash lefty
and Anil Bheda are not examined. The complainant has
given explanation for not naming accused no.1 in the
FIR Exh.121. Mohandas Sankhe (PW-39) and Subhash Lefty
are not accomplices. It is argued that, conduct of the
accused after incident to screen offence is relevant.
Similar facts found in the reported authority. The
witnesses deposed under pressure of the accused, but
subsequently deposed truth before the SIT. Onus is on
the accused to show whether it was a encounter or
custodial death or the deceased was abducted by the
accused. Burden lies on the accused to show as to what
happened to the deceased.
1278. Ld. SPP further relied on Sucha Singh V/s.
State of Punjab, 2001 SC Ex 00784 on the point of
custodial death and presumption.
1279. Statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C is to be considered
as additional circumstance. Burden of proof and test of
preponderance of probabilities with reference to Sec.
8, 107 and 106 of the Evidence Act has been argued. In
relation of FIR (CR 302/06) the accused have developed
self defence theory. Therefore, burden of proving
circumstances lies on the shoulder of the accused. CR
No.302/06 is nothing but fabrication by the accused as
they have not proved the circumstances. The prosecution
...1427/-
Exh.1124 1427 (J-SC 317/10)
has examined number of witnesses on abduction and
detention of Anil Bheda. What had happened to Anil and
Lakhan was within the knowledge of the accused. Due to
fear of the accused, Anil kept on changing his versions
and discussed it with Aruna.
1280. Ld. SPP further relied on Abuthagir V/s. State
- Laws (SC) 2009-5-54, AIR (SC) 2009-0-2797. Ld SPP
argued that, there is question of delay. As per orders
of the Hon'ble High Court, the SIT was formed hence
there was delay in filing the FIR and investigation.
There is motive for conspiracy when it is said- + + +
|+ - : r|+|, r|+|. The accused were in contact with each
other till abduction and till alleged encounter or
death of Lakhan.
1281. Further reliance is placed on Esher Singh V/s.
State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 SCEX 00314 (paras
24,35,36,39 to 47) and is argued that, elaboration
cannot be termed as discrepancies unless these change
complexion of the case. Since 10.11.2006, movements of
accused were in the form of CDRs and SDRs and those
have been shown. Hence, it is not in bits.
1282. The prosecution has also relied on R. Shaji
V/s. State of Kerala (Laws (SC)- 2013 -02-04) (paras 9
...1428/-
Exh.1124 1428 (J-SC 317/10)
to 13, 15, 16, 20 to 22) and it is argued that, Section
161 can be used for contradiction and omission and
Section 164 statement can be used for contradiction and
corroboration. Quality and not quantity is important.
The prosecution has adduced oral evidence, documentary
evidence, circumstantial evidence and there is a
complete chain of circumstances. Weakness of defence
cannot be strength of the prosecution. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt must be there and chain must be
complete. Onus shifts to accused to show that the
encounter was genuine, when prosecution has established
that it was a fake encounter. If defence fails to
explain, it may be treated as additional/ circumstance.
Evidence of Aruna Bheda is there in this behalf.
Conduct of accused before, at the time and after the
incident by watching, abducting, detaining, murdering
and further detaining Anil Bheda is sufficient proof
against the accused. There is circumstantial evidence
by way of necessary implication. There is meeting of
minds, which is reflected in CDRs, which shows that,
there is sharing of common object. There is evidence of
an accomplice. Reference is made to Section 6 of the
Evidence Act and evidence of Anil Bheda, Aruna Bheda,
(Nilesh) and Dhiraj, in relation to what they told to
each others. Nilesh was witness to the abduction and
his immediate disclosure was to Dhiraj. This would be
a relevant fact. It is further argued that, Anil made
...1429/-
Exh.1124 1429 (J-SC 317/10)
statement to Aruna while offence was continuing and
hence, Section 6 comes into play as it is a relevant
fact forming part of the same transaction. Hence, it is
admissible and relevant and exception to hearsay.
Ld. SPP also relied on- Ratan Singh V/s.
Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 768 (Paras
9,16,17 and 20) with reference to statement u/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C., reliance is also placed on C. Narayanan
(Writer) & Etc. V/s. State of Kerala & Ors, 1992 Cri
L.J 2860 (Paras 5,33 to 35 and 37) with reference to
Sections 6 & 32 and Sec. 11 of the Evidence Act.
Then reliance is also placed on Krishan Kumar
Malik V/s. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 (paras 33
and 37).
Reliance is also placed on Gentela
Vijayavardhan Rao and another V/s. State of A.P.,
(1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 241 (paras 13 to 16, 20)
and it is argued that, there is no time gap in the
present case.
Reliance is also placed on Bhairon Singh V/s.
State of M.P., (2009)13 SCC 80 (paras 18 to 22) It is
as regards to Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
Then further reliance has been placed on
following case laws :-
Javed Alam V/s. State of Chattisgarh and anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 450 (para 19) - Section 6 of the Evidence
Act.
...1430/-
Exh.1124 1430 (J-SC 317/10)
Sukhar V/s. State of U.P., (1999) 9 SCC 507
(Paras 5,6 and 10.) - S.6 of the Evidence Act.
Raja @ Pannadaian @ Madheswaran V/s. The State
of T.N., Cri. Appeal No. 741 of 2005 (Paras
10.1,10.2,2,3,11.1,13.3,13.4,13.5,18)- circumstantial
evidence. Ref. 15 - CDR, Weapons, taking of it- diary
entries, 313 statements- why witness (Aruna) would
falsely implicate these accused -(313 statements) - on
the point of circumstantial evidence.
Bandela Nagaraju V/s. State of A.P., 1984 Cri.
L.J. 674)- about bystanders.
Om Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr. L.J
2419 (Paras 3,4,7,8,10 and 13)hostile witnesses-child
witnesses)- Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
State of Punjab V/s. Karnailsingh, 2003 SC Ex
00721 (paras 6 to 9, 12) - proof beyond reasonable
doubt- About Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2006 SC Ex 00682 = 2006 (10) SCC 681
(Paras 10, 12,14 to 17) - Circumstantial evidence - S.
106, Burden presumption of fact- S. 106 of the
Evidence Act - S.114 presumption-Illustration (e)-
station diary comes under this. - also for 313 Cr.P.C.
Dhanabal & Anr. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 1979
SC Ex 00488- Section 288 of the Cr.P.C. (hostile
witness).
Dewan Chand V/s. State of Delhi, Laws (DLH)-
...1431/-
Exh.1124 1431 (J-SC 317/10)
1999-5-58/DRJ-1999-50-348 (para 2) - Section 6, Section
106 of the Evidence Act and continuing offence of
abduction.
Vikas Chaudhary V/s. State of NCT of Delhi,
(S.C.), Laws (SC)- 2010- 8- 21 (Paras 4,6 and 8) for
continuing offence even after death of victim.
1283. Ld. SPP further argued about Section 8 of the
Evidence Act and submitted that, motive, preparation
and previous or subsequent conduct of the accused is
relevant. Statement of Anil had influenced Kesaria and
he gave correct version to the SIT. Therefore, Section
8 would apply to witness Kesariya. Same is with
Dhiraj, after he gets in formation from Nilesh he
informed brother of the deceased and others.
1284. Reliance has been placed on Satish S/o.
Kondiba Gawali V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (8) LJ
SOFT 50 (Paras 8,9,10,11,13,14, 21 and 22), which is in
respect of Sec.8, Sec.103,106,114 of the Evidence Act
and facts especially within the knowledge of the
accused. Illustration(e) to Section 8 related to CR No.
302/06. Accused no.9 destroyed evidence and produced
false evidence to shield himself and the Encounter
Team. Conduct of the complainant and Aruna Bheda after
Dhiraj informed them is relevant. Analogy of Section 8
would not apply to lodging Missing Report by Aruna
...1432/-
Exh.1124 1432 (J-SC 317/10)
though she knew that Anil was abducted. CR No.302/06 is
concocted story to cover 'murder' of Lakhan under the
garb of encounter. The story is created by the squad
and it is a false story. False evidence is created to
screen previous and subsequent conduct of the
accused by giving colour of self defence by
registering CR No.302/06. Abduction was with intention
to kill and offence continued even after death of
Lakhan till Anil was released on 12
th
or 13
th
December
2011. Conspiracy continued till then. Manohar Kulpe and
Ramrajpal Singh were false witnesses procured by the
present accused in CR No.302/06.
1285. Reliance has been placed on Balram Prasad
Agrawal V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 Supreme Court
1830 (paras 5,10, 11, 12) - Conduct - Section 8 of the
Evidence Act- Section 114 of the Evidence Act - Section
8 relevant para II.
1286. It is argued that, there is presumption to
telegraphic message, but there is no presumption to
the sender. For the same purpose, reliance has been
placed on Mobarik Ali Ahmed V/s. State of Bombay, 1957
SC Ex 00078 AND Distt. Magistrates V/s. R. Kumaravel,
1993 SC Ex 00585 (Paras 4 and 9).

...1433/-
Exh.1124 1433 (J-SC 317/10)
1287. As regards to CDR and SDR, reliance has been
placed on Deepti Anil Devasthali & Anr. V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2009 All MR (Cri) 3547 (paras 23, 24, 29,
32 to 40, 55, 91, 94) AND Gajraj V/s. State (National
Capital Territory of Delhi), Laws (SC) 2011-9-91 (Para
5).
Mohan Singh V/s. State of Bihar, (2011) 3
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 689 = (2011) 9 Supreme Court
Cases 272 (paras 8, 10, 16, 17, 26, 27, 33, 36 and 39).
Vikram Singh v/s. State of Punjab, Laws (SC)-
2010-1-74 (Paras 8,10 and 11).
Reliance has been placed on Chandrasekhar
Sureshchandra Bhatt & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra,
2000 (10) SCC 582 (para 6) on the point of
improvements.
1288. The prosecution further relied on Sone Lal and
others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 SC Ex 00122
(paras 2,11,12,18 and 23) for delay in lodging FIR and
reasonable explanation, presumption u/s. 114 of the
Evidence Act, explanation is not given in 313 Cr.P.C by
accused as regards to the facts which are exclusively
within the knowledge of the accused persons. Reliance
has been placed on Kalpnath Rai V/s. State (Through
CBI), 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 240 (SC) (Paras 19 to 23, 31,
90 to 92, 94 and 95) - evidence of police officers is
acceptable.
...1434/-
Exh.1124 1434 (J-SC 317/10)
Reliance is also placed on Sukhdev Yadav &
Ors. V/s. State of Bihar, 2001 SC Ex -02041 on the
point of minor discrepancies not going to the root of
the case and do not prove to be fatal to the
prosecution case.
Brijpal Singh V/s. State, Cri. Revision
646/2003 (Delhi H.C.) (Paras 18 and 19) has been
relied on for bald denial in statement u/s. 313
Cr.P.C., which can be treated as an additional
circumstance against accused.
Shri Johnson V/s. State of West Bengal, Laws
(CAL)-2005-12-15 (Para 8) has been relied for
contrary stands during trial and during 313 Cr.P.C
statement by the accused.
State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Balu, Laws
(SC)-2004-11-84 (Para 7)- has been relied for 313
Cr.P.C statement and inconsistent stand.
Sidhartha Vashisth @ Manu Sharma V/s. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2010-Laws(SC)-4-62 (Paras 45, 77, 93
to 95, 96, 116, 125, 130 and) has been relied for
313 Cr.P.C statement.
1289. In her reply arguments, Ld.SPP has referred to
Exh.751, Exh.283, Exh.251, Exh.658, Exh.656, Exh.656-A,
Exh.718, Exh.657 and has submitted that, mistake is
found only in office copy and entry in respect of KF 9
mm 2Z94 empty, but it is not in the original Exh.656A.
...1435/-
Exh.1124 1435 (J-SC 317/10)
All the injuries are not at front side. Pages 18, 19,
20 of Exh.657 are referred. Bullet Exh.18A (P18)
tallies with accused no.9's weapon, bullet Exh.18B(P19)
deformed bullet is of accused no.1's weapon, bullet
Exh.18C (P20) deformed bullet is of accused no.15's
weapon. Head injuries were caused by accused no.9 and
accused no.15. Bullet of A-18 pierced the heart. Then
Exhs.497A, 498A, 499A, 504A, 505A, 506A, 507A, 508A,
509A, Exh.279 panchanama dated 11.11.2006, Exh.286
panchanama dated 11.11.2006, Exh.232 panchanama
prepared by Mr.Chalke are referred to. CDR Exh.523 of
accused no.2 - 171 calls, Exh.550- accused no.2- 155
calls, Exh.597- PW-1 - 248 calls, Exh.560 PW-1 - 250
calls and Exh.550 155 calls are referred to. Two
calls are repeated hence, tally comes to 248 as in Exh.
597. Then Cell ID at Exh.679, Exh.548, Exh.579 are
referred to.
1290. It is further argued that, weapon of accused
no.7 was not seized. Accused no.7 was not a member of
the encounter team. Name of accused no.7 was not
furnished by police station. Accused no.2's name was
not supplied but weapon was in his name. There is no
selective seizure of weapons as accused no.1's name
was disclosed in FIR. Calls were received by Anil
Bheda by PW-108 on 12.3.2011 prior to second abduction.
Only 22 calls were received by PW-108. Mobile of
...1436/-
Exh.1124 1436 (J-SC 317/10)
Manohar Kulpe started operating in the year 2007 (Exh.
579). Evidence of PWs 109, 110 clearly stated about the
case diary. Exh.463 is Tower location, Exh.459 is
incorrect cell explanation, Exh.435 is coverage area of
tower location, Exh.406 is specific location of a
particular place, Exh.443 is coverage area of tower
location of Exh.427, Exh.441 is coverage area of tower
location in Exh.429, Exh.564 is coverage area of tower
location in Exh.557, Exh.596 is specific location of
the place, Exh.575 is coverage area of some of the
tower locations in Exh.571, Exh.573 is the specific
location. It is further argued that, format keeps on
changing from time to time. Change in format is of no
consequence.
1291. Then there is reference of Exhs.585 CDR of
Bharati Airtel of accused no.4. There is also reference
to absence of slab due to some printing problem. Then
Exh.21 is referred to and it is argued that, question
of sanction does not arise as the act done while
discharging their official duties.
1292. Ld. SPP also relied on following case laws:-
1) Choudhory Parveen Sultana V/s. State
of West Bengal & Anr., reported in
2009(4)L J SOFT (SC) 38. (Paras
6,7,8,9,14 and 16) for 197 Cr.P.C.
...1437/-
Exh.1124 1437 (J-SC 317/10)
2) Ganesh Lal V/s.State of Maharashtra,
reported in 1992 SC Ex 00306- (Paras 9
and 10)- for belated FIR and motive.
3) Rupsinghbhai Punabhai Patel V/s.
State of Gujarat, reported in Laws
(GJH) 2006932 - (Paras 7,8) -for
non- examination of P.Ws adverse
inference.
4) Ramnathan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 1976 SC Ex 00132-
(Ballistic Expert)
5) State of M.P. V/s. Paltan Mallah,
reported in 2005- Laws (SC)-1-39 -
(Paras 35,36 and 37).
6) Satyavirsingh Rathi V/s. State, through
CBI, reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 2908
(paras 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 38, 40, 42, 44)
on the point of fake encounter (Delhi Case)
and sanction to prosecute u/s. 197 Cr.P.C.
1293. Original Complainant/ first informant Mr.
Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta submitted written arguments
at Exh.1086.
1294. Legal issues involved in this case are
discussed by the complainant. It is argued that, the
accused cannot take two contrary stands; 1) killing of
...1438/-
Exh.1124 1438 (J-SC 317/10)
the deceased in the right of private defence and that
of 2) plea of total denial. Reference is made to
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further
argued that, C.R.No.302 of 2006 cannot be thrown
straightway, as it was the first cooked up story by
the accused by misuse of their power and position.
They misguided other authorities including Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court. It caused a long
delay for registration of the offence and
investigation. The accused cannot take benefit of it.
All affidavits and statements are relevant under
Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The statements and
affidavits filed by the accused persons can be looked
into and can be used as incriminating material against
the accused.
1295. It is further submitted that, the accused are
not entitled to protection u/s. 197 of the Cr.P.C as
the acts done by the accused were not done while
discharging their official duties in the capacity of
government servants. The question is raised as to why
the accused did not arrest the deceased u/s. 41 of
Cr.P.C. Even a civilian also can effect arrest as
mentioned in Sec. 43 of the Cr.P.C., but in this case
civilians acted as henchmen and abducted the deceased.
Some of them were active at all places. They did not
come forward to tell truth before the Magistrates
...1439/-
Exh.1124 1439 (J-SC 317/10)
during enquiry made by them. They were actively
involved in the commission of the offence of abduction
and murder.
1296. Contradictory versions of the witnesses are to
be looked with care and caution and one has to look for
corroboration. Though there are two contradictory
statements of PW-40 and PW-50 before the investigating
officer and before PW-38, the witnesses have explained
the factual situation in which they gave those
statements. Therefore, evidence of PW-38, PW-40 and
PW-50 has to be relied on. Evidence of PW-38 and PW-40
is covered u/s.6 of the Evidence Act. Evidence of PW-50
is admissible u/s.8 of the Evidence Act. Evidence of
PWs-39, 78 and 87 show that some part of their evidence
is true and some is false, but those are separable. The
accused persons made false record, fabricated record so
as to defeat ends of justice. Those are relevant u/s.8
of the Evidence Act, showing previous and subsequent
conduct of the accused for e.g., Station diary entry of
DN Nagar Exhs.669 and 670- CR No.302/06 of Versova
police station, revolver and rounds planted upon the
deceased, railway tickets planted upon the deceased,
false spot panchanama prepared by accused no.9, false
statement given by accused nos.2,3,11,13,15 to 20 and
22 in CR No.302/06. The story of Anil Bheda going to
Shirdi is also created by the accused. Present case is
...1440/-
Exh.1124 1440 (J-SC 317/10)
an extra-ordinary case and requires some special
consideration. The accused were from law enforcement
agencies and are in the dock and they have taken every
possible step to destroy evidence and/or to create
false evidence to support the theory of police
encounter. The accused are responsible for delay in
investigation of this case and for creating false
record of CR No.302/06. After lapse of a period of
three years, it is not possible to collect each and
every minute detail and evidence. Murder of Anil Bheda
just before when he was expected to depose before the
Court is also a point of consideration. Rigid rule of
burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt may not be
looked for in this case. Normal human behaviour and
tendency precluded the witnesses from coming forward in
this case and to reveal the truth and to state
falsehood and to create false record to save their
colleagues, as it was done in CR 302/06. There is
variation in the statements of witnesses.
1297. It was a stage-managed encounter. Then in
brief, the complainant has discussed the FIR in CR
246/09 and investigation carried out by the SIT, as
well as FIR Exh.121, receipt of information of
abduction by PW-3 and absence of information to others,
sending telegrams and fax by the complainant in the
name of Aruna Bheda, original telegram booking form and
...1441/-
Exh.1124 1441 (J-SC 317/10)
fax, receipt of telegram and fax by the authorities
concerned, reason for sending telegrams and fax in
Aruna's name by PW-1 and PW-2. Sec.88 of the Evidence
Act is also discussed stating that, presumption of
receipt of telegram is there once it is sent, but this
presumption is not about its sender. Then there is
discussion about adult missing complaint no.51/06 of
Anil Bheda filed by his wife Aruna Bheda (PW-40) and
CDR Exhs.652,683 and cell ID Exh.685, which shows that,
the deceased and Anil were at home at least till 11.51
am when the deceased called PW-38 which showed that,
Anil did not leave the home at 10.30 am. It is further
discussed as to why PW-40 Aruna filed missing complaint
of Anil instead of complaint of abduction of Anil and
the deceased. PW-38 and PW-40 were mainly interested in
Anil and PW-1 was stranger for them. PW-40 being a
housewife could not have dared to lodge complaint of
abduction. Due to fear, she might not have dared to
lodge complaint about the deceased. Even then, it was
an indirect complaint about the deceased. PW-38 got
knowledge that the deceased was belonging to a gang and
therefore, he was afraid and hence, complaint about the
deceased was not lodged. Then the point of going to
Belapur for enquiry is discussed.
1298. Further point of argument is as regards to
detention of Anil for about a month and evidence of the
...1442/-
Exh.1124 1442 (J-SC 317/10)
witnesses on that point entry in Hotel Majestic and
Hotel Mid-town. Then intimation and tampering with the
witnesses by the accused, who are police personnel is
also discussed by referring to various witnesses.
There is also a reference to intimidation to Ld. MM
Smt.R.K.Shaikh by accused no.9 and SMCP 10/10 and
conviction of accused no.9. PW-1 did not disclose name
of Dhiraj thinking that there would be danger to his
life. A false story put of Anil going to Shirdi was
created by the accused persons as he never visited
Shirdi. Anil and PW-40 Aruna were forced to give false
statements and did not tell truth during the course of
enquiry and investigation of CR 302/06, before Ld. MM
and before SLAO-IV, as they were under duress. Exh.340
statement of Aruna is a fabricated document.
1299. Then, how watch on the deceased was kept is
discussed further with reference to CRS/SDR and cell ID
as mentioned in the chart. Date, time and place of the
abduction and evidence about it of the prosecution
witnesses, CDRs, SDRs and cell IDs have been discussed.
It is further argued that, Accused nos.4,7,8,10,12 and
21 actually abducted the deceased from in front of
Trisha Collection. Subhash Patel (Lefty) acted as an
informer for the accused. CDR, SDR and cell IDS of
Subhas (Lefty) are discussed on this point. Route of
abduction is further discussed. The deceased and Anil
...1443/-
Exh.1124 1443 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda were last seen in front of Trisha Collection,
Sector 9 by PW-38 and Nilesh at about 12.40 pm. Nilesh
is the only eye witness, but he could not be traced and
examined by the prosecution. Pws-1,2,3,38, 40 and 57
have deposed about abduction between 12.35 to 12.40 pm.
Inference can be drawn that, the deceased and Anil were
in custody of the accused persons and death of
Ramnarayan was caused while he was in police custody.
His death had not taken place at the spot alleged by
the police. It has been observed in the order dated
13.08.2009 (Exh.154) by the Hon'ble High Court. PW-1
did not disclose role of accused no.1 in other
proceeding till filing of the FIR as he saw danger and
threats to the life of Anil and his fear was well
founded and unfortunately became true as on 13.3.2011
before his deposition Anil was abducted and murdered.
He received threats between 10.3.2011 and 12.3.2011.
Name as PS appeared in the conversation. Due to
abduction and death of Anil, his evidence could not be
recorded. There is reference to CDR Exh.445 and cell
ID Exh.427, CD prepared by PW-108 and transcript (Art.
67A) and oral evidence of PW-107, PW-108, PW-109 and
PW-110.
1300. Then there is submission as regards to the
alleged squad of accused no.1 Pradeep Sharma and
evidence adduced on this point. Thereafter, there is
...1444/-
Exh.1124 1444 (J-SC 317/10)
evidence of users of mobile, relations between the
users and the registered owner, location of mobile
numbers such as near residence, work place and daily
visit places, contact with people inter-se contacts
etc. It is also argued that, accused no.1 was user of
mobile no.9821552987 and PW-78 Mr.Bipin Bihari using
phone no.9892753333 which stood in the name of his
friend, his contacts with mobile no.9821552987, CDR
Exh.543, mobile nos.9821471156 and 9821552987 both
registered in the name of Accused no.5 and inter-se
contacts between those two numbers, evidence of PW-68
Geetanjali Datar and mobile no.9969062638 and mobile
no.9821552987 and inter-se contacts. Then there is talk
of PW-75 from his mobile nos.9869054730 and 9892247367
with mobile no.9821552987, as per CDR Exh.543. Accused
no.7 used mobile no.9820330551, accused no.5 used
mobile no.9820995118, its CDR and SDR analysis Exh.455,
Exh.688 (personal details register of accused no.7),
Exh.687 (personal details register of accused no.2),
CDR Exh.411 and Exh.270 are discussed.
1301. Thereafter, there is submission as regards to
possession of weapons on 11.11.2006 by accused no.1,
Butt No.347 of Rugar Company (Art.69), accused no.2 was
possessing pistol Butt No.786 (Art.23), accused no.11
was possessing pistol Butt No.2912 and 6 rounds and
evidence of PW-22, PW-60, PW-64, PW-66, PW-67 and PW-80
...1445/-
Exh.1124 1445 (J-SC 317/10)
and as regards to disbursement of weapons and seizure
of the same. Then it is argued that, Exh.478 and Exh.
491 are the same documents. Exh.491 is office copy of
Dharavi police station and Exh.478 is original letter
of Dharavi police station sent to Naigaon Armoury,
along with revolver butt no.347. Then there is
reference to collection of information of weapon by
raiding party and demand of weapons by the SIT. Then
there is reference to seizure of articles by the SIT
and depositing it to the FSL. It is argued that, the
allegation that the arms and ammunitions were not in
sealed condition are not correct and argued that, the
ammunitions were lying with proper custodian, in normal
course and were not concerned with any offence or
investigation. Hence defence say that, arms and
ammunitions lying with them in the open condition does
not have any substance. Then there is reference of
custody of weapon and 6 rounds of accused no.1 with
Dharavi police station. There is manipulation of rounds
by accused no.1. Evidence of PWs-66,59,98,60,
58,101,106, 107, 108 and 109 has been referred to in
this behalf.
1302. Then there is reference to seizure of articles
and FSL evidence as regards to CR No.302/06 with
reference to evidence of PWs 39, 71, 29, 21 and 91.
Evidence as regards to intact and deformed bullet with
...1446/-
Exh.1124 1446 (J-SC 317/10)
reference to evidence of PW-29 PM Notes, Exh.237 are
referred to. There is also reference to Exhs.253, 253A,
and ballistic evidence. There is specific mention that
ballistic evidence proved that, bullet produced by
accused no.22 was not fired from his revolver, but it
was fired by revolver Art.59 of accused no.1 and empty
found on the spot was fired from pistol, Art.23 of
accused no.2, who was member of the encounter team but
did not fire as per CR No.302/06. There is reference to
hand notes Exh.657 and it is submitted that, the
allegations of tampering has been ruled out in view of
Exhs.251, 253, 656, 751 and evidence of PWs-39, 53, 91
and 107. It is further argued that, there are no
loopholes in the report. The report was based on the
specific classification made by the SIT in respect of 8
weapons sent to the FSL. Accused no.18 did not fire and
by mistake the SIT took charge of pistol, butt No.2915.
The Ballistic Expert is having vast experience and has
carried out proper examination. There is reference to
receiving articles from CR 302/06 by FSL, examination
by PW-86, then receipt of articles in CR NO.246/09 by
FSL, report Exh.251A and Exh.658 prepared by PW-86,
matching of crime articles, identification of the
articles in the Court, result of analysis, individual
characteristics of each and every weapon, comparison of
fired bullets, cross examination of PW-86 is on the
point of negative evidence, comparison of photographs
...1447/-
Exh.1124 1447 (J-SC 317/10)
with and without naked eye, evidence of CDR and its
mirror image is discussed. Allegations of suppression
of CDRs of mobile no. 9324349531 and 9323459998. It is
argued that, there was no question of suppression, but
record was not available. Then point of certificate to
be issued by the Nodal Officers, storing of data and
old CDRs, tower locations and cell IDs, mistakes in
address of Cell ID, coverage area, maintenance of Cell
ID and Customer Application Form, same address and
different address, difference of time between record of
two companies and ambiguity in Exhs.528 and 535 and
Exhs.679 and 685, Exhs.459 and 464, Exhs.595 and 597,
DN Nagar Police station situated in Esic Nagar. It is
argued that, the cross examination is misleading and
confusing, conspiracy part and role of individual
accused against individual accused with reference to
accused nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 13, 15,
16, 17, 19, 20, 18 and 22 has been discussed. Accused
have taken contradictory stands. Reference is made to
the cross examination done by different accused
persons.
1303. Then there is reference to charge u/s. 174(A)
of the IPC against accused nos. 20 and 22, with
reference to evidence of PW-24,PW-107,PW-30, PW-109,
Exh.846, order dated 5.7.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court
in respect of action to be taken against accused nos.20
...1448/-
Exh.1124 1448 (J-SC 317/10)
and 22, SLP Exh.135 (140). It is further argued that,
there is afterthought defence by these accused and has
no substance in it and charge u/s.174 is proved against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
1304. Then there is reference to TI Parades. It is
argued that, adverse inference has to be drawn against
accused no.5. Then case of accused persons in CR 302/06
is discussed. Thereafter, defence taken by accused nos.
2,3,9,11,13, 15 to 20 and 22 is referred to and it is
submitted that, they have supported case of CR No.
302/06 and that they killed the deceased in their right
of private defence as the deceased had fired at them.
They created false, fabricated document to justify
their act i.e. murder of the deceased committed by them
in pursuance to the conspiracy hatched by them by way
of the encounter. Evidence of Exhs.897,669,670, FIR
Exh.278, statements of accused nos.2,3,11,13,15 to 20
and 22 who gave their statements in CR No.302/06
claiming death of the deceased and also before the
SLAO-IV, Bandra. There is reference to Exhs.
850,851,852,823,901,902, Arts.120,121 and 123 and W.P.
No.181 of 2009 (Exh.848) challenging report of Ld. M.M.
Mrs.R.K.Shaikh. The accused have created false and
fabricated evidence as regards to receipt of the
information by accused no.9, it being a vague
information and passing of the same by accused no.9
...1449/-
Exh.1124 1449 (J-SC 317/10)
(Exhs.278,823,848), fabrication of station diary entry
Exh.897, meeting in the cabin of accused no.9 at 18.20
hours, CDR Exh.581, cell ID Exh.571 shows that, he was
somewhere else and not in DN Nagar police station.
There is refernce to CDR Exhs.521, 936, cell IDs Exhs.
421 of accused no.17, CDR Exh.521 and Cell ID Exh.548
of accused no.22, trap at the spot by the encounter
team from 19.10 hrs., revolver and rounds planted upon
the deceased, empty not found in alleged revolver,
false story of firing by the deceased, firing by
accused persons in self defence and so also to save
public at large, firing by accused nos.11 and 22,
accused no.9 giving information to West Control Room,
request to shift the injured to the hospital, request
made by accused no.9 and others to shift the injured to
the hospital, guarding of spot by accused nos.15, 18
and staff, additional help, fabrication and false
record created by PW-39 and ante-timed FIR and
intimation of death of the deceased by accused no.9 to
accused no.22. Then there is reference to evidence of
PW-81 and Exh.123 CD of Sahara Samay. CDR of accused
no.9 Exh.581 and Exh.521 and that of accused no.22,
collection of articles from the alleged spot with
reference to Exh.283 and evidence of PW-51,PW-81 and
PW-77. Then there is reference to fabrication of
station diary entry Exh.617 by PW-39 and recording of
false and fabricated panchanama Exh.283 by PW-39. CDR
...1450/-
Exh.1124 1450 (J-SC 317/10)
Exh.560, cell ID Exh.548, CDR Exh.579, cell ID Exhs.
572,573, 571, CDR Exh.401, cell ID Exh.421 are referred
to. Then there is reference to evidence of PW-73, PW-83
and CDR Exh.581, cell ID Exh.572, 573, spot panchanama
Exh.283, Exh.123 CD of Sahara News channel produced by
PW-1,CD Exh.739, produced by PW-102, which corroborates
PWs-51, 77, 81 and 83. The panchas of the alleged
panchanamas were habitual panchas and readymade
panchanama was got signed from them. There is reference
to blood, blood mixed soil and soil from the spot.
There is also reference of railway tickets, Exh.174 MLC
Register does not mention any railway ticket. Then
there is reference to evidence of PW-11 Dr.Shinde,
PW-26, station diary entry Exh.285, panchanama Exh.764
and alcohol found in the blood of the deceased as per
Exh.249. It is further argued that, Manohar Kulpe
(PW-39) is a got up witness. Ramrajpal Singh has not
been examined by the prosecution or by defence.
1305. Then there is argument as regards to
circumstances falsifying Nana Nani Park as place of
offence with reference to blood on the spot, non-
finding of exit wound shell and shell of the deceased,
misuse of the power by ACP Suryawanshi to create false
record, investigation by accused no.9 though it was
shown to be investigated by PW-39, story created of
genuine encounter, weapons were not sent for
...1451/-
Exh.1124 1451 (J-SC 317/10)
examination, motive and criminal antecedents of the
deceased, nature of injuries.
1306. Then there is further argument as regards to
examination of material witnesses, non-examination of
Nilesh, non-examination of nearby shop owners of Trisha
Collections and witnesses from Hotel Majestic and Mid-
town, statements of witnesses u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. and
delay due to reluctance of witnesses coming forward,
producing of all necessary statements and documents by
the prosecution.
1307. There is further argument as regards to some
minor discrepancy in oral evidence. It is argued that,
the discrepancies in fact show truthfulness of these
witnesses as they deposed after 6 years of the
incident. Reference is made to evidence of PW-38,
PW-40, PW-50 and PW-19. It is further argued that, this
is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution has proved presence of the deceased and
Anil Bheda at Sector 29 up to 12.15, presence of
accused no.4 till 12.26 pm, presence of accused no.7
till 12.21 and that of Subhash Lefty till 12.25 pm with
other accused at/ near Sector 29, continuous talk
between accused no.4 and accused no.7 for about 554
seconds, disappearance of the deceased and Anil Bheda
from in front of Trisha Collections, Sector 9, Vashi,
...1452/-
Exh.1124 1452 (J-SC 317/10)
Navi Mumbai between 12.35 pm to 12.40 pm. Being last
call of the deceased at 12.33 pm which lasted for 110
seconds and information to PW-38 by Nilesh at 12.40
about abduction, presence of accused no.4, accused no.7
with other accused and Lefty near Trish Collections at
about 12.39 pm, call by accused no.7 to accused no.1
from Sector 9 and by accused no.4 to Lefty at 12.39
from near Sector 9, immediate communication between
accused persons, information of abduction to PW-1 and
sending telegrams and fax, movements of accused no.4
and accused no.7 from Vashi, Sector 9 to near Bhandup
Complex and accused nos.2,3 and 6 from Andheri to near
Bhandup Complex and then Andheri, DN Nagar police
station, disappearance of the deceased and then
appearance of the deceased by way of encounter at Nana
Nani Park, whereabouts of Anil were not known till he
was brought to Vashi police station, lodging of the
false FIR CR NO.302/06 by accused no.9 supported by
accused nos.2, 3, 11, 13, 15 to 20 and 22 and creating
false and fabricated documents by the accused, causing
Anil to give false statement, planting of revolver,
bullets upon the deceased, no sound of firing heard by
DW-2, planting of railway tickets, illegal detention of
Anil for about a month, illegal squad of accused no.1
consisting of Accused nos.2,3,7,15 and 16 being police
personnel and civilians consisting of accused nos.5, 6
and close association of accused no.4, presence of
...1453/-
Exh.1124 1453 (J-SC 317/10)
accused nos.4,5,6 and 7 at D.N.Nagar police station,
presence of accused nos.6 and 7 at the relevant time
near Nana Nani Park, bullets produced by accused no.22
and one of the bullets retrieved from the body is
tallying with revolver of accused no.1 though he was
not member of encounter team, bullet found at the
alleged spot tallying with weapon of accused no.2
though he did not fire and accused nos.20 and 22
present at the police station at 08.15 pm though both
were members of the encounter team. The diagram
attached to the written arguments shows entry wounds
and exit wounds on the person of the deceased.
(Complainant Mr.Ramprasad Gupta has also placed on
record CDRs/ SDRs. Relevant CDRs/ SDRs are referred to
above).
1308. Ld.Advocate Mr.Ponda for accused no.1 argued
in respect of charges i.e. Charge (1)- abduction and
murder against accused nos.1 and 2-conspiracy to abduct
for murder; Charge (10) against accused no.1 and
argued that, absolutely there is no legal evidence
except from the mouth of Anil Bheda, who was
subsequently abducted on 12
th
. His statement is not
admissible. Hence charge fails. Statement of Anil Bheda
before talks to Mr. DB Patil and wife Aruna shows that,
there was change in version. Charge (11)- abatement
u/s. 364, 365 of IPC. Charge(12)- abduction u/s. 368 of
...1454/-
Exh.1124 1454 (J-SC 317/10)
IPC. Charge (13) wrongful confinement of Anil Bheda
since 11.11.2006. Ld. Advocate argued that, accused no.
1 did not confine Anil Bheda. Charge (15) is of Murder
of Ramnarayan @ Lakhan. It is argued that, abduction,
thereafter bringing to DN Nagar, then to Nana Nani Park
and circumstances such as bullet found fired from
accused no.1's revolver are made against accused no.1.
Charge (18) is u/s.201 for making or disappearing
evidence. Charge (20) u/s.201, 109, 120B of IPC. It is
argued that, the prosecution failed to discharge burden
of proof.
1309. Ld. Advocate relied on following case laws:-
1. Dhanpal V/s. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras,
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2549, (paras 20, 21 and 22)
2. State, Through CBI V/s. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR
2011 Supreme Court, 1017 (Para 19)
3. Babu V/s. State of Kerala, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3342
(Para 24),
4.State of West Bengal V/s. Mir Mohammad Omar, &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2988 (paras 30 to 34,36 to 38).
1310. By referring above paras from the above noted
citations, Ld. Advocate for accused no.1 argued that,
initial burden of proof lies on shoulder of the
prosecution. There is no legal evidence or proof and
fundamental foundational facts are not established by
...1455/-
Exh.1124 1455 (J-SC 317/10)
the prosecution. Ld. Advocate further referred to -
(5) P. Mani V/s. State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC
1319(1) (Para 10).
1311. He referred to Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act and argued the point of 'last seen'. It
is also argued that, there is no direct evidence
against accused no.1 of (1) abduction, (2) brought to
DN Nagar, (3) Accused no.1 present at Nana Nani Park.
Except that bullet retrieved and empties on the spot
and user of the telephone (mobile). Ld, advocate also
referred to
(6) Sharad Birdichand Sarda V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 1984 Cr. L.J. 1738 (paras 152
and 153)
(7) Dinesh V/s. The State of Maharashtra, 2010
ALL MR (Cri) 2072 Dinesh (para 5).
(8) Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel V/s. State of
Punjab, 2012 CRI L.J.4657 (para 17).
1312. It is argued that, while relying upon
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish
unbroken chain of events pointing at the guilt of
accused, but in the case in hand, the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish such a chain, which could
point out at the guilt of the accused. It also failed
...1456/-
Exh.1124 1456 (J-SC 317/10)
to establish that, all incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. Ld. Advocate further argued
that, material of abduction on which the prosecution
has examined in all six witnesses including Ramprasad
Gupta (PW-1), who referred to 'one person' in para 4
and para 5 'one person' and 'Dhiraj'. Exhs.114, 115,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 129, 130, to 134 are the
documents created by PW-1 on the basis of information
received by him and on the basis of hearsay evidence,
which has been brought on record through cross
examination para nos.81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89,
90, 92, 93, 98, 99. PW-1 personally did not know and
personally none of other 7 to 8 persons came forward,
including Aruna, Subalaxmi, Dhiraj, Girish Nepali, to
claim to have seen actual alleged incident of
abduction. Ld. Advocate referred to Exhs.124 to 128.
It is also argued that, in view of Sec.60 of the Indian
Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct and if such
evidence is not there, then it becomes hearsay.
Document prepared by PW-1 are hearsay and those were
prepared on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is same
with PW-2 Ganesh Iyer, as he received information from
PW-1. Evidence in para nos.2,7,25,29,31,114 to 119 are
based on hearsay evidence. In para no.29, he received
information from Aruna and Ramprasad, who told him
about Qualis. He has not seen anything. PW-3
...1457/-
Exh.1124 1457 (J-SC 317/10)
Shyamsunder also referred to shop Mobile owner i.e.
unknown person (hearsay). In para 3- one person and
Qualis, in para 4-receiving phone from strangers.
Paras 7 and 11 are hearsay. The prosecution has not
tendered best evidence as mobile shop owner is not
examined by the prosecution.
1313. Ld. Advocate further argued about PW-38 Dhiraj
Mehta, who claim in para 2 that, Nilesh told him, but
said Nilesh has not been examined by the prosecution.
Ld. Advocate referred to evidence on page nos. 20 and
21 and argued that, best evidence is not brought forth.
No substantive evidence has been brought forth. All is
hearsay. The witness has denied to have things happened
as stated anything to the police. He is the only
source. PW-110 Mr. Prasanna deposed in paras 41 and 265
about Nilesh. Abduction has not been proved by any
direct evidence. Nilesh, the mobile shop owner has not
been examined as he isnot in existence. PW-57 Shankar
Dal Singh in para nos. 17, 21, 22, 23 referred to
Gaonwale (villagers) and his source is again Dhiraj. He
referred to crime branch. PW-109 Mr.Sunil Gaonkar in
para nos.191 and 192 has referred to this aspect.
There is no mention of Nilesh or Sawant and those are
not examined by the prosecution. Source of telephone
message is Dhiraj. He came to know it from Nilesh. No
explanation has been given by the prosecution. Best
...1458/-
Exh.1124 1458 (J-SC 317/10)
evidence is not brought forth by the prosecution.
Nilesh does not exist. All others' statements are
hearsay and stand inadmissible u/s.60. Only substantive
evidence can prove circumstantial evidence. PW-40 Aruna
Bheda as per her evidence in para 2- Dhiraj informed
her. Source of shop owners adjacent to his shop. Six
people got information from Dhiraj and Dhiraj got
information from shop owners adjacent to road and his
shop. None of these including Nilesh and shop owners,
mobile shop owners came forward and say that they saw
abduction and informed Dhiraj. Therefore, whatever
evidence is on record is hearsay evidence and is
inadmissible
1314. For this purpose Ld. Advocate has relied on
case (9) Ramesh s/o. Gyanaba Kamble V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3536 (F.B.) (paras 17,
17.1, 17.02,18,18.1, 18.2, 18.3), which discuss hearsay
and Sections 32 and 60 of the Evidence Act.
Ld. Advocate also relied on -
(10) Manoharsingh Raghuvirsingh Thakur V/s. State
of Maharashtra, 2003 Bom C.R. (Cri.) 1773 (Paras 18 and
19)for hearsay evidence and S.60 (PW-38 Dhiraj) and it
is that, Dhiraj only can corroborate and it is merely a
hearsay evidence.
...1459/-
Exh.1124 1459 (J-SC 317/10)
Reliance has also been placed on ;
(11) State of M.P. V/s. Ramesh & Anr., 2011 ALL MR
(Cri) 1338 (S.C.) (Paras 17 and 18).
The Ld. Advocate further relied on;
(12) Kirtan Prasad V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2005 CRI L.J. 69 (Para 23) and discussed Section 6 of
the Evidence Act. It is argued that, Aruna's evidence
will not come under it even though she meets Anil for
the first time on 12
th
in police station. Illustration
(a) to S.6.-time gap between meeting of Anil and Aruna
on 12
th
and relevancy of facts forming part of same
transaction has not been established.
1315. Ld. Advocate further relied on,
(13) Shaikh Rashid s/o. Sheikh Yakub V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 47 (Para 14) - for Res
gestae.
Ld. Advocate again referred Section 6 of the
Evidence Act as regards to time gap and Ld. Advocate
argued that, there should not be interval for
fabrication. There was 27 hrs. interval between the
alleged incident and meeting.

1316. Again reliance has been placed on,
(14) Krishan Kumar Malik V/s. State of Haryana,
(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 61 and
(2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 130 (Paras 33
...1460/-
Exh.1124 1460 (J-SC 317/10)
to 37),
(15) Gentela Vijayvardhan Rao and another V/s.
State of A.P., 1996 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 1290 (Para 15),
(16) Bhairon Singh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 955 =
(2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 80 (Paras 18
to 21),
(17) Shivaji s/o. Vedu Salunke V/s. State of
Maharashtra, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 899 (Para 6),
(18) Javed Alam V/s. State of Chhattisgarh &
Anr.,2009,ALL MR (Cri) 2769 (S.C.), (para 8)
(19) Khasbaba Maruti Sholke V/s. The State of
Maharashtra, 1973 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)
863 (Para 14).
1317. It is further argued that, it cannot be said
to be Res-gastae due to lapse of time. It is further
argued that, information by Mr.Gupta (PW-1) and Iyer is
gathered from others. Reference is made to para 4 of
evidence of PW-40 Aruna Bhead as referred to first talk
on 12.11.2006 at 5 pm and it is argued that, it was
spontaneous answer by Anil Bheda to Aruna Bheda, first
in point of time that, he went to Shirdi. Evidence of
Mr. DB Patil (DW-2) is substantive evidence about what
Anil told him on 12
th
in his statement (page 7)- paras
12 and 13. PW-40 (Para 86) statement of Anil was
...1461/-
Exh.1124 1461 (J-SC 317/10)
recorded (Portion marked B paras 4,5,87,88,89). Ld.
Advocate also referred to statement of Aruna dated
3.9.2009 portion marked B to I, J. Aruna was
present in Vashi police station. She informed these
portions to Mr. DB Patil. It also shows that she is
lying. Portion marked B in the statement dated
12.11.2006 of 'Aruna' shows this. Contemporaneous
reaction was first in point of time. Evidence in paras
16 and 17 of Aruna is not admissible u/s. 32 or 6 of
the Evidence Act, as it is legally inadmissible.
1318. Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence of
PW-50 Jayesh Kesariya and argued that, his evidence
does not fall under Section 8. It is further argued
that, Explanation 1 and 2 and Illustrations (j) and (k)
do not apply to the case in hand. Section 8 of the
Evidence Act 'motive', 'preparation' and 'previous'
and 'subsequent' conduct. Learned Advocate also
referred to Section 157 of the Evidence Act. PW-50,
para 3- evidence does not come as issue before the
Court. Evidence of PW-40 and PW-50 is not admissible
under Sections 6, 32 of the Evidence Act, as they are
tutored witnesses. The prosecution could not prove
that, mobile no.9821552987 of accused no.5 was with
accused no.1. Its possession and location has not been
established. It is used in a particular area that has
not been proved. Document Exh.528 denotes that it was
...1462/-
Exh.1124 1462 (J-SC 317/10)
mobile of accused no.5. SDR and CDR are not available
and are created on 13.11.2009. The prosecution failed
to explain this. There is no material to show that,
this mobile was with accused no.1.
1319. The Ld. Advocate further referred to para 12
of evidence of PW-62 Rakesh Chandra Prajapati and
document Exh.527- SDR requisition and Exh.528, it is a
reply. It is a question as to why the SIT did not seek
explanation of Exh.528. Evidence of PWs-68, 75, 03, AT
Patil, Sanjay Vhanmane does not show that it was with
accused no.1. Location is not as such fixing story of
the prosecution, but it is contrary. There is reference
to evidence of PW-68 Mrs.Geetanjali Datar, specifically
paras 1,2,6,7,11, 12,13,14, 15,17 are referred to. Exh.
543 is statement dated 14.3.2010. Positive statement
is that she did not talk to Mr. Sharma. At the most
credibility of the witness is doubted, but not proved
positively. Her talk with Sharma is doubtful. The
prosecution failed to connect telephone of accused no.5
to be in possession of accused no.1 in her evidence.
Exh.535 page 749 shows two calls- cell ID 11891 is
Esic Nagar from evidence of Mrs.Geetanjali Datar. Exh.
537 also shows Esic Nagar. The prosecution has not
brought record to show that DN Nagar falls under this
area. No material is there to show that between 1.00
and 01.15 pm, accused no.1 was in DN Nagar police
...1463/-
Exh.1124 1463 (J-SC 317/10)
station. Exh.596 shows that, DN Nagar does not fall
under 11891, but it falls under DN Nagar. Cell IDs
25631, 25632, 31723, 17191, prosecution is assuming
that, accused no.1 was in DN Nagar police station but
this document negatives the claim.
1320. Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence of
PW-75 Vishwanath Shetty, Exh.543, para nos.1,2,3,5,
6,7,8,9,10,11 and argued that, there is no substantive
evidence in favour of the prosecution as denied by the
witness. It is stated that, on 11.11.2006, as per Exh.
535 there were two calls. Call on 11.11.2006 was Esic
Nagar and not DN Nagar. Both calls were from different
locations. They are not connected to DN Nagar. The
witness has denied of making the call. PW-75 is
referred to in connection with mobile nos. 9869054730
to 9892247367 in para 12 and made calls from Exh.543
(pg. 749), Exh.535- calls 11891 Esic Nagar area.
There are four calls on 11.11.2006. PW-75's mobile no.
was 9892247367. On 10.11.2006 to 19.11.2006 there are
16 calls. There is total missing of link to show that,
on the basis of oral or documentary evidence. The
prosecution failed to prove that accused no.1 was at
D.N.Nagar police station. Exh.555 is residence of
accused no.1 at J.B.Nagar and cell ID No.136622 is
missing. Exh.596 is as regards to DN Nagar police
station. Cell IDs- 25631, 25632, 31723, 17191 are
...1464/-
Exh.1124 1464 (J-SC 317/10)
missing. Both the witnesses have categorically denied
to have made calls to accused no.1. Para no.12 of PW-75
and paras-13 and 14 are exceptions, but mere
contradictions do not prove a fact. It may abet
credibility but does not prove the fact.
1321. The Ld.Advocate further referred to evidence
of PW-78 Bipin Bihari and mobile nos. 9892753333 (of
Ketan) and 9867156442 of Hitesh and referred to paras 1
to 11, 13 to 22 and 24 with reference to Exh.543, pages
14 and 15. The witness is not confronted with on the
point of accused no.1 and the mobile with him.
1322. Ld. Advocate futher referred to evidence of
PW-104 Anant Tukaram Patil (Exh.743) and mobile nos.
9821600926 and 9820383281, paras 6,8,9, 11,12,13,14, 15
to 21, 22 to 41 to 84. In para no.11 the witness
deposed that, he made wrong statement before the
Magistrate. No questions put during Examination in
chief about phones and phone calls. Then there is
reference of Exh.403 (page 2). His evidence is not
substantive piece of evidence. He has totally denied
the statements u/s. 161, 164 of Cr.P.C and the police
version. Nothing about phones have been put to the
witness, except in para 40. He is not confronted with
CDRs. in 548 and 536. 12541 does not find place in
these Exhs., which finds place in Exh.403. Exh.441
...1465/-
Exh.1124 1465 (J-SC 317/10)
shows, cell ID 14352 Kurla station SG Barve Nagar ;
12793 Kirol Road, Kirol Gaon, Vidya Vihar ; 53771
MV Road , Holi Family Chowk, these are totally
different places. Exh.429 (3429 14352 (Nehru Nagar,
Kurla) 12793 (Kama Lane, Ghatkopar). Then there is
reference of evidence of PW 105 Mr. Sanjay Vhanmane,
Exh. 748, who is a Reporter having mobile bearing No.
9821433947. Reference was made of para nos. 1 to 13
-34, wherein there is specific denial in para 9. Then
Cell ID 17432 17154 Exhs. 555, 556 and 596 are
referred.
1323. It is further argued that, Ramrajpal Singh is
not examined. Particulars of mobile details are called
to show that accused no.1 was present at DN Nagar
police station and Nana Nani Park. Location is not made
out on the given time and date. Even in given location
thousands of people might be there. presence of accused
no.1 is not established. Evidence of PWs 1,2,3,38,40
and 57 is hearsay. Source is PW-38 Dhiraj Mehta, who
has not seen anything. He heard from Nilesh, who is not
examined. Res-gestae is after 27 hours. Initial
admission to wife by Anil Bheda and statement recorded
by DB Patil and his evidence is contrary to statement
PW-40 and PW-50, which were made subsequently and are
not admissible. Sections 6 and 32 of the Evidence Act
goes away. There is no substantive evidence. Reference
...1466/-
Exh.1124 1466 (J-SC 317/10)
is made of evidence of PW-104. All five people have
denied phones and possession.
1324. Ld. Advocate also referred to evidence of
PW-86 Gautam Ghadge, Exh.655 and Exh.658. It is argued
that, empty Ex.17 As per report, bullet Ex. 18B is
alleged to have been fired from revolver Ex.8 of
accused no.1. Accused no.2 empty 14 is fired from
Pistol Ex.7. As per CR No.302 of 2006, empty Ex.17 was
claimed by accused no.22 (Art.63) before PW-39 Mohandas
Sankhe. Empty of accused no.2 (Ex.14) was produced by
accused no.11. He was not allotted weapon but was
giventwo witnesses handing over the weapon. First
claim in 302/06 by accused producing the empties and
weapons, is contrary to version of PW-86. PW-86 is not
an expert. He has not taken a stand. He has not given
any scientific reason. Opinion must be supported by
scientific reason. Section 45 of the Evidence Act has
been referred to. Striation-individual characteristics
and Empties - marks of breech face and striker. Exh.658
is a Report. Ex.7 Butt 786 accused no.2 (empty-
Ex.14 KF 9 mm 2794), Ex.8 Butt 347 accused no.1 -.
38 revolver empty- KF 380 298. Opinion of Ex.14
(accused no.2) was not perfectly given as required and
description was not given. No reasoning given in
report and in evidence. PW-86 in paras 40, 41 and 180
identification marks are shown but failed to state
...1467/-
Exh.1124 1467 (J-SC 317/10)
how does it tally. Ex.17 of accused no.1 in the report,
there is no specification of characters mentioned
there. There is no mention of indentation or
striations, grooves, length, width etc. Paras 183 and
185 of his evidence as regards to accused no.1 and
accused no.2 Characteristics are not mentioned in the
report by PW-86. Ex.(2) of accused no.22weapon
revolver, Ex(5) of accused no.1 -Sartape. Paras 168
and 171 of evidence of PW-86. The test fire of these
weapons was not done though these accused claimed to
have fired through these weapons. Again, there is
reference to paras 242 to 246, 248 to 253 and portion
marked A in the report. It is argued that, depth of
striker indentation whether two bullets bear the same
impression is not mentioned. The witness did not state
how striations match. Then there is reference to para
nos. 258 to 266.
1325. The Ld. Advocate further relied on following
authorities :-
(1) Ramesh Chandra Agrawal V/s. Regency Hospital
Limited and others, (2009) 9 Supreme Court
Cases 709 (paras 16, 18,19,20,22) on the
point of functions and duties of the Expert and the
role of Expert.
(2) State of Himachal Pradesh V/s. Jai Lal and
others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3318 on the
...1468/-
Exh.1124 1468 (J-SC 317/10)
point that prosecution must show that Expert is skilled
and has adequate knowledge of the subject - (paras
15,16,17,18,20,21,22),
(3) Santokh Singh and others V/s. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1988 CRI L.J. 1583 (Para 14)
on the point of evidence of Ballistic Expert.
(4) The State of Gujarat V/s. Adam Fateh Mohmed
Umatiya and others, 1971 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 381 (paras 15 to 21) as regards to the
expert evidence and argued that, PW-86 cannot be said
to be an expert. He did not follow mandatory provisions
for carrying out test. Reference is made to paras nos.
258, 259, 260 (Extract from the text), 261, 262, 263,
264, 265, 266.
1326. Ld. Advocate Mr.Pasbola has referred to Exh.
283, panchanama KF 94 9 mm 22, empty spot and
evidence of PW-110 Mr. Prasanna page 22 and para 48 as
well as Exh.656 second column (Sr.4) 'empty' as
described above and forwarding letter dated 19.12.2009.
The station diary Exh.751 dated 19.12.2009 (Sr.4), as
described above do not speak of 9 mm empty (Exhs.656
and 751) Exh.658 is the Report. PW-107 Mr.Chalke in
para 73-Exh.751 referred as entry to be correct one.
Exhs.298, 299 are the station diary entries of Versova
Station diary. Exh.299 (Sr.4) KF 94 9 mm 22 there
is possibility of substitution and tampering of it. On
...1469/-
Exh.1124 1469 (J-SC 317/10)
10.12.2009 other weapons were collected from Naigaon.
On 17
th
December 2009 that of accused no.9 and articles
collected from Versova were lying there. There are
discrepancies. The SIT was having all control over
articles at Versova. Burden of tampering lies on
shoulder of the prosecution.
1327. It is further argued by Ld. Advocate that, it
is alleged that, accused nos. 2,3 and 7 (Desai, Kamble
and Shinde) were working in the squad of accused no.1
Pradeep Sharma. PW-20 Sanjivan Shinge, PW-25 PSI Dhiraj
Koli, PW-32 Sumant Bhosale, PW-43 Madan More, PW-51
Anil More, PW-55 Milind More, PW-63 Arjun and PW-87
Ajendrasingh Thakur have put forth this story.
Mr.Chalke and Mr.Bipin Bihari negated this theory.
Evidence of squad of above witnesses is hearsay and not
corroborated by documents. Accused no.1 is made
vicariously liable for acts of accused no.2, accused
no.3 and accused no.7, only on the basis of surmises
and conjunctures. There is no reliable and credible
evidence as regards to the squad. Evidence of PW-20
Sanjivan Shinge in paras 6 and 8 shows that there is no
record to show that accused nos.2,3,7 and 16 were
working under accused no.1. PW-25 Dhiraj Koli in para 1
refers to one Nalawade, who is not examined. Sr. PI
Shinde and PI Patil are not examined though could have
deposed about deputation. No questions put to Bipin
...1470/-
Exh.1124 1470 (J-SC 317/10)
Bihari by the prosecution about deputation. No
documents of order of deputation are produced. Para
no.4 shows that PSI Nalawade is not examined.
Therefore, Exh.228 source of information does not come
out. Document is not in his handwriting. PW-32 Sumant
Bhosale deposed in paras 1,2 and 4 of order of
deputation and joining and PW-43 Madan More deposed
about the squad in paras 1 and 11. PW-51 Anil Laxman
More also deposed about the squad in paras 2,3,7 and
Qualis vehicle used by the squad in paras 8,
24,25,29,38,40 and 41. PW-63 Arun Awate also deposed
about the squad in paras 3 and 22. PW-87 Ajendrasingh
Thakur deposed about the squad, but in different way,
which demolishes theory of squad, in paras 2,3,14
(squad). He deposed that there was no written order but
there was oral order. Paras 17, 36, 37 discloses that,
Addl. C.P has no jurisdiction over Kala Chowki Police
station. Paras 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 shows that,
accused no.1 is not there. PW-61 Vinaykumar Choube and
PW-78 Bipin Bihari did not utter a word about the squad
and no questions were put to them. Formation of the
squad is not proved by direct evidence and acts done
at the instance of accused no.1 by others are also not
proved.
1328. Further arguments by Ld. Advocate discloses
that, ammunitions of accused no.1 were seized and
...1471/-
Exh.1124 1471 (J-SC 317/10)
allotted to accused no.1 were of 2001 and were not
allotted till March, 2002. Hence, there is no
discrepancy. It is not a circumstance against the
accused, which helps prosecution. Pws-56,58,59,60, 101
have deposed about allotment and seizure of weapons and
there is mention in Exh.488 and Exh.489 about it. PW-60
Maruti Patil (Exh.510 in paras 32 referred to Butt No.
347 of accused no.1 and as regards to entry dated
17.12.2009. PW-59 Sushil Kamble in para no.2 (Exh.477),
paras 3,4,5,6 (Exh.488), (Exh.478), (Exh.479), there is
no description of articles and no panchanama was
recorded. The muddemal was lying with Dharavi police
station till 01.9.2008. Paras 10,12,13,1, no one
mentioned description of the ammunitions till
01.09.2008. There is no evidence to show that accused
no.1 deposited ammunitions in the year 2001. There is
reference of PW-56 Pravin Kosavalekar (Exh.476) in
paras 2, 3,4,5 (Exh.477- Entry 39) and paras 6,7,
(Exh.478), 21 of the evidence of this witness. PW-58
Vilas Uttekar (Exh.483) in para 3 refereed to date
22.03.2010 in connection with the SIT officers and in
paras 4,6 referred to panchanama Exh.486. Paras 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 also refer same fact. PW-34 Shamsuddin
Mohd. Yunus Ansari (Exh.260) in paras no.1 (Exh.260)
Panchanama of seizure of Ruger revolver - butt 347,
Exh.486 panchanama- cartridges (6) 22.3.2010, presence
of of Utekar is not mentioned in the said panchanama.
...1472/-
Exh.1124 1472 (J-SC 317/10)
PW-101 Shreepad Ranjekar has been discussed in relation
to Exhs. 729 and 730, especially paras 11 and 13.
PW-106 Lalitkumar Tak deposed of batch of ammunitions
deposited in Dharavi is not mentioned, inadvertent
substitution cannot be ruled out. Manufacturing batch/
year is not mentioned. It is not the prosecution case
that a bullet of a particular batch allotted to
accused no.1 was used. No record is mentioned.
Mr.Hemant Patil Sr. PI, Dharavi Police Station, is not
examined. Question is raised as to whether accused no.
1, accused no.3 and accused no.7 were members of
raiding squad. There is no evidence of they being
members of the squad.
1329. It is further argued that, on 12.11.2006 Anil
returned to Vashi police station at 5 pm. Anil Bheda
accompanied Aruna from Vashi to Bhattwadi-two
constables replaced him. On 13.11.2006, accused no.2
and accused no.3 came back to Bhattwadi. They gave
their numbers to Aruna Bheda. Aruna did not call on
accused no.'s number or he did not call her. One day
accused no.3 was seen outside of Hotel Mid-town.
Evidence of PW-40 Aruna Bheda, paras 4 and 5 - no diary
is produced by the prosecution with reference to this
evidence. Her evidence having seen accused no.2 and
accused no.3 is trying to be proved on the basis of
CDR, which is false. Accused no.3 Exhs.521, 529, 543
...1473/-
Exh.1124 1473 (J-SC 317/10)
(evidence about CDR). Evidence PW-13 and other
Constables is falsified by CDR (shown by accused no.3).
1330. Further arguments have disclosed that,
evidence of PW-32 Sumant Bhosale (Exh.257) in para no.2
and Milind More (PW-55) in paras nos. 6 and 7, is not
corroborated by any documentary evidence. Mobile
printouts of these constables (More, Bhosale and
Phalke) are produced by the prosecution. After three
years these witnesses are made to say against the
accused. Their role is not different than that of
accused no.2 and accused no.3. Everybody was acting
under DCP Mr.Prasanna. No officer from DN Nagar police
station has been examined on this point. PW-55 Milind
More (Exh.466) in para 5 (Exh.467), paras 8,9,11,12,14
shows that, Sakpal did not support the SIT hence made
accused. It is with reference to para nos. 20, 21, 22,
23 of evidence of this witness. There is no evidence
as regards to PW-40 going to Vashi police station.
Evidence of PW-87 shows that, no squad existed. Accused
no.2 was not a member of squad of accused no.1.
1331. As regards to raiding party, Ld. Advocate
referred to Exh.669A station diary of DN Nagar police
station i.e. leaving police station and Exhs.278 and
670A of returning to the police station. The fact that
he was a member of raiding party is not proved though
...1474/-
Exh.1124 1474 (J-SC 317/10)
his presence is there at Nana Nani Park. FIR in CR No.
302 of 2006 is inadmissible. Some infirmities might be
there in 302/06. Culpability of accused no.3 has to be
shown. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to
show that he was a member of the raiding party. PW-43
Madan More (Exh.331) in para 2 shows accused no.3 does
not speak of guarding. PWs 32 and 55 cannot be relied
on as CDRs show something contrary. Same evidence is as
regards to accused no.2. Ld. Advocate referred to Exh.
548, Exh.537 and Exh.549 for the purpose of showing
locations.
1332. As regards to cell IDs, these are not
electronic records within the meaning of Evidence Act.
As per Sec. 2, Sec. 65(B) there must be evidence of
computer and evidence of information fed in it (S.
65(2)), 65(2)(9), (b), (c), (d), 65(4). Simpliciter
production of cell ID in itself does not prove it in
the light of S. 65 A, 65B. It is ultimately secondary
evidence. It has no authenticity as it is supplied as
per demand of the SIT by changing earlier version,
especially Vodafon Company. Even cell ID of accused no.
2 is not matching to prosecution case. Evidence of
PW-62 Rakeshchandra Prajapati (Exh.519) in paras 1 and
2 relates to old record i.e. magnetic cassettes. Para
8 (Exhs.522, 523 to 530), para 18 Exhs. 535 and 536.
paras 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56,57, information was
...1475/-
Exh.1124 1475 (J-SC 317/10)
supplied without certificate. Only one information was
with certificate. Para 59-a particular format
automatically recorded in the server. No manipulation
possible, hence secondary evidence is permissible. 1).
There is no continuity, 2). formats changed, 3).
Information from Archives changed, prosecution has
produced information in which formats have change as
regards to electronic record. Exhs.539 (Site ID, Site
address of the cell ID), 596 (Col.4). It is argued
that, if 539 is downloaded from the Computer there
cannot be two addresses of the same site fed in the
computer. There are different addresses at the same
tower location and there can't be changes in old
addresses if new towers are created. If interference is
there addresses will change and it is to be explained
by the prosecution. Ld.Advocate has referred to Exhs.
523, 543, 550 and 409. Cell ID is 10951. 409 (SMS) and
there is no corresponding SMS in 523. Exh.523, there
are 171 calls on 13.11.2006. Exh.550, there are 155
calls on 13.11.2006. If this is retrieved data from
Archives there cannot be variation in the calls.
1333. The Ld. Advocate referred to the number of
Ramprasad Gupta with reference to Exhs.597 and 560
(9821376490). There is difference in columns status.
One shows of 248(calls) and 597 having no cell ID.
Exh.560 IMEI Number is missing. Total calls are 250.
...1476/-
Exh.1124 1476 (J-SC 317/10)
Evidence of PW-88 Mohd. Usman Shaikh is discussed with
reference to Exh.546(CDR) of mobile no. 9821056311 as
regards to different(less) columns compared to other.
It is therefore not primary or direct evidence and as a
corroborative evidence not reliable. These are not
certified u/s. 65A, 65B of the Evidence Act. With
reference to evidence of PW-40 and Exhs.679 and 680-
paras 2 and 20 of evidence of this witness, mobile no.
9324378877 was of Anil used by Pandeji and mobile no.
9323053863 was mobile of Anil. Exh.683 is about tower
location. Last two calls by deceased at 12.31 pm and
12.33. Third last call by deceased (68) to Dhiraj at
11.53. That time he was at Sector 9(24). Last call of
deceased was from Sector 29 and not from 9. Story of
abduction is proved to be false.
1334. With reference to PW-89 Rajesh Gaikwad (Exh.
675), Nodal Officer, Reliance Co., it is argued that,
the prosecution failed to establish that Anil Bheda was
with the deceased at the given time. Vashi police
station is situated in Sector 2. Accused no.2 and
accused no.3- their location is nowhere as stated by
PW-40, but in concoction that she identified them as
their names, buckle numbers reflected in FIR in 302/06.
No cogent and reliable evidence except bare words is
there to show that they were members of the squad.
Being member does not point at the guilt of accused no.
...1477/-
Exh.1124 1477 (J-SC 317/10)
2 and accused no.3 unerringly. They moving around
Vashi, Navi Mumbai on 10.11.2006, 12.11.2006,
Koparkhairane. It was not the area where Anil resided.
It was not near his house. On 11.11.2006-13.11.2006
they were not at Vashi. No location of police station
is given. Evidence is not acceptable, as witnesses are
lying. Inference is being drawn. No culpability is
shown of guarding house of Anil and accompanying him
to Vashi police station is disputed by defence.
Prosecution cannot rely partly on FIR in 302/06 and
partly deny it.
1335. In relation to accused no.7 Shinde, mobile no.
9820330551 of Vodafone Co., it is alleged that, he was
member of the alleged squad of accused no.1. There is
Sahara Samay C.D (Exh.123) talking to accused no.15
Palande. Mobile no.9820330551 of Vodafone Co. is not in
his name but is in the name of Avinash Shinde, as per
SDR Exh.455. Service Book is for address and mobile
number is given on the basis of this it is said that
he was in Vashi- Navi Mumbai on 10.11.2006 and
11.11.2006. No one saw him in the said area. Evidence
of PW-1 about CD (Exh.123)- para 46 also discloses same
fact.
1336. Ld. Advocate also discussed evidence of PW-7
Jyoti Babar. Receipt Exh.165. It is not directly from
...1478/-
Exh.1124 1478 (J-SC 317/10)
Sahara. It is not even secondary evidence. It is not an
admissible piece of evidence. No one from Sahara has
been examined and its authenticity is not proved.
Location attributed to accused no.7 after 11 pm on
11.11.2006 at Nana Nani Park only shows talking to
Superior and will not implicate him.
1337. Evidence of PW-90 Sanjay Laxman Apage (Police
Naik) is only evidence against accused no.7. Exhs.687A
& 688A, the book is not meant for taking entries for
which purpose it is used. It discloses in paras 1 and
10 of his evidence. It is manipulated and not kept in
regular course of business. Link of mobile is not
established. Exh.689 discloses that, information of
encounter was relayed. All superiors have denied it.
PW-78 Bipin Bihari in para 24 improved story and
omissions have been brought on record. PW-61 Vinaykumar
Choube(Exh.517) is not concerned with this fact. PW-63
Arun Awate in para 27, omissions and contradictions
have been brought on record and it has no concern with
this fact. PW-87Ajendrasingh Thakur in paras 20,21,24
shows there was no concern, no questions were put to
them. Information Technology Act' 2000, Chapter (III),
Section(i), Point 7(b)Retention of Record- Electronic
record has to be retained in same format as it was
generated. There is no evidence as to in which form
electronic record was generated.
...1479/-
Exh.1124 1479 (J-SC 317/10)
1338. Ld. Advocate for accused brought on record
infirmities from the prosecution case as regards to
information to PW-1, visit to Belapur (Navi Mumbai),
Crime Branch, sending of fax messages, visiting the
spot, production of CD, meeting Rambabu Lodh from
Magnum Opus Building and it is argued that, material
witnesses are not examined, therefore adverse inference
has to be drawn. The persons from Mobile-I Versova,
taking injured to the hospital have not been examined.
They are not examined by SIT. The prosecution has not
proved that it was false, stage- managed encounter.
The vehicle that reached the spot would have thrown
light, but no investigation to that direction is made.
C.D. is not admissible piece of evidence. There is
reference of FIR Exh.121 and W.P.No.2473/06. PW-1 does
not mention of Shyamsunder informing him that..... 'one
person'. It is in para 4, para 83 and page 6 in para
c d of the W.P. PW-40 Aruna Bheda and PW- Dhiraj
Mehta do not say what PW-1 said in W.P para(c) about
receipt of information. The reference is to para 2 of
PW-40. No information received from Shyamsunder but it
was a story created afterwards. PW-38 (para 2), PW-57
Shankar @ Girish Dal Singh in para 17- information is
received from Dhiraj. He transmits this information to
brother and brother in law. Then there is reference to
Exh.579 CDR of mobile no.9867016540 of Shyamsunder. A
...1480/-
Exh.1124 1480 (J-SC 317/10)
call is there from Shyamsunder at 14.44 hours to
Shankar Dal Singh having mobile no.9323459998. It is
argued that, it was not possible for Shyamsunder to
give information at 1.55 to others. Reference is made
to para 3 of PW-3 Shyamsunder and paras 1 to 3 of PW-2
Ganesh Iyer. Para 45 of PW-57 Shankar @ Girish Dal
singh as well as Exh.401, printouts of mobile of Ganesh
Iyer. A call was made to Ganesh Iyer before 14.54 hrs.
Exh.429 is location of Ganesh Iyer. There is no
evidence about information. It is hearsay. PW-1
Ramprasad in paras 6, 8, 81 to 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93
deposed about receipt of information numbers, who
called him and at what time. This falsify of
information and its suppression of facts. Exh.126 is
the complainant's letter to C.P., paras 9,98 and 99
shows timing of sending fax and telegrams. Accused no.
1 was never authorized by Aruna Bheda. Fax was sent at
16.45 hrs. There is no question of authority as
telegrams were already sent. Para 84 of PW-1 is of
information part. Para 85,86,88, there is no consistent
evidence about information and about visit to Belapur.
PW-1, Paras 16, 93 to 104 is about exchange of mobile
of PW-1 with Shyamsunder and shows that, he had not
been to Belapur Crime Branch. The story put forth is
only to show preoccupation of PW-1 at the relevant
time. It is not corroborated. CDR falsifies it.
...1481/-
Exh.1124 1481 (J-SC 317/10)
1339. The Ld. Advocate further made reference to CDR
(652), para no.17 speaks of driver Raja, but he is not
examined. Rambabu Lodh (Magnum Opus Building) is the
alleged eye witness, but he is not examined. Para 19
is at CD and 44- about mobile of video by his Motorola
Mobile (CD Exh.122). Evidence of PWs 107, 108 and 109
and PW-110 is about false and stage-managed encounter.
PW-107, para 28 states of statement of Rambabu Lodh was
recorded. PW-81 Pramod Sawant is of Peter Mobile
Versova, at 08.18 pm received information of Peter
Mobile. Driver Daddikar, crowd is there-Versova Mobile-
I was first to reach the spot. But the fact that the
man was taken from the spot to Cooper remains. Best
witnesses/ evidence is not adduced. PW-26 Anil Kadam
20.18 hrs., paras 2 and 4. PW-110 (para 230). Rajkumar
Shukla 164 statement. PW-1 paras 32, 33 (visit of
PW-1 on 3 Sundays to the house of Anil Bheda after
26.11.2006. Exh.388 shows that, Parth was present in
the school after 12
th
December, 2013. As per evidence
of Aruna (PW-40) Para 5, prosecution's story is not
wholly reliable, half truth and concealment. There is
no evidence of abduction, transfer of deceased and Anil
Bheda from Vashi to DN Nagar, where Lakhan was shot.
There is no direct and primary evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is also not there. CDR-
locations of certain persons are only corroborative
evidence. Detention at Bhatwadi is unreliable. CDRs
...1482/-
Exh.1124 1482 (J-SC 317/10)
are contrary to the evidence of PWs 32 and 43.
Kolhapur and then Mid-town Hotel, these circumstances
are about death of Ramnarayan Gupta. The main aspect
is, where was Ramnarayan. Presumption that fact within
the knowledge of Accused must prove abduction and
custody. Principles of impossibility and abductors
knowledge only comes thereafter. Direct evidence is
that of Aruna Bheda only about abduction, but there is
no evidence of Aruna Bheda. There is no evidence about
Trisha. Exhs.114-118, 120 do not state date and time of
the alleged abduction. Nilesh and Sawant not found.
Mobile prints of Dhiraj are not there.
1340. Ld. Advocate for the accused further referred
to point of going to Kolhapur with reference to
evidence of PW-108, who went to Kolhapur twice. First
time without Aruna and second time with Aruna Bheda. No
persons are examined from Hotel Majestic, Kolhapur and
same is with Mid-town Hotel. Aruna's evidence of
Kolhapur is there. Evidence of four constables is there
of Hotel Mid-town.
1341. Ld. Advocate further referred to running
panchanama and argued that, PW-1 is not eye-witness and
failed to establish abduction and hence of no
significance. Both the hotels are accessible to general
public, but no one come forward about accused or Anil
...1483/-
Exh.1124 1483 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda. Best evidence is not adduced. Extract of Hotel
Register is there (Exh.775 panchanama is there).
Evidence of PW-108, paras 21, 234, 235, 236, 237 and
panchanama Exh. 775 date 27.03.2010. No panchs of this
panchanama are examined. No wrongful confinement of
Anil is proved. Hotel Register has not been proved in
respect of presence of accused no.5. Daily Passenger
Register is not produced hence, refusal to giving
signature and handwriting by accused no.5 has no
significance. Exh.620 is Station Diary Entry. PWs-43,
32 and 55 are constables out of which PWs-32 and 55 are
silent about accused no.5. No record/evidence of
wrongful confinement is available before the Court.
1342. Conduct of Aruna is referred by the Ld.
Advocate for the accused and it is argued that, she did
not raise alarm at Kolhapur. There is no evidence of
abduction of Ramnarayan and Anil. Custody of the
accused has to be proved first. No investigation was
done in respect of tickets and timings of tickets.
Inquest panchanama is at Art.122 and evidence of PW-110
is also there. PW-107, para 265 is with reference to
Exh.764A in CR No.246/09. Witnesses have not been
examined in respect of railway tickets Arts.116 colly.
Prosecution evidence falls for want of evidence.
Evidence is not collected to show that no encounter
took place. Ramnarayan was carrying ticket found during
...1484/-
Exh.1124 1484 (J-SC 317/10)
inquest, where was time to plant ticket by any one.
Important witnesses are withheld by the prosecution.
There is manipulation of evidence by the SIT. 03.9.2010
was the immersion day. If Aruna was accompanied by
Falguni, would she state contrary to what she stated
before the SLAO-IV. Mr.Bheda did not stick up to
abduction story. No counter signature of Superiors
taken on statement u/s.161 of Cr.P.C. Statements of
Dhiraj and Yashoda Shetty were recorded more than once.
PW-1's statement was recorded and went on changing
versions and keeping silent about abduction of Anil
Bheda. FIR is manipulated, concocted so as to include
accused no.1. Name of accused no.1 did not crop up
during three years. No one stated about it. There is
no direct evidence of abduction with reference to
accused nos. 2,3 and 5. There is no evidence that they
were squad members. There are no documents. Accused no.
2 and accused no.3 were transferred and deputed to DN
Nagar, but there is no evidence that they were members
of the squad. Empty of accused no.2 was found at the
spot and it is an additional circumstance. Accused no.
7 is said to be the squad member on the basis of
printouts of mobile, but the mobile did not belong to
him. Accused no.15 was only seen at the spot. Cell ID
26022 (Exh.421) came in to existence. CDR of accused
no.7 (Exh.406) are not found in it. CDRs of Anil,
Aruna, Dhiraj, Girish Nepali are not found. No CDR of
...1485/-
Exh.1124 1485 (J-SC 317/10)
Anil except that of on 11.11.2006 is available. CDR is
no reliable and admissible evidence u/s.65B of Evidence
Act. Discrepancies are not explained. It is not
acceptable and cell ID, CDR are not certified as per
provisions of Sec.65B of the Evidence Act. Tape
recorded version of Anil. It must be evidence of person
who recorded it. It was Anil.
1343. Ld. Advocate relied on case of S. Pratap Singh
V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1964, Supreme Court Cases, 72
(V 51 C 7) (paras 15,16 and 75) and argued that, this
cannot be direct or primary evidence. Aruna and Anil
Bheda were in contact with the SIT and evidence is
constantly tampered. Order book corroborates evidence
of A.T. Patil, though declared hostile.
1344. Ld. Advocate further referred to Exhs.409
(CDR), 463. Cell ID 2644 MG Road, Opp. Pada Mohalla,
Old Panvel. Exh.421 at 92 and 105. Cell ID relating
to accused no.7. Exh.409 - Location of accused no.7 at
18.08 hrs. onwards on 11.11.2006. Exh.459 4002
City Point Hotel, Dadar (E). PW-54- Mr. Godse Nodal
Officer of Vodafone Company, paras 77, 78, 79, 96, 97,
98, 99- how incorrect information was given and how it
was corrected when it was computer generated. Wrong
locations supplied due to leading and wrong digits.
Reference is made to Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence
...1486/-
Exh.1124 1486 (J-SC 317/10)
Act, paras 150 and 151.
1345. Reference is made to State (NCT of Delhi) V/s.
V/s. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru and others, 2005
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1715 (paras 150 and 151) with
reference to Section 63 of the Evidence Act and about
accuracy of secondary evidence. Correctness and
genuineness of record.
1346. Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence of
PW-110 Mr.Prasanna especially page 88, para 171 about
FIR form and paras 173, 174, 228, 231,233, 234, 235,
236; Exh.121(FIR Proforma) dated 20.8.2009. There is
no date showing FIR date and sending it to the
Magistrate. Para 236 is about non examination of
witnesses. Para 237 is as regards to Anil Bheda did
not take PW-110 to the spot. Till 3.9.2009, Anil and
Aruna did not make any statement and did not disclose
anything. Ld. Advocate relied on Ganesh Bhavan Patel
and anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 1 (paras 15, 29, 47) as regards to delay in
recording statements and FIR.
1347. Ld. Advocate, then referred to the
progress reports submitted to the Hon'ble High Court by
the SIT and argued that, CDR of Ramnarayan and Anil
are of only 11.11.2006. CDR of Girish Nepali and
...1487/-
Exh.1124 1487 (J-SC 317/10)
Dhiraj, Jayesh Kesariya are not made available. Weapons
of accused no.3 and accused no.7 are not sent to the
C.A. Weapons are sent selectively. Weapons in CR 302/06
were not sent to the C.A. IO did not look into NHRC and
Report by PW-1 to the C.P. No record is placed before
the Court as regards to threats of Anil Bheda and
missing of Anil Bheda since 13.3.2011 till 16.3.2011.
Exh.457 is in respect of cell ID 44593 (Panvel, Andheri
(W) Stn.)-(DN Nagar, Andheri). Different addresses are
mentioned there. PW-110 at page 228 is given suggestion
and statements of PWs were recorded subsequently by the
SIT after coercing and threatening the witnesses.
1348. Ld. Advocate relied on following case laws:-
Narain and others V/s. State of Punjab, AIR
1959 Supreme Court 484 (V 46 C 60) (Paras 12 and 13)
with reference to keeping best witnesses away.
Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky V/s. State of
Punjab, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 732 (Paras
13 to 17) and argued that, abduction must be proved and
only then S. 106 comes in to play.
State of W.B. V/s. Mir Mohammad Omar and
others, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1516 (Paras 31
to 34) for the same purpose.
State of Maharashtra V/s. Prabhu Barku Gade,
1995 Cri LJ 1432 (Para 12) as regards to tampering of
articles.
...1488/-
Exh.1124 1488 (J-SC 317/10)
Om Prakash & Ors. V/s. State of Jharkhand
Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi-1 &
Anr., 2012 (4) Crimes 225 (SC) (Paras 10,29 to 31) with
reference to sanction to prosecute accused.
1349. The Ld. Advocate further argued that, vidence
of PW-60 Maruti Yashwant Patil is as regards to seizure
of weapons and with reference to Exhs. 232, 497A, 498,
499A, 504, 505, 506, 509, 656 (Ballistic Report) in
paras 14 and 16. PW-86 Mr.Ghadge (Ballistic Expert in
para 135 could not explain as to whether 9 mm or .38
was taken charge of. Description was not given by
Maruti Patil in Exh.656. Description, bare number does
not tally seizure of weapons. Evidence of PW-38 Dhiraj
Mehta belies story of the prosecution. Exh.888
(Progress Report), portion marked B, para 12 and
portion marked A, para 15-statements of all material
witnesses only after the arrest of the accused. It was
manipulation, plan, deliberations going on to implicate
the accused. There were three mobiles of accused no.5,
two in his name and one in the name of Shaikh
Faizuddin. There is no evidence that the said mobile
was used by him. Mobile no. 9820995118 is not of
accused no.5. Exhs.404,411 CDR are of of house. PW-40
in para no.107 given this number to be of accused no.5.
Mobile No. 9821471156 was in the name of accused no.5.
CDR were brought before the Court when witness stepped
...1489/-
Exh.1124 1489 (J-SC 317/10)
in the box. Material was not collected and brought
before the Court in time. CDR, SDR are fabricated. If
CDR were available then Dhiraj Mehta would have been
questioned. Name of accused no.7 Vinayak Shinde was not
in FIR Exh.121. On 23.1.2010 his name came forth for
the first time though he was arrested on 19.1.2010.
Exh.894 (progress report) para-6 is about Yashodas's
statement recorded on 9.11.2009- portion marked A,
but Yashodas has not been examined. Timing in the CDR
has been withheld. Though there were threats to Anil,
no protection was provided to him. Anil received third
call in the SIT office at 20.45 hrs.
1350. With reference to evidence of PW-108
Mr.Ghorpade, Ld. Advocate argued that, the SIT wanted
to take weapon from Naigaon Armoury so as to tamper
those weapons otherwise charge would have been taken at
Dharavi police station. The SIT has not provided
security cover to Anil. Ramprasad made last call to
Anil but Ramprasad was not questioned. This was with
reference to Exhs.495, 496, 444. On 12.3.2011 at 20.45
hrs. PW-1 called Anil when Anil was in the SIT office
but no call details and no investigation was done about
it. Statement of Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh were
recorded on four occasions and cell IDs were called.
1351. Ld. Advocate further argued that, FIR (Exh.
...1490/-
Exh.1124 1490 (J-SC 317/10)
121) was prepared after due deliberations. Statements
of witnesses were recorded from time to time making
improvements. The investigating team wanted to
implicate certain persons. Accused no.1 was sought to
be nailed as he made complaints against then
Commissioner of Police. He was dismissed under Article
311. The said Order was set aside and he was directed
to be reinstated. The Government challenged it and on
07.01.2009 he was arrested. PWs 38, 40 and 50 were not
speaking truth. Their first in time statements disclose
some other story. Evidence is unreliable and cannot be
accepted and has to be excluded. Evidence of Ballistic
Expert, cell ID settled unsatisfactory state of
affairs. These have been tailored to suit the
prosecution case. The case suffers from suppression of
facts and suggestion of falsehood. Entire case of
abduction rests on the testimony of Anil Bheda. He is
not available. Rest of evidence- circumstances are not
of definite character and do not suggest that Anil
Bheda was abducted. Testimony of PW-40 is hearsay and
does not come under S.6 of the Evidence Act. Earlier
story was different. Prosecution case falls on that
ground alone. Prosecution did not make out case of
abduction of Ramnarayan. They were not together.
Evidence is that Ramnarayan was at Nana Nani Park.
Rambabu Lodh is not examined. OB Van witnesses,
security men, security guards of BMC who were present
...1491/-
Exh.1124 1491 (J-SC 317/10)
at Nana Nani Park are not examined. Accused no.2,
accused no.3 and accused no.7 worked under accused no.9
and not under accused no.1. The Squad story crops up
when accused no.1 is picked up. His name is not in FIR
CR No. 246/09. PW-1 kept silent as regards to Anil
Bheda, only is saying that He apprehended life of
Anil. There is deliberate suppression of evidence of
(1) Nilesh, (2) Sawant, and cell ID of (3) Dhiraj with
object to nail the accused. Cell phones of accused nos.
2 and 3 are in their names. Cell phones of accused nos.
5 and 7 are not in their names. Evidence against
accused nos.5 and 7 is just fabrication. Locations in
and around Vashi on 10.11.2006 is of no help to the
prosecution to connect the accused. There is no
evidence against accused nos. 5 and 7 as on 11.11.2006.
CD part is not incriminating. Accused no.7 was not
member of the raiding party. Accused no.5- Cell ID
fabricated to implicate accused no.1, but it is not
incriminating. Role of accused nos. 2 and 3 cannot be
distinguished from that of PWs.- 5, 32, 43, 48, 55, 45.
On 12.11.2006, accused no.3 CDR shows that, he was in
Vashi area. PW-40 was present at Vashi, Sector 17 till
8.55. 857cell ID of Vashi was never called for.
1352. Ld. Advocate Mr.Prakash Shetty for accused no.
14 argued that, there are allegations of dispute of
land deal between accused no.14 and the deceased and
...1492/-
Exh.1124 1492 (J-SC 317/10)
this motive has been attributed to accused no.14. In
this behalf, evidence of PW-57 Shankar Dal singh @
Girish Nepali has been adduced by the prosecution and
has relied on para nos.7,9 to 21, 25,26,28, 52, 58. It
is argued that, Subhash Lefty, Kaling, Urmish Udhani
are not made accused and have not been examined as
prosecution witnesses. Girish did not go to see dead
body and did not attend funeral of the deceased. Even
after returning back from his native, he did not go to
any relatives of Lakhan Bhaiya. Girish on his own did
not go to the SIT even after retuning from his native
in Nepal. On the point of motive, evidence of Girish
Nepal is adduced in paras 30 to 42, 54 to 57. His
entire evidence is hearsay. Statements of Urmish Udhani
were recorded by the SIT, but did not form part of the
charge sheet. There are omissions in para nos. 6,8,69
and 70. His evidence remained unsupported by any other
oral or documentary evidence. Suspicious statement made
is by Janya Sheth to PW-57 and hence, the prosecution
failed to establish any motive on the part of accused
no.14. The prosecution failed to place any material in
this regard before the Court. Evidence of PW-74 Ashok
Gajanan Sawant shows that, mobile no.9833886791 stood
in his name and was handed over to accused no.14.
Documents at Exhs.414,415,416,417 are documents which
form part of concoction. There is inconsistency and
contradictions as regards to these documents and these
...1493/-
Exh.1124 1493 (J-SC 317/10)
are not cleared by the prosecution. Call details are
not before the Court. Evidence of PW-107 Mr.Chalke,
especially para no.249 onwards shows that, no search
was made, no inspection was carried out as regards to
mobile hand set as it was not seized. No panchanama of
the house was carried out and no arrest panchanama was
made. Evidence of PW-108 Mr. Ghorpade as regards to
CDR of mobile no. 9323459998 in paras 322, 323, 326 and
as regards to Exhs.677 and 676. Documents in this
behalf are not placed before the Court. PW-108 and
PW-110 contract each other. Number of Shankar did
reflect in his statement. PW-108 recorded statement of
PW-57 and stated about his mobile and CDR. There is
concoction as regards to evidence of Subhash Lefty.
It is evidence from para 331 and 333 by PW-108. Name of
Urmesh Udhani appeared in the FIR, but he is not an
accused. He is also not made witness hence, it becomes
clear that, motive suggested by the prosecution has
not been proved. His statement has not been filed along
with the charge sheet as he must have negated the
prosecution case. There is no sufficient and
satisfactory evidence as regards to 24 plots of
Anandibai Deshmukh at Airoli. This fact has come
before the Court through paras 333 and 334 of this
witness.
...1494/-
Exh.1124 1494 (J-SC 317/10)
1353. Ld. Advocate further argued that, evidence of
PW-110 Mr. Prasanna, paras 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195
shows that, prior to 20.3.2010, the SIT could not
collect mobile of Shankar Dalsingh, but record shows
that mobile number was available to the SIT prior to
20.3.2010. FIR Exh.121 did not disclose Shankar
Dalsingh and his mobile number. There is nothing about
mobile in the statement of PW-57. CDR of mobile no.
9323459998 of Girish Nepali are important to bring out
truth but the SIT has suppressed it. Letter dated
9.2.2011 by Reliance has not been filed by the SIT.
Paras 200, 201, 204, 206, 208, 209 from the statement
of PW-57, question is whether statement was recorded at
Bandra office or Pawai office. Omissions as regards
to, +=|`` +=| n||`` has been brought on record. No
efforts have been made to the effect house or office
search for files of properties of Anandibai Deshmukh.
Mobile of accused no.14 is subsequent to the incident.
Ashok Sawant is the only witness on the point of
mobile. The material is not truthful and the
prosecution failed to prove the case.
1354. Ld. Advocate Mr.Pendse has adopted arguments
of Ld. Advocates Mr. Ponda and Mr. Pasbola.
1355. Ld. Advocate Mr.Dhairyasheel Patil for accused
no.9 has argued that, there is no connection between
...1495/-
Exh.1124 1495 (J-SC 317/10)
accused no.1 and accused no.9 as regards to alleged
abduction of the deceased and Anil Bheda. The
prosecution has failed to establish any motive behind
the alleged abduction. Ld.Advocate referred to evidence
of PW-57 for motive part, evidence of PW-108, paras 333
and 334, evidence of PW-109, para 192 to show that
there was reference of property of Anandibai Deshmukh,
but the accused are not in picture. Evidence of PW-110
Mr.Prasanna, paras 208, 209 and 210 is as regards to
Anandibai or her family's statements being not recorded
by the SIT. It is further argued that, the prosecution
case is as regards to preplanned murder and it has
relied on circumstantial evidence, in which the
prosecution must prove each circumstance independently.
It failed to pinpoint any reason and even though
Section 120 B has been applied by the prosecution. It
failed to prove as to whether it was Anandibai's
property. There was no connection and no contract as
well as there was no motive. If there is motive,
prosecution must prove it, but it failed to do so.
1356. Ld. Advocate further argued about criminal
background of the Deceased. He referred to Annexure
Exh.135 (page 291) i.e. Affidavit of then Commissioner
of Police Mr.AN Roy. It shows that, ten offences
against the deceased were registered under IPC and Arms
Act. Those were not minor offences registered at
...1496/-
Exh.1124 1496 (J-SC 317/10)
different police stations. PW-1 Ramprasad Gupta also
spoke about criminal background of the deceased as he
was absconding and that he was a member of infamous
gang (page no. 64, paras 72 to 77 and paras 120, 126
of his evidence). PW-57 Shankar Dal Singh @ Girish
Nepali also speaks about this in para no.5. PW-109 PI
Sunil Gaonkar in page 162 and para 226 and PW-108
Vinay Ghorpade, in page 117, para 186 speaks about
background of the deceased, which is relevant to the
encounter. Anil Bheda in his statement under Sec. 161,
164 and statement about TIP, cannot be used by the
prosecution against accused. These statements will be
hit.
1357. Ld. Advocate has referred to Section 32 of the
Evidence Act and argued that, it is useful only as
regards to circumstances leading to death and cause of
the death of the maker. It is argued that, death is
issue; here Anil's death is not issue in this case.
Charge u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC is about Ramnarayan
Gupta and not about Anil Bheda. PW-1 Ramprasad Gupta
at page 31, para 38 speaks of conversation of PW-1 with
Anil Bheda, but this cannot be said to be useful for
the prosecution. Ld. Advocate referred to case of
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others V/s. State of
Bombay, AIR 1955 S.C. 104 (para 19).
...1497/-
Exh.1124 1497 (J-SC 317/10)
1358. As regards to accused no.9, Ld. Advocate
argued that, accused no.9 was not party to abduction.
There is no evidence to show that he was there. Accused
no.9 is not included in test Identification Parade.
PWs-1, 2, 38 and 40 are star witnesses, who do not name
accused no.9. PI A.T. Patil did not support the
prosecution case. The deceased was separated from Bheda
at DN Nagar. A.T. Patil did not accept of
identification of Anil Bheda. These contradictions do
not bring accused no.9 in picture. There is no
reference to accused no.9 as regards to Trisha or DN
Nagar. Bheda and the deceased were separated and
deceased disappeared. They were disassociated but the
deceased was only there. He was not in company of the
deceased. Ld. Advocate further referred to two railway
tickets (Art.116 colly.) and argued that, this evidence
is contrary to the prosecution case of 'abduction' and
'custody'. If prosecution case as it is to be accepted
then the deceased could not have got these tickets.
Reference is made to PW-107, paras 265 and 266 and
article 122 (inquest panchanama). Evidence of PW-110
Mr. Prasanna at page 203, para 285 is just like ostrich
has put his head in the sand. The SIT is wagging its
tail. Bheda with accused no.1 is not connected even
through evidence of A.T. Patil. The prosecution wants
to rope accused no.1. Accused no.1 has nothing to do
with the group at Nana Nani Park though sitting at DN
...1498/-
Exh.1124 1498 (J-SC 317/10)
Nagar police station. Then there is reference to
evidence of PW-43 and PW-55 and that of PW-87. It is
argued that, there is definite disconnection of
abduction, presence at DN Nagar and dissociation of
Anil Bheda and the deceased. It is argued that, prior
to attracting Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
prosecution must prove Sec. 364 of the IPC. Unless
custody, abduction is proved, no question of
explanation of death of the deceased from the accused
arise. Madan More (PW-43) gave first ever statement
on 01.02.2010. On 04.02.2010, another statement for
identification of Anil Bheda was recorded. On 19.3.2010
he had been at Hotel Mid-town. Then there is reference
to evidence of PC Naresh Phalke (PW-45), paras 2, 3, 5,
6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and that of PW Milind More (PW-55),
paras 10, 14, 21, 22, 27, 32, 33, 37. These three
constables claim in 2010 as to what happened in 2006.
PW-32 Sumant Bhosale speaks in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 15 about the incident that took place in the year
2006 and he speaks after four years. There are no
entries made in diaries, private pocket diaries. No
document has been brought on record. It is argued that,
every rat is leaving ship and saving skin and making
accused scapegoats. Those are ACP, DCP and Sr. PIs. No
material got from Hotel Mid-town to the SIT. No support
has come from the Hotel staff. The evidence is
collected by the SIT and it has come through PW-107 Mr.
...1499/-
Exh.1124 1499 (J-SC 317/10)
Chalke, paras 22, 23, 24, 26 and that of PW-108 Mr.
Ghorpade, paras 59 and 60 and also of PW-109 Mr.
Gaonkar, paras 9 and 10. Two dates of visiting Hotel
Mid-town are given by the SIT. No statements of police
constables were recorded. The SIT fixed the said hotel.
The constables did not lead the SIT there. The question
is raised as to why their statements were not recorded
on 1- 2.2.2010. Staff and Manager and documents do not
support the SIT. These are got up witnesses by the SIT.
It is argued that, Men may lie but circumstances
never.
1359. Ld. Advocate further argued about recording
statements u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C. It is argued that,
brother of accused no.9, ACP Suryawanshi sent letters
for recording statements u/s. 164 in CR No.302 of 2006.
PW-87 Ajendrasingh Thakur, Sr.PI, DN Nagar police
station, in paras 30, 31, 32 stated about it. Exhs.190,
191, 192 letters sent by PI Avadhoot Chavan at the say
of ACP Suryawanshi. It is argued that, there was
pressure by the SIT for recording statements u/s.164 of
Cr.P.C. It is well settled that, there should not be
any pressure on the witnesses. PW-108 Mr.Ghorpade gives
his evidence about recording 164 Cr.P.C statements in
para 30 about statement of Anil Bheda, para 41 about
Jayesh Kesariya, para 42 about Sujit Mhatre, para 87
about Mohandas Sankhe, para 110 about Anil More, paras
...1500/-
Exh.1124 1500 (J-SC 317/10)
111 and 112 about Mahendra Tatkare, Umesh Rewandkar,
para 215 about Shekar Sharma, Raudal, Manohar Kulpe,
Ramrajpal Singh, paras 226, 227, 238, 259 about Manohar
Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh and paras 260, 261, 262, 263,
266, 324, 325, 331 about Subhash Lefty. There is no
record to show that, consent of the witnesses for
recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements was obtained. On the
contrary there are allegations of threats by the
investigation agency.
Reliance has been placed on ;
D. Satyanarayana and another V/s. P.T. Reddy
and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2164 (paras 47,48
and 49) and Ram Charan and others V/s. State of U.P.,
AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1270 (V 55 C 242) (para 8) on
the point of recording 164 statements.
1360. Ld. Advocate further argued on the point of
Encounter. It is argued that, receiving information and
actual abduction are two different things. On this
point, PW-40 Aruna Bheda, in para 28 has deposed about
it. There is reference to Exh.897, station diary entry
of Versova police station, entry no. 33 at 18.05 hours.
FIR Exh.278 DN Nagar dated 11.11.2006 proved by PW-39
Mohandas. Accused no.9 stuck throughout till statement
u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. to his earlier version. The SIT is
also not free from it. PW-109, para 160 speaks about
getting secret information from informant. Then
...1501/-
Exh.1124 1501 (J-SC 317/10)
Ld.Advocate referred to Exhs. 124 to 128 letters and
it is referred to in paras 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116 and 117 in the evidence of PW-1 Ramprasad
Gupta and PW-2 Ganesh Iyer, page 39, paras 43 to 45
and 52 about the same. PW-11 Dr. Sunil Shinde in para
2 speaks that, ward boy removed the clothes of the
deceased. Firstly sent to FSL and then second time by
the SIT. PW-19 Jyotiram Phasale, PW-22 Vishnu Khatal,
District Hawaldar (page 4), PW-23 Shavaka Tadvi, paras
3 to 5; PW-26 Anil Kadam, paras 1 to 5; PW-31 Dattatray
Sankhe, para 7; PW-35 Kiran Sonone, paras 13 and 15;
PW-40 Aruna Bheda, para 32; PW-51 Anil More, paras 3
and 4; PW-61 Vinaykumar Choube, paras 1, 2, 4 to 14 to
17; PW-63 Arun Awate, paras 1 to 8,11 to 19, 21, 26 and
27; PW-73 Vilas Kandalgaonkar spoke that, accused no.9
had no role to play in the investigation. Panchanama
was prepared at Versova vide paras 8 to 14, 15; PW-77
Mahendra Tatkare, paras 1,2,11,14,15,18; PW-78 Bipin
Bihari speaks that, all four constables were posted at
DN Nagar police station.
1361. It is further argued that, PW-108 Mr.Ghorpade,
in paras 50 and 56 stated that, on 19.03.2010
statements of Milind More and Madan more were not
recorded in Hotel Mid-town. They were from DN Nagar.
Para 1 in evidence of Mr. Prasanna showed that, he was
DCP Zone X 01.7.2007 to 29.7.2009. Since 31.8.2009 to
...1502/-
Exh.1124 1502 (J-SC 317/10)
30.05.2011 he was DCP of Zone IX, which was relevant
period, during which statements of witnesses were
recorded. They were either from Versova or DN Nagar
police stations. This fact is revealed from evidence of
this witness in para 226. PW-32 Sumant Bhosale speaks
about accused no.9 in para 2. it has come in his
evidence that, on 12.11.2006 after 9 pm to 9.30 pm at
DN Nagar. CDR shows that, since 7 pm to 9.21 pm (Cell
ID address shows Heritage, JP Road). 9.21 pm-18
seconds, accused no.9 was not at police station. Since
10.05.10 pm, he was at Navbharat Nagar, which is cell
ID 11092 to 42961 as per Exh.575- and Exh.581. On
12.11.2006, PW-32 called PW-55. Then there is reference
to evidence of Mr. Bipin Bihari(PW-78) from mobile no.
9892753333, 9821552987, 9867156442 of accused no.9. In
paras 4 to 6, 12 to 23. Exh.543, accused no.9 calls
PW-78 immediately on 11.11.2006 at 8.26:28 pm. PW-81
Pramod Sawant, Wireless Operator on Peter Mobile, in
paras 1 to 8 shows that, no consent for 164 statements
was obtained by this witness.
1362. Then there is reference to evidence of
Mr.Umesh Revandkar (PW-83), paras 6 to 12 as regards to
recording of panchanama, which arises after three and
more years. Paras 30, 31 and 32 disclose that, DCP
Prasanna was having control over Santacruz police
station, as DCP Zone-IX. PW-87 Ajendrasingh Thakur, in
...1503/-
Exh.1124 1503 (J-SC 317/10)
paras 1 to 4, 20 to 25, 36, 41 to 44, 48 to 58 and 67
and in Exhs.669A, entry no. 25 at 18.55 hrs. of DN
Nagar police station shows - jokuk entry vVd dj.;klkBh-
Exh.670DN Nagar- ijrhph entry at 3.35 am on 12.11.2006.
Exh.897 of Versova police station, entry no. 33 at
18.05 hrs. shows that, Addl. Commissioner of Police
Mr. Bipin Bihari ;kaP;k vkns'kkus jokuk- The information was
secret. There were two groups and would not disclose
the movement to the other police or general public.
Name of 'Gunda' was not disclosed.
1363. Ld. Advocate referred to evidence of PW-107
PSI Manoj Chalke, especially paras 5, 16, 19, 20, 22,
23, 24, 26 and argued that, visit to Nana Nani Park,
Diamond society, Bhatwadi is created to falsify story
of CR 302/06, but no independent person or document has
been produced to show that it was a fake encounter.
Then there is reference to MLC Register in CR 302/06,
Exh.174A letter at para 126. Paras 198 to 202 shows
that, palpitation of the injured was going on. Paras
204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210 shows that, witnesses were
not called for Test Identification Parade. Paras 244,
245, 253, 254, 255, 258 speak about Shashi Tiwari and
Rambhau Lodh. Para 260 speaks about Sandeep Vishwasrao
and Gangadhar Sawant, who are not examined. Para 261,
262, 263 speak about Vijay Jadhav and para 264 is in
respect of statement recorded. Article 116 Railway
...1504/-
Exh.1124 1504 (J-SC 317/10)
tickets were found in the wallet in the pocket of the
deceased. Hence, story of abduction cannot be relied
on. Interrogation by accused no.1 is also falsified, as
prosecution statement about Bheda in D.N.Nagar police
station and also A.T. Patil of DN Nagar police station.
It has come on record through para 267 of PW-107.
1364. Evidence of PW-108 Mr.Ghorpade speaks (in para
14) about panchanama along with sketch prepared on
21.08.2009. Paras 214,215 show that, four relevant
persons, eye witnesses and photographers are not
examined. Paras 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265 show
that, the witness refused to answer and state facts and
purpose of recording statements. Statements of Manohar
Kulpe and Ramrajpal Singh were recorded. It shows
ignorance of PW-108 about these eye witnesses. Their
statements were recorded by Versova on 12.11.2006.
Names and phones were taken on the spot. Statement
before the SLAO-IV, Railway Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mr.Kulkarni and Mrs. Shaikh, u/s.164 and u/s. 161 were
recorded. It is admitted that their six statements were
recorded. Paras 260, 261, 262, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272,
280,315 of evidence of PW-108 show that, the SIT
visited Nana Nani Park to draw panchanamas, sketches to
get witnesses and in connection with C.R.302/06 to
falsify it, but they failed to achieve these objects.
No one came forward. Panchanama and sketches are not
...1505/-
Exh.1124 1505 (J-SC 317/10)
produced. Call to superior by accused no.9 does not
falsify C.R.No.302 of 2006. Accused no.9 is only
informant and not I.O. in C.R. 302/06, therefore, he is
no way related to seizure of weapons and ammunitions.
Panchanama dated 07.12.2009 as stated by PW-110 in para
276 is not on record. Exh.884- DN Nagar police station
entry is not challenged by the SIT. PW-110 Mr. Prasanna
went to DN Nagar and recorded statement, but did not
get anything. Ld. Advocate referred to scene of offence
panchanama, FIR (C.R.No.302/06), record, TV clips of
Aaj Tak(Exh.739), Sahara(Exh.123) and Complaint (Exh.
122). There cannot be a stage managed encounter.
Independent agencies at Nana Nani Park were there.
There was pool of blood. There was revolver of Lakhan
Bhaiya and one cartridge. There was traffic and also
there was sufficient light. Therefore, it is argued
that, prosecution story that it was a stage managed
encounter cannot be accepted to be true.
1365. Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence of
PW-102 Sahil Joshi (Aaj Tak), Exh.739, CD and paras 12,
14, 16, 18, 19 of his evidence and also evidence of
PW-110 Mr. Prasanna, Exh.737 (letter by DCP) and Exh.
739 (CD)paras 37,38,39,69,115. Para 258 shows that,
there was light. Then evidence of PW-1 RamprasadGupta
is referred. It is argued that, there is no reference
...1506/-
Exh.1124 1506 (J-SC 317/10)
in W.P and letters and complaint by PW-1. Four
conditions laid down in Section 65A, 65B of the
Evidence Act are not fulfilled. Exh.122 is manipulated
by PW-1 later on. Evidence of PW-39 Mohandas Sankhe and
panchanama Exh.283 is as regards to traffic, lights,
articles collected, presence of media on the spot as
well as accused no.9 giving bytes to the media. Two
photographers were not examined though they were
interrogated. Evidence of PW-108 Ghorpade shows in para
no.215 of his evidence that, there is reference to
Shekhar Sharma, Vinayak Raundal (photographers). There
is reference to evidence of PW-1 in paras 17, 109 to
115 ; paras 13, 14 and 16 of PW-2 Ganesh Iyer ; para 3
of PW-39 Mohandas Sankhe, para 32 of PW-40 Aruna Bheda
(page 35) and of page 12 of evidence of PW-39 and it is
argued that, if encounter did not take place at Nana
Nani Park then where was Lakhan Bhaiya killed. It is
not pinpointed by the SIT.
Reliance has been placed on Pt. Parmanand
Katara V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 Supreme
Court 2039 (paras 2,3) on the point of medical aid.
1366. It is further argued that, four Constables
are vague about dates. On 12.11.2006 at 9- 9.30 pm,
accused no.9 was at JP Nagar, Navbharat Nagar, Exh.587
CDR of accused no.9 in respect of mobile no. 9867156442
is referred. Exhs.572,573,574,575,576,577,578 falsify
...1507/-
Exh.1124 1507 (J-SC 317/10)
evidence of constables as accused no.9 was not in DN
Nagar police station. PW-65 Yogesh Rajapurkar, Nodal
Officer, Bharati Airtel. Para 6, is also referred.
1367. Ld. Advocate further referred to medical
evidence of this case. He made reference of PW-29
Dr.Gajanan Chavan (from JJ Hospital). PM Report is at
Exh.237. It is argued that, hand-wash and control
sample must be there. No procedure followed for hand-
wash. Hence of no use. Hence could not get comparison.
Para 10 of his evidence discloses that, alcohol was
found in the stomach of the deceased and he had
consumed six hours before. Exh.249 C.A. Certificate
dated 15.6.2007. Ld.Advocate further argued about
velocity, effective range, maximum range. He also
referred to evidence in page 13 para Para 12 (19).
PW-110 Mr. Prasanna, paras 33, 376, 377, 378. Ld.
Advocate raised points as to whether the deceased was
standing or fallen- Dr. Chavan says he was standing ;
whether semi-automatic weapon is faster than non-
automatic and whether five persons fired and accused
no.9 repeated firing. Within split of seconds five
shots were fired. Even after sustaining fatal injuries
a man can remain in standing position. Reference is
made to 24
th
Edition - pages 564 and 565 of Modi's
Jurisprudence. It is argued that, there is power of
volitional acts in a victim after receiving a fatal
...1508/-
Exh.1124 1508 (J-SC 317/10)
injury. Then reference is made to Vincent J.M. Di
Maio- gun shot wounds especially page nos. 268-270 as
regards to physical activity following gunshot wounds.
All injuries on the person of the deceased were on
frontal side. The sketch also supports the panchanama.
The deceased was hit on frontal side. PW-108 Vinay
Ghorpade, para 293 shows that, there is suppression of
panchanama, sketch, photographs and video shooting from
the Court. Ld. Advocate referred to Exh.911 and Article
124 by Dr. Chavan to Mr.Prasanna. All injuries were
sustained when the deceased was standing (Query No.4).
It has also come in evidence of PW-110 DCP Mr.
Prasanna, para 375. Ballistic Expert Mr.Ghadge (PW-86)
(Exh.655), paras 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231 are as
regards to qualification of Ballistic Expert. Ld.
Advocate has relied on the case of The State of Gujarat
V/s. Adam Fathe Mohmed Umatiya and others, 1971 (3)
Supreme Court Cases 208 (para 15) for the purpose of
expert evidence.
1368. Ld. Advocate further referred to undisputed
facts of the case i.e. there was one 9 mm pistol, four
revolvers of .38 , which were involved in the incident.
All five shots would take hardly any more time. All
shots were fired beyond range i.e. beyond 2 feet.
Reference is made to Tailor's Medical Jurisprudence -
Exh.278 FIR in CR No.302 of 2006 speaks of distance.
...1509/-
Exh.1124 1509 (J-SC 317/10)
It was not for defence of police but as there was
traffic, it was dangerous to general public and
traffic. Distance must be hardly 30-20 feet. Hand-
wash is not approved test these days. Three bullets
found in the deceased's body. Exh.237 (PM Report)
shows, injuries 1 to 5 on the deceased and there was no
deformed bullet. Ld.Advocate referred to Exh. 294 i.e.
letter to the C.A by Sr. PI of Versova police station
dated 13.11.2006 and Exhs.249,250,251,252,253 (Reports
by C.A.) dated 15.6.2007 in CR 302/06 Versova. Exh.
656, a letter by the SIT letter to the C.A. and
analysis was done in 2010. Exh.658 letter (Report)
sent by the C.A to the SIT. Page 8 shows difference in
the size. Page 9 shows upper portion no hole visible,
lower small hole. There is no similarity between the
holes. Cloths on which test fire was done is not
produced before the Court. No description of the cloth
is given. Cloth may not be similar to the clothes worn
by the deceased. Test is to be done on 'pigskin' and
not on cloth. There were movements as deceased was
moving and texture of the clothes may be different than
that of cloth used for test. Para 286 shows
measurement on the basis of hole mark. The clothes of
the deceased traveled since 2006 to 2010. Effective
range of the weapons is important and target is beyond
powder range.
...1510/-
Exh.1124 1510 (J-SC 317/10)
1369. Ld. Advocate referred to books:-(1) Hand-gun-
Firearms in criminal investigation and trials - Book
page 209, (2) Parikh's Text Book of Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology, page 267- 274, (3) HWV
Cox- Medial Jurisprudence & Toxicology, page 460, 462
and (4) Hateher Jury Weller- Firearms investigation,
Identification & Evidence, Page 413.
1370. It is also argued that, PW-86 Ballistic Expert
Mr.Ghadge was under the thumb of the SIT and he was at
the beck and call of the SIT. Ld. Advocate further
referred to evidence of PW-108 Mr. Ghorpade, para 218,
page 150, pages 282 and 293 about Mr.Ghadge and
reenactment of scene on 07.12.2009. There is reference
about evidence of Mr.Prasanna (PW-110), meeting
Mr.Ghadge on 29.10.2009 and the SIT received copies
from FSL in respect of CR 302/06 on 3.10.2010 and
recreation of the scene dated 11.11.2006 on 07.12.2009
in paras 100, 273 to 275, 276 and 291 in evidence of
PW-110.
1371. Then Ld. Advocate further referred to the book
on Identification of Firearms and Forensic Analysis of
Major Sir Gerald Burrard, page 74 as regards to
velocity and striking velocity of a bullet. It is
argued that, Mr.Ghadge intermingling with and
associated with the agency cannot be relied on. Ld.
...1511/-
Exh.1124 1511 (J-SC 317/10)
Advocate relied on :-
(1) Mayur Panabhai Shah V/s. State of Gujarat, 1982
CRI L.J. 1972 - no presumption that doctor is always
a witness of truth (para 2).
(2) S. Gopal Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh,
1996 CRI L.J. 3237 Supreme Court - on the point of
expert evidence. It is weak type of evidence (paras
20, 27).
(3) Madan Gopal Kakkad V/s. Naval Dubey and another,
1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 598 Section 45
Expert opinion not binding on Court. It is advisory
in nature. Court has to form its own opinion
considering the material, data and the opinion on
technical aspects rendered by the expert (para 34).
1372. Ld. Advocate further refereed to Sections 96
to 106 of the IPC of Right of Private Defence. It is
argued that, force should not be weighed in golden
scale in the light of danger to life of the accused.
Page 57para 33-Page 59para VI of Written Arguments of
Exh.1086 of the complainant are referred. Para-4 of
Exh.154 Order of the Hon'ble High Court is also
referred. It is argued that, it is not finding of the
Hon'ble High Court, but of Ld.M.M. It is further argued
that, Statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. can be used for
corroboration and contradictions. Section 154 is in the
same light. Then there is reference to evidence of
...1512/-
Exh.1124 1512 (J-SC 317/10)
PW-104 AT Patil, paras 11,17,18,20 to 70. Omissions and
contradictions from statements u/s. 161 and u/s.164
Cr.PC and to Exh.744. Substantive evidence is before
the Court and corroboration is by 164 statements. The
witness has denied his statement. It can only be taken
for collateral purpose or only for the sake of perjury.
It is not substantive piece of evidence.
Ld. Advocate has relied on ;
(1) Sunil Kumar V/s. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR (SC)-1997-0-940- (para 10)
(2) Ram Kishan Singh V/s. Harmit Kaur, AIR
(SC)- 1972-0-468 (para 4).
1373. Clause (2) Sec.164 would not apply to witness
like A.T.Patil. Section 80 denotes no presumption can
be drawn as there is difference between confession and
statement. Hence, no precaution taken by the Magistrate
while recording the statement. What led Mr. A.T.Patil
to make statement- can presumption of S.80 be drawn.
1374. Ld. Advocate further argued that, evidence of
PW-1 is hearsay, clip by him; information to depute
force; entry in Versova diary; entry when left DN
Nagar; after encounterinjured sent to Cooper Hospital;
call to Mr.Bipin Bihari from accused no.9(CDR); FIR by
accused no.9; two shots fired by deceased. Where did
bullets go- might have gone in bushes. Blood group of
...1513/-
Exh.1124 1513 (J-SC 317/10)
Ramnarayan matched with the blood found on the spot-
Exh.250. Mr.Dattatray Sankhe (PW-31)-First IO of CR No.
302/06, para Exhs.249 to 254 denote this fact. Then Ld.
Advocate argued about Right of Private Defence and
actual incident. It is argued that, Cyclist, traffic,
auto-TV clips independent agencies. It is a true
defence. Personal life and life of public was in
danger. There was criminal background of the deceased.
PW-109 Mr.Gaonkar in Para 226 speaks of it. The
deceased fired one round each at two groups. PW-39
Mohandas Sankhe speaks of two empty shells and two
intact bulletshammer mark on live bullets- empties had
marks on it vide Panchanama Exh.283. Exhs.249 to 254
Reports- Exh.251 report dated 18.8.2007. It is not a
case of anticipated danger but danger started
running. Section 100 says when the right of private
defence of body extends to causing deaths. Section 102
says 'commencement and continuance of the right of
private defence of the body'. It is a 'preventive'
right. Action on the other side might not have begun.
Ld. Advocate relied on Deo Narain V/s. State
of U.P., 1973 CRI L.J.,677 - Right of Private Defence
is not punitive but preventive (para 5).
1375. It is further argued that knowledge and
intention is material and not the result in the case of
Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). Intention is
...1514/-
Exh.1124 1514 (J-SC 317/10)
manifested by the act. Ld. Advocate has relied on ;
1) State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Imrat and
another, 2008 CRI LJ 3869 (S.C) (paras 11&16)
2) Rajbir Singh Dalal V/s. Chaudhari Devi Lal
University, Sirsa, AIR (SC)-2009-0-768.
3) Jai Dev and Hari Singh V/s. State of Punjab,
1963 (1) Cr. L.J.495 SC on the point of right
of private defence extent of (para 11).
4) Seriyal Udayar V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1987 Supreme Court 1289 on the point of right
of private defence indicating happening of
incident in the manner suggested by accused
(paras 14 and 16).
5) Kali Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR
1973 Supreme Court 2773 on the point of 162
Cr.P.C statement and proof of guilt.
1376. It is further argued that, The Metropolitan
Magistrate, Andheri Court, came to wrong conclusion.
The SIT has withhold its best evidence. Reference is
made to Exh.890 Progress Report. Ld. Advocate further
argued that, there cannot be assumptions and
presumptions and then reliance has been placed upon
Sayyed Amir Sayyad Amanoddin V/s. State of Maharashtra,
2004 ALL MR (Cri) 682.
...1515/-
Exh.1124 1515 (J-SC 317/10)
1377. It is also argued that, Exh.154 Copy of order
in W.P dated 13.9.2009, para 8- lie detector's test of
PWs ordered - it discloses distrust in PWs. PW-109
Mr.Gaonkar, para 217 referred to brain mapping test. So
also, PW-110 in page 29, paras 61, 62 and 296 about the
same fact.
1378. Then it is also argued that, there is no
sanction to prosecute u/s. 197 Cr.P.C and u/s. 165 of
Bombay Police Act. Reliance has been placed upon
General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles and others
V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
(20 12) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 88 .
1379. Ld. Advocate Mr. Vanjara for accused No.4 has
argued that there is no whisper in evidence to show
that accused No.4 was the member of the unlawful
assembly or that he joined the said assembly armed with
deadly weapons. There is no evidence of rioting. No
person has come forward to state about keeping watch.
Not a single witness from Sector 9 of Vashi has been
examined by the prosecution. Kidnapping secretly,
wrongful confinement with reference to Majestic Hotel
and Hotel Midtown has not been proved. There is no
evidence to show as to where was Lakhan Bhaiyya @ Ram
Narayan Gupta killed. Running panchnama does not
disclose anything against accused No.4 as regards to
...1516/-
Exh.1124 1516 (J-SC 317/10)
abduction, wrongful confinement and taking away
deceased Lakhan Bhaiyya and Anil Bheda from sector 9 to
Bhandup, to D.N. Nagar Police Station, killing of Ram
Narayan Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiyya and taking part in all
those alleged acts. There is no material showing
conspiracy and participation of accused No.4 in it.
Even Sections 109, 364, 365, 368 cannot be made
applicable to accused No.4.
1380. Ld. Advocate has argued that charge Nos.1 to
22 do not stand against accused No.4 Accused No.2 was
arrested on 8/1/2010 and thereafter investigation
against him started when CDRs were received by the SIT.
It is argued that there was wrongful confinement,
illegal arrest and detention of accused No.4. Ld.
Advocate referred to Exhs.826 dated 8/10/2012 and
evidence of P.W. 65 Mr. Yogesh, P.W. 84 Mr. Satish
Rane, P.W.88 Mohd. Usman, P.W.96 Mehmood Moh. Ali
Shaikh, P.W. 103 Amit Jayantilal Patel, P.W.107 PSI Mr.
Chalke, P.W.108 API Mr. Ghorpade and P.W. 110 DCP Mr.
Prasanna. It is argued that if evidence of all these
witnesses is taken together, nothing substantial has
come on record against accused No.4.
1381. Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence of
P.W.84 Satish Rane the S.M.M. and the test
identification parades conducted by him. Ld. Advocate
...1517/-
Exh.1124 1517 (J-SC 317/10)
also referred to panchanama Exh.346 and letter Exh.640.
The question was raised as to why accused No.4 was put
under Test Identification parade. There is no material
to show that any one has seen accused No.4 on
10/11/2006 or on 11/11/2006 in the said areas. Ld.
Advocate referred to the Test Identification parades
dated 20/1/2010, 30/1/2010 and 23/3/2010. It is argued
that all those Test Identification parades were not
carried out as per the directions of the Hon'ble High
Court and provisions laid down in the Criminal Manual.
The Special Metropolitan Magistrate did not select the
panchas. More than two accused persons were put in the
Test identification parades. It contravened the
guidelines. Stock panchas were brought by the police.
There is no mention of selecting a particular number
out of the panchas and dummies produced before the
S.M.M. The panchas and witnesses have just pointed out
at the suspect and do not attribute any overt act to
the said suspect.
1382. Ld.Advocate further referred to Extract
Register dated 20/1/2010 (Exh.648). The timing referred
to in the said extract is 4.06 p.m. at 5.05 p.m. Anil
and Aruna left and at 5.15, the Special Metropolitan
Magistrate left the prison. There is wrong mention of
timing by P.W. 84 that up to 17.15, he was in jail.
The panchnama started at 16.10 hours and was concluded
...1518/-
Exh.1124 1518 (J-SC 317/10)
at 17.15 hours. Paras 1 to 33, 34 of his evidence are
as regards to antecedents of the panchas. There is no
identity proof of identifying witnesses and the same
was not shown to the panchas. The question has been
raised as to when signatures of the panchas were
obtained, when they left at 5.05 p.m. and panchnama was
completed at 7.15 hours. It is argued that evidence of
this witness has to be rejected in toto. Anil Bheda
has not been examined.
1383. Ld.Advocate further referred to document Exh.
663document of TIP showing the timings etc. and Exh.
782 Newspaper. It is argued that photographs of the
Akhil, Hitesh, Shailendra, Ratanakar and Tanaji were
published in newspaper DNA dated 12/1/2010 and Test
Identification parade was conducted on 20/1/2010.
Photograph of Vinayak Shinde appeared in newspaper in
(Exh.765).
1384. There is reference to P.W.88 Mohammad Shaik
(Exh.674). He was working in shop of P.W.96. BPL card
bearing No.9821056311 was given to Pinkibhai. This is
not a number of Accused No.4. It is in the name of P.W.
88. Accused No.4 was having his mobile of Airtel. This
evidence does not support the prosecution case against
accused No.4. Contradictory statements are found in
para 2,17 and 24. P.W. 96 Mohammad Shaikh has declined
...1519/-
Exh.1124 1519 (J-SC 317/10)
to support the prosecution case. Ld. Advocate referred
to Maruti Zen car of dark blue colour bearing No. MH01-
Y-7494. It is further argued that no call details of
calling Moh. Takka are produced before the Court. Then
the ld. Advocate further referred to Exh.453 and
evidence in para 3 and 4 of P.W.96. There is no entry
in the record of the SIT that P.W.103 Amit Jayantilal
Patel Exh. 740 was called by the SIT and that he
declined to go to the SIT office. This has come on
record in para 13 of evidence of this witness. Ld.
Advocate referred to evidence of P.W.65 Yogesh
Shrikrishna Rajapurkar (Airtel) Nodal Officer- related
to Accused No.4 CDR, SDR etc and Exh. 570, 571, 573,
575, 577, 578. It is argued that 570 shows cell ID
41532 and 571 address is shown as Jayashree Sadan, New
Mira Bhaiyander Road. Then there is reference of Exh.
581Cell ID 41532 (page 243) in relation to Mobile
No.9867429023 of accused No.4 and Mobile No. 9870213457
of accused No.3, Mobile No.9819058070 of accused No.6
and Mobile No.9870341323 of accused No.2. There is
change in address of Cell ID. Format of Exh.579 is
different than format in Exh.581. Chronology of columns
is changed. Nothing has been explained about the change
in formats for the same period. There is change about
the date and timing. Therefore, these types of CDRs
cannot be relied on. Exh.408 is as regards to CDRs of
accused No.6. There is no mention of SMS of Pinky to
...1520/-
Exh.1124 1520 (J-SC 317/10)
accused No.6. There is a call by Pinky at serial No.
40, which is not reflected in Exh. 581. SMS at
Serial No. 173 is also not reflected. Exh. 571 being
same cell ID, reflects two addresses. Cell IDs 11091,
11092 and 11093 (J.P.Road) are similar with 11841,
11842, 11843. Exh.575 (Rukmini) 571 Plot No.21 J.P.
Road, 575 heritage J.P. Road. There is difference in
addresses of Cell IDs 12411, 12412, 12413, 14542,
15242, 15333, 15743, 16743, 16732, 16733, 16921 and in
Exh. 573 - 16922, 16923, 17022, 4013, 60171.
1385. Exh.581 relates to Cell ID 16921 of Shirin
Apartment, Vashi Navi Mumbai. It relates to accused
No.4. Koparkhairane Sector 29 is Vashi Navi Mumbai,
having Cell ID 16923 and 16922. Exh.585 a letter by
Airtel to DCP Mr.Prasanna is about Mobile No.
9867429023 of Shailendra accused No.4 and its date of
activation is 31/1/2006. Exh.579 shows date of
activation of Mobile of accused No.4. Then the Ld.
Advocate referred to Exh.433 page 83 and 85 and argued
that these calls/SMS are not reflected in Exh. 585.
These are of the year 2009. Accused No.4 Shailendra @
Pinky was never present in Sector 9 or 9-A as alleged
by the prosecution. Names of accused No.4 and 5 were
not mentioned in the FIR. There is contradictory and
unreliable evidence of P.W.107 as regards to arrest
panchnama in respect of accused No.1, accused No.3 and
...1521/-
Exh.1124 1521 (J-SC 317/10)
accused Nos. 4 and accused No.5. Investigating team did
not follow guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down in D.K. Basu's case(1997) 1 SCC 416. It is further
argued that P.W.40 Aruna Bheda did not state
particulars of Test Identification Parade in her
statement recorded outside the prison by the SIT.
There is reference to evidence of P.W. 110 para 85 and
that of P.W. 17 as regards to sim card 9930754949 Exh.
453 of Voda Phone Company of accused No.5. Ld. Advocate
further adopted arguments of ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola.
1386. Ld. Advocate Mr.Bhanushali has argued that
there was no presence of above mentioned accused at
Vashi, D.N. Nagar police station etc. and no overt act
has been attributed to them. Accused No.20 was posted
at D.N. Nagar police station and was assigned passport
duty at the relevant time, which has come on record
through evidence of P.W.20 Sanjivan Singhe in para 1 of
his evidence. Exh.208-A, extract of entry dated
11/11/2006 in Duty Register discloses the same fact.
Prosecution has implicated him on the basis of FIR in
C.R.No.302/06 as one of the members of the raiding
party. The said FIR is not an admissible piece of
evidence. It amounts to confession against accused No.9
and it is not admissible u/s.25 of Indian Evidence Act.
Confession in C.R.No.302/06 by accused No.9, cannot be
used against the accused persons in C.R.NO.246/09. FIR
...1522/-
Exh.1124 1522 (J-SC 317/10)
is not a substantive piece of evidence and it cannot be
considered to show presence of accused No.20 on the
spot. Prosecution has not examined any witness to prove
his presence at the spot. There is no evidence to show
as to for what purpose he has gone there though he has
been assigned Passport duty. He is not shown to be
armed with any weapon. There is a charge of accused No.
9 for lodging a false and fabricated FIR i.e. C.R.
302/06 and u/s.201 of I.P.C. i.e. screening the
offenders (charge 19). No one has proved contents of
the FIR. It cannot be said that truth has come before
the court. The maker of the document i.e. FIR is not
examined and mere exhibiting of the document in itself
does not prove the contents.
1387. Ld. Advocate further argued on the point of
abscondance of the accused. There is evidence of P.W.s
30,33,107 and 108 in respect of the alleged abscondance
of the accused persons. P.W.30 Jitendra Shivekar is the
panch of panchnama Exh.239. It relates to proclamation
and execution of it. He is a professional panch. The
SIT had only one form and then how it was affixed at
various places. They did not go inside room No.131.
Jijabai was present. Exh.240 is the proclamation.
Nothing was written about clapping in the panchnama,
which was written in the police station. Portion marked
'A' about the staircase has been brought on record
...1523/-
Exh.1124 1523 (J-SC 317/10)
through evidence of this witness.
1388. Ld. Advocate further discussed evidence of
P.W. 33 Anil Hegiste panch at Exh.239. It is argued
that he was not aware what proclamation was about.
Credibility of this witness is doubtful. A false
panchanama was prepared by police at the police station
and they did not go anywhere. It is a concoction. The
proclamation does not bear any date as to when the
accused is to appear before the court/the investigating
officer. Exh.240 is the proclamation. Prosecution has
not produced copies of earlier warrants. Accused No.20
was called and his statement was recorded on 2/3
occasions, which shows that he was available and not
absconding. Then ld. Adocate referred to evidence of
P.W. 107, PSI Mr.Chalke, especially paras 211, 215, 217
to 221, 223, 224 to 228 and argued that the SIT did not
go to his native. It did not make inquiry in the
neighborhood or in the police station. Therefore, it
cannot be said that he was absconding. Then the ld.
Advocate referred to evidence of P.W. 108 Mr. Ghorpade
and argued that no warrants are submitted along with
the charge-sheet. Statements of witnesses including
mother of accused No.20 have not been recorded. It did
not seize attendance record from D.N.Nagar Police
Station. They have not explained shortcoming of date/
month/ year, therefore, evidence of this witness as
...1524/-
Exh.1124 1524 (J-SC 317/10)
well as that of P.W. 110 has to be discarded. There is
no entry in Versova police station. Prosecution failed
to prove that he was absconding. He was available to
the SIT but the SIT did not make efforts to trace him.
He was arrested from his house at Aram Nagar. Mere
abscondance of accused No.20 in itself is not an
incriminating fact against him. Prosecution failed to
prove that he was a culprit. The prosecution also
failed to complete the chain of FIR in C.R. No. 302/06,
his abscondance and Cell location. It is argued that
Aram Nagar and D.N. Nagar area is one and the same and
therefore, it cannot be incriminating. It only shows
that a particular mobile and not the person in the said
area.
1389. Ld. Advocate further argued in respect of
accused No.2 Tanaji Desai in relation to Exh. 656 dated
19/12/2009. Report to the C.A., serial No. 4KF 9mm 2
Z94, panchnama Exh. 232, Exh.283 (P3) MT(Pungali)- KF
949mm 22. P.W.39 in para 3 referred to KF 949mm 22.
Exh.494 is letter dated 12/11/2009 as regards to
muddemal sent at serial No.5 KF 9mm- 2-94. This makes
a case of manipulation and substitution. 30 rounds were
taken by him and 30 rounds were returned by him. Where
from did accused No.2 get the bullet fired. There is no
investigation in this respect. Exh.497 shows that this
empty was fired from the weapon of Sartape but his
...1525/-
Exh.1124 1525 (J-SC 317/10)
weapon is not examined by the Ballistic Expert. Exh.
498-A (weapon entry Butt 2919) shows API Nitin Sartape
yani yek round fire kele. It was duty of the Ballistic
Expert to examine the weapon and bullet.
1390. It is further argued that there is two years 9
months delay in lodging the FIR and there was enough
time for manipulation. Therefore, it has created
suspicion. It was question as to what was the necessity
of sending telegram. Reference is made to para 15 of
evidence of P.W.1, which refers to picking up his
brother by crime branch Belapur. Investigation is
influenced by P.W.1 and it is not impartial. If Ram
Narayan Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiyya was not killed at Nana-
Nani park, then where is the spot where he was killed.
There is circumstantial evidence. Motive is required to
complete the chain but the prosecution failed to show
any motive on the part of the accused persons. It
failed to explain as to where was Anil Bheda since
11/11/2006 till he surfaced at Vashi police station at
5 p.m. on 12/11/2006. Statements of Sharda@ Yashoda
were recorded on 9/11/2009 and 7/1/2007 as per evidence
of P.W.110 Mr. Prasanna and progress report marked 'A'
Exh.894. Ld. Advocate also argued that there is no
sanction to prosecute as per provisions of Bombay
Police Act and Criminal Procedure Code. No case has
been made out against the accused persons.
...1526/-
Exh.1124 1526 (J-SC 317/10)
1391. Ld. Advocate Mr.Bhanushali has relied on
following authorities :-
(1) V.K. Sasikala V/s. State Rep. by
Superintendent of Police, 2013 CRI L.J.
177.
(2) The State of Maharashtra V/s. Ganesh
s/o. Ramkrishnaji Burbade, 2011 ALL MR
(Cri) 3721.
(3) Hanmant Shankar Salunkhe V/s. The State
of Maharashtra, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2416.
(4) Sau. Rekha w/o. Uttam Mondhe V/s. State
of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3848.
(5) Aghnoo Nagesia V/s. State of Bihar,
1965 LawSuit (SC) 143.
1392. Ld. Advocate Mr. Ezaz Khan for accused nos.
6,7 and 10 has referred to evidence of PW-109
Mr.Gaonkar, especially para 226 in it. He has referred
to the report submitted by Mr.A.N.Roy, then
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and to evidence of
PW-107 Mr.Chalke, especially para nos. 202, 203 and
204, wherein Mr.Chalke has referred to palpitation of
the injured and presence of Mr.Sartape and Mr.Sarwankar
while injured was being taken to Cooper Hospital. In
addition to this evidence of DW-1 is there to show
that, the encounter was genuine. The Ld. Advocate
...1527/-
Exh.1124 1527 (J-SC 317/10)
further argued that, it is a case of Police V/s.
Police. The prosecution has no direct evidence against
the accused but it has relied on circumstantial
evidence. The case is full of surmises and conjectures.
The quality must be unimpeachable. There should not be
room for suppression, fabrication and tutoring of
witnesses. Scale must weigh in favour of accused when
allegations are made against the SIT. There should not
be any room for doubt or suspicion.
1393. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that,
evidence of A.T.Patil is not in support of prosecution
case. He has made allegation that, under threat and
force of PW-110, he gave statement to the SIT and also
to Ld. M.M. The reference is made to PW-96 Mehmood Ali
Shaikh and it is argued that Subhash Lefty has not been
examined. Though he is crucial witness who could have
been useful to establish important link of the chain.
Witness Nilesh is also not examined and prosecution has
deliberately suppressed this witness, though he was an
important witness as Subhash Lefty was. The Ld.
Advocate referred to evidence of Pw-38 Dhiraj Mehta and
argued that, his evidence is hearsay. Prosecution has
manipulated the number of Qualis vehicle. Not a single
policeman from D.N.Nagar police station came forward to
depose about two persons brought to the police
station. Prosecution story that accused nos. 6.7 and 10
...1528/-
Exh.1124 1528 (J-SC 317/10)
are the people allegedly related to accused no.1.
Accused no. 6 is not a policeman. Mr.Ajendra Thakur
(PW-87) deposed before the court but there is no
evidence to show that, accused no.6 used to come to
accused no.1 prior to 11/11/2006. Prosecution has not
specified any period to that effect. This witness did
not mention any specific period in para 17 or para 19
of his evidence. Para-69 of his evidence only discloses
that, he knew accused no.5 and accused no.6. When it is
circumstantial evidence it must be of high quality, but
it is not so in this case.
1394. The Ld. Advocate further referred to para 319
of evidence of PW-110 Mr. Prasanna and argued that, the
prosecution has not produced any documents to the
effect of presence of accused no.6 and there is no case
of the prosecution to show that he was in the squad of
accused no.1. The prosecution failed to adduce
trustworthy evidence, though it produced on record
documents Exhs.459,458,421,453,463 it failed to give
explanation of Cell Phone of accused no.6. In paras 129
to 137 evidence of PW-54 Changdeo Godse-Vodafone is
there on record but different locations and different
addresses of Cell ID's ending with 1992,3414/3414/ 2612
and 2112 of having different addresses are stated and
hence create doubt about the said evidence.
...1529/-
Exh.1124 1529 (J-SC 317/10)
1395. The Ld. Advocate further referred to evidence
of PW-108 Mr.Ghorpade especially para 246 and argued
that, there is manipulation of CDR's and SDR's. There
are discrepancies found in the record of Vodafone
company but no explanation came forward from the
prosecution. There is no unimpeachable evidence. Anil
Bheda only identified accused no.6 but no motive, no
overt-act was attributed to accused no.6. There is no
evidence of kidnapping/ abduction against him. There is
no evidence to connect him with this crime.
1396. The Ld. Advocate has placed reliance on,
1. Rohit Dhingra & another V/s State,
CRE 926/2011 and Crl.M (Bail) 1302/2011
(paras 14,15 and 16) on the point of
circumstantial evidence and standard
required for it.
2. State of Gujarat V/s. Zarinabibi w/o.
Ibrahim Hasanbhai Patel, Cri. Misc
Appln. 10710/2010 in Cri.Appeal
1567/2010 (Paras 5, 5.1, 5.2) on the
point of lie detection test, Test
Identification Parade and talks on
mobile.
1397. The Ld. Advocate further referred to paras
320,321,322 325 from evidence of PW-110 Mr. Prasanna.
...1530/-
Exh.1124 1530 (J-SC 317/10)
The Ld. Advocate questioned as to why did PW-38 receive
calls from PW-1 and argued that it was a got- up story
by the SIT. First in time information as regards to
vehicle was MH-0-12-Qualis. The FIR mentioned only
MH-12. The SIT secured vehicle No.MH 04-AW-8824
(9646692-96692). Panchnama Exh.182 discloses colour of
the vehicle as bluish silver. There is difference in
Engine Number and Chassies (Exh.180 and Exh.177A). It
is argued that Sujit Mhatre is a got up witness and
polluted prosecution evidence. He is not the owner.
There is no evidence to show that,car was given to any
of the accused persons. The Ld. Advocate further
referred to evidence of PW-14 Parmanand Desai and
argued that, accused no.10 was absent on 11 &
12 /11/2006. There is no substantive evidence, hence it
can not be presumed. He is not author of the documents
(Exhs.186,187,188). It is further argued that,
conjectures and surmises are hallmark of the
prosecution case.
1398. Ld. Advocate Mr.Sawant for accused nos.13,16
and 19 referred to the charge against these accused and
argued that, no prosecution witnesses have deposed
against these accused. There is no evidence but the
accused are connected for offences u/s.364,302,342 of
IPC. There is no evidence of wrongful confinement of
Anil Bheda against accused no.13. PW-Mr.Phalke, PW-
...1531/-
Exh.1124 1531 (J-SC 317/10)
Milind More, PW-Madan More, police constables have not
deposed anything as regards to wrongful confinement of
Anil Bheda. There is no entry in police station dairy
as regards to specific date and day of duties
discharged by these three police personnel. There is no
sanction to prosecute u/s.197 of Cr.P.C. against these
accused persons. They did not know as to why they
guarded Anil Bheda till the SIT recorded their
statements. Exh.668 is the Office Order of accused no.
13 dated 21/08/2006. The prosecution has made attempt
to involve accused no.13. There is no evidence against
accused no.19 except allegation that both of them were
members of the team.
1399. Ld. Advocate Mr. Girish Kulkarni for accused
nos.15 and 22 argued that, prosecution has tried only
to show deficiencies in investigation of CR 302/2006.
The Ld.Advocate referred to CDR/SDR-locations, bullets
and fake encounter. Anil/Aruna were introduced to gave
role to PWs-1,2,3. There is only material in the form
of evidence of Aruna Bheda. It is further argued that,
taking way, keeping, guarding Anil is unbelievable,
illogical,unreasonable and immaterial. It is further
argued that, there was no abduction but the case of
abduction was concocted subsequently. It cannot be
linked to encounter of Ramnarayan Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiya
dated 11/11/2006. Only record of Majestic Hotel,
...1532/-
Exh.1124 1532 (J-SC 317/10)
Kolhapur is available. First the SIT goes there and
subsequently records statement of Anil Bheda. The SIT
has not produced best witnesses to adduce evidence as
regards to Mid-town Hotel. On 3/09/2009 Aruna Bheda's
statement was recorded as per her say but Mr.Prasanna
(PW-110) denies it. Then the Ld. Advocate has referred
to evidence of Kailash Ekiwala (PW-22) paras 7,8 and 9
and argued that, there was manipulation of entires. It
is also argued that, there was no conspiracy of
abduction or fake encounter but it was a Genuine
Encounter. The story of segregation, of abduction and
of encounter is also argued by the Ld. Advocate. The
Ld.Advocate referred to evidence PW-24 Suraj
Ramashankar Kanojia with reference to Exh.226 and
argued that, promulgation of proclamation is not
reliable.
1400. Ld. Advocate Mr. Vadke for accused no.17 has
referred to Exhs.719, 720 which are the entries in
respect of Ammaldars on duty. It is argued that,
CDR/SDR of accused no.17 have not been brought on
record through prosecution evidence. PW-109 admitted
that, accused no.17 did not carry any weapon. PWs 51,
73,77,81,83 having nothing to state against accused no.
17 in spot panchanama Exh.283. PW-110 in para 360 of
his evidence admitted that no statement of anyone was
recorded from Versova Police Station and D.N.Nagar
...1533/-
Exh.1124 1533 (J-SC 317/10)
Police Station.
SUBSTANCE OF ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED NO.1 TO
ACCUSED NO.22 AND MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS BY ACCUSED
NO.7 (Exh.1090 and Exh.1091):-
1401. As regards to burden of proof- reliance has
been placed on; (1) AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 2549 paras 20
and 21, (2) AIR 2011 SC 1017 para 19, (3) 2010 ALL MR
(Criminal) 3342 para 24, (4) AIR 2000 SC 2988 paras
31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 and (5) AIR 2006 SC 1319
(1) para 10.
1402. For law of circumstantial evidence reliance
has been placed on (1) 1984 Cr.L.J. 1738- paras 152 and
153, (2) 2010 ALL MR (Cri.) 2072 para 5 and (3) 2012
Cr.L.J. 4657 para 17.
1403. By relying on above stated authorities, it is
argued that, there is no direct evidence as far as
accused no.1 is concerned and that the prosecution must
prove each and every circumstance and has to establish
chain of circumstances so complete that from such
circumstances only inference which can be drawn is
guilt of accused and there should not be any hypothesis
on the basis of which the Court could come to the
conclusion that accused is innocent.
...1534/-
Exh.1124 1534 (J-SC 317/10)
1404. On the point of abduction, the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, PW-2 Ganesh
Iyer, PW-3 Shyamsunder Gupta, PW-38 Dhiraj Mehta. It is
argued that, Nilesh, who allegedly informed Dhiraj
(PW-38) is not examined by the prosecution, therefore,
whatever Dhiraj stated to other witnesses is hearsay
and cannot be admitted in evidence. Whatever PW-1 and
PW-2 learned from Dhiraj is hearsay and what Ganesh
Iyer stated is also hearsay of hearsay. Hence, evidence
of these four witnesses cannot be considered as true.
Evidence of PW-57 Girish Nepali shows that, he learned
something from PW-38 Dhiraj and Dhiraj learned it from
Nilesh. None of the witnesses has witnessed actual act
of abduction. Nilesh is alleged to have witnessed the
incident, but he has not been produced and examined
before the Court and other five witnesses cannot be
relied on the point of abduction. Reliance has been
placed on ; (1) AIR 1966 SC 580, (2) AIR 1970 CAL 74,
(3) AIR 1976 SC 381, (4) AIR 1982 SC 673 and (5) AIR
2009 SC 1854.
1405. Exhs.114 to 120 and 129 to 134 are not
substantive evidence and have only corroborative value.
PW-1 and PW-2 also did not personally witness the
alleged act of abduction, therefore, information that
they received was hearsay. Even those persons
themselves did not know about actual abduction,
...1535/-
Exh.1124 1535 (J-SC 317/10)
therefore, above referred documents are nothing but a
sort of written hearsay.
Reliance is placed on; (1) AIR 1983 SC 906 =
1983 Cr.J. 1276, (2) AIR 2009 SC 1854, (3) AIR 2010 NOC
106 = (2009)2 Maharashtra L.J. Cri 249, (4) Sarkar's
Evidence Act - 17
th
Edition page nos. 52, 53 and 1382 .
1406. In absence of substantive evidence,
documentary evidence is of no use to establish these
circumstances and deserves to be rejected.
1407. As regards to 'Res-gestae,' reliance has been
placed on ; (1) AIR 1952 SC 54, (2) AIR 1970 Bom 438,
(3) AIR 1985 SC 1286, (4) AIR 2000 SC 2138, (5) AIR
2009 SC 2603 = 2009 Cr.L.J. 3738 and (6) (2009) 6 SCC
450.
1408. Then there is reference to evidence of Aruna
(PW-40) and it is called as an inadmissible evidence.
It is argued that, Anil Bheda did not die during the
alleged incident along with the deceased. He was alive
on 12.11.2006 and for long time thereafter. Obviously,
therefore, what transpired on 11.11.2006 cannot be
connected with his death and consequently Section 32 of
the Evidence Act cannot be attracted. For attracting
Section 6 or Res-gastea it must be contemporaneous
record. There is reference to the point that, Anil
...1536/-
Exh.1124 1536 (J-SC 317/10)
Bheda told Aruna at the first instance that, he had
gone to Shirdi completely destroys case of the
prosecution of abduction of Anil Bheda and deceased
Ramnarayan Gupta. A reference is made to evidence of
Mr.D.B. Patil (DW-2) and Exh.340, withdrawing of
missing complaint etc., recording Anil Bheda's
statement in Vashi police station and it is argued
that, this cannot be said to be contemporaneous
evidence. The statement made by Anil Bheda regarding
abduction and being taken to DN Nagar police station
and having been produced before Pradeep Sharma is
legally not admissible either u/s. 32 or u/w. 6 of the
Evidence Act. At the same time, immediate version given
by him and as admitted by Aruna Bheda becomes
admissible and completely destroys prosecution case of
abduction. Then there is reference to evidence of
Jayesh Kanaji Kesaria (PW-50) and evidence of DB Patil
(DW-2). It is argued that, the prosecution failed to
establish a complete unbroken chain of circumstances.
1409. Further arguments relate to mobile phone no.
9821552987 allegedly used by accused no.1 for
commission of the offence. The mobile belonged to
accused no.5. Witness Rakeshchandra Prajapati (PW-62)
and his evidence has been referred to. Evidence of
PW-68 Mrs. Geetanjali Dattar, PW-75 Vishwanath Shetty,
PW-78 Mr. Bipin Mangalaprasad Bihari, PW-104 Mr. Anant
...1537/-
Exh.1124 1537 (J-SC 317/10)
Tukaram Patil, PW-105 Mr. Sanjay Vanmane has been
referred to. It is argued that, there is no material to
show that mobile no.9821552987 was used by Pradeep
Sharma (accused no.1) at the relevant time. Above
mentioned witnesses are the only witnesses examined on
this point. Therefore, question of accused no.1 being
present in the area of tower nos. 17691 and 17692 would
not arise. The prosecution also failed to establish
that accused no.1 was present near about the area of
Nana Nani Park, where the alleged murder had taken
place.
1410. Next point of the arguments is of three
bullets retrieved from dead body of deceased Ramnarayan
Gupta, one of the three bullets were allotted to
accused no.1 and being tallied with the revolver and
same being used on 11.11.2006 and being in possession
of accused no.1. On this point, there is evidence of
PW-29 Dr.Gajanan Chavan, that of PW-86 Mr.Gautam
Ghadge, Asst.Chemical Analyzer and considering evidence
of these witnesses, it is submitted that Mr.Gautam
Ghadge(PW-86) is not a Ballistic Expert at all and his
evidence be not accepted as expert's evidence u/s. 45
of the Evidence Act. His Examination in chief and Cross
examination have been referred to and it is submitted
that, there are discrepancies on point nos.6,7,8 and 9
in Ex.17 and are not found in Ex.8. Markings do not
...1538/-
Exh.1124 1538 (J-SC 317/10)
tally with each other, characteristic features of
firing pin impression and/or breech face marks on Ex.
8(test) do not tally with Ex.17 empty. Ex.17 empty
could not have been fired from revolver (Ex.8). As far
as Ex.8 test is concerned, it was fired from Ex.8 as a
test fired bullet. The witness has admitted that,
striation between the furrows in test-fired bullet and
the crime bullet must match with each other. Ex.18B is
for crime bullet. Photograph of only one out of six was
taken. The witness could not tell as to from Exhs.
9,11,12 which were bullets taken for photograph. Exh.
658/7 is also referred. Point nos. 1 and 2 were due to
the grooves and cannot be treated as striation. By
referring to evidence of this witness, it is submitted
that, there are number of lines which are appearing in
Ex.8 at points 3, 4, 5 and 6, but they are not to be
found in Ex.18B. These are showing complete
characteristic difference between Ex.8 test Ex.18-B
bullet. Various aspects existing in Ex.18-B are not
found in Ex.8. Only conclusion which can be arrived is
that, Ex.18B is not fired from revolver Ex.8. Then
there is reference to paragraphs 232 to 246 and 258 to
267 of evidence of this witness as regards to fired
questioned bullets and test fired bullets. The
ballistic expert has picked up a particular weapon to
be tallied with a particular bullet/ empty. He has not
given how the markings of breech face and firing pin
...1539/-
Exh.1124 1539 (J-SC 317/10)
tallied with questioned empty and test-fired empty. He
has not given how the characteristic features which are
the striations on fired bullet which was the questioned
bullet tallied with a test-fired bullet. In absence of
these particulars being mentioned in the report a
conclusion that Ex.17 empty and test fired bullet Ex.
18B were not fired from revolver Ex.8. Cross
examination from paras 278 to 280 shows that,
possibility of changing the bullet is not ruled out.
1411. It is further submitted that, PW-86 is not an
expert. Report Exh.658 does not point out above
mentioned infirmities as to from which Arm/s the
bullets were fired by the assailants and does not
appear to be a scientific test and ought to be
discarded. As far as hand-wash is concerned, it is not
a must to show that the person has handled the weapon
or not.
1412. Then there is reference to special squad and
witnesses on this point, including PW-20 Sanjivan
Bhimrao Shinge, PW-25 PSI Dheeraj Vishwanath Koli,
PW-32 Sumant Ramchandra Bhosale, PW-43 Madan Tanaji
More, PW-51 Anil Laxman More, PW-55 Milind Subhash
More, PW-63 Arun Vasantrao Awate, PW-87 Ajendrasingh
Sadansingh Thakur and PW-108 Vinay Baburao Ghorpade,
IO. It is argued that, as against evidence of these
...1540/-
Exh.1124 1540 (J-SC 317/10)
witnesses, there is evidence of PW-78, para 22 wherein
it is specifically mentioned that, such squad was
banned by order of the Commissioner of Police.
1413. There are some additional grounds mentioned by
Ld. Advocate. On 12.11.2006, accused no.1 was on leave
and was not present in the police station. PW-87 has
supported this aspect. PW-104 A.T. Patil has also
supported this fact. Ram Rajpal Singh is not examined,
therefore no such inference can be drawn. A.T. Patil
has denied that he received any call from accused no.1.
There is also reference to evidence of PW-110 and Exhs.
405,453,406, tower nos.4002, 4003, 4592, 10821, 40822
and 17281, at the relevant time and date. It is further
argued that, accused no.1 has not been questioned about
deficiency of rounds and difference in the batch
numbers. In absence of any such explanation being asked
from accused no.1 and that to after a lapse of such a
long time, no inference could be drawn as to how those
24 rounds were used and that there is a change of the
ammunition. It is argued that, accused no.1 has been
falsely implicated in this case. Weapons of accused no.
3 and accused no.7 were not taken charge of and were
not sent to the ballistic. On the contrary, revolver of
accused no.1 was taken charge on 17.12.2009 and only
thereafter all the weapons and articles were sent to
the C.A. It is a selective method of choosing a
...1541/-
Exh.1124 1541 (J-SC 317/10)
particular weapon only for sending to ballistic expert.
1414. Ld.Advocate has referred to authorities relied
on by the prosecution -
1. Ramanathan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
1978 AIR (SC) 1204,
2. Paltan Mallah V/s. State of M.P., reported in 2005
Laws (SC)-1-39,
3. Ganeshlal V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in
1992 AIR (SCW) 1175,
4. Rupsinghbhai Punabhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat,
reported in LSWWS (GJH) 2006-9-32,
5. Choudhary Parveen Sultana v/s. State of West
Bengal, reported in 2009 (1) AD (S.C) 587
and it is submitted that, these authorities
are of no help to the prosecution.
1415. Exh.1091 is a Written Argument submitted by
accused no.7. First of all prosecution case is referred
to and then there is reference to evidence of accused
no.7 being a member of the special squad of accused no.
1 and evidence of PW-20 Sanjivan Shinge, PW-87
Ajendrasingh Thakur and PW-78 Bipin Bihari. It is
submitted that, there is no circumstance which
unerringly point at the guilt of the accused. It is not
incriminating circumstance in as much as being
allegedly a member of the squad of accused no.1 and
...1542/-
Exh.1124 1542 (J-SC 317/10)
would not make him liable for any offence vicariously
or otherwise. Then there is reference to evidence of
Ramnarayan Gupta as regards to involvement in
abduction. It is argued that, all the evidence on this
point is hearsay as Nilesh or others have not been
examined by the prosecution. Then there is reference to
location of mobile cell no.9820330551 vide CDR Exh.406
and a call was made from this mobile phone to mobile
no.9821552987 after the alleged abduction and to Exhs.
406,408 and addresses provided in Exhs.406, 435, 421.
It is submitted that, mobile no.9820330551 does not
stand in the name of accused no.7. Hence, there is
nothing to suggest his presence in and around Vashi at
the time of the alleged abduction. Merely because the
location of a certain mobile is found it cannot be
inferred that accused no.7 was moving in the area of
Vashi at the relevant time.
1416. Then there is reference to evidence of being
seen at Nana Nani Park in a C.D talking to accused no.
15 Dilip Palande. C.D is at Exh.123 suggest presence of
accused no.7 at Nana Nani Park on 11.11.2006. It is
argued that, a chain of circumstances has to be of
conclusive and definite nature. This circumstance
cannot be said to be against the accused. The C.D is
not duly proved. The authenticity and genuineness has
not been established. No one from Sahara Samay has been
...1543/-
Exh.1124 1543 (J-SC 317/10)
examined to establish genuineness and authenticity of
news telecast. PW-7 Jyoti Mahadeo Babar from Isha
Monitoring Services has been examined. There is no
primary evidence in this behalf. No one from news
channel has owned up the video recording contained in
the said C.D. No witnesses, including PW-1, have
asserted presence of the accused in the said video
clipping. There is no evidence as to who had shot the
said video and when the same was telecast. There is no
time reflected in the CD itself and no evidence has
been brought on record as regards to time when the
accused was seen at the spot. At the relevant time,
mobile no. 9820330551 attributed to accused no.7 is
seen in the alleged cell ID 4002 as per CDR Exh.409.
Cell ID Exhs.463,459,435 show different locations.
There is only evidence of PW-90 Sanjay Apage, who has
produced diary entry Exh.688 stating the said mobile
belonged to accused no.7. Evidence of this witness is
totally fabrication and it is thoroughly unreliable. He
was not examined during the course of investigation and
his statement was not recorded. The said entries were
taken in a book meant for entering warrants. No entry
is taken as per the printed proforma in the said book.
Then there is reference to Exhs.688, 687, 689, 689A
along with evidence of this witness.
...1544/-
Exh.1124 1544 (J-SC 317/10)
1417. It is finally submitted that, accused no.7 was
not named in the FIR CR No.246/2009. His complicity was
revealed for the first time on 23.01.2010 however
accused no.7 was shown arrested presumably on the basis
of suspicion of the member of alleged squad of accused
no.1. His weapon was neither taken charge of and/or nor
sent for examination to ballistic expert. There is no
evidence against accused no.7 as regards to abduction,
conspiracy or abetment or the alleged encounter. His
alleged presence at the spot after incident would also
not be any circumstance suggesting his involvement in
the alleged crime. There is no iota of evidence either
direct or circumstantial suggesting that the accused
has aided in the fake encounter of Ramnarayan Gupta.
There is no evidence against him suggesting alleged
wrongful detention of Anil Bheda. The circumstantial
evidence is not in consistent with the guilt of the
accused is consistent with his innocence. Circumstances
of strong suspicion without any conclusive evidence are
not sufficient to justify the conviction and it is on
that point great care must be taken in evaluating the
circumstantial evidence. In any event, on the
availability of two inferences, one in favour of the
accused, must be accepted. The charge made against the
accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and
requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of
conjectures and surmises. Suspicion however grave,
...1545/-
Exh.1124 1545 (J-SC 317/10)
cannot take place of truth. It is a primary principle
that accused must be and not merely guilty before the
Court and the distance 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divide vague conjectures and sure conclusions.
Reliance has been placed on AIR 1973 SC 2622.
1418. Section 107-A of the IPC reads as under:-
A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First:-Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly:-Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing ; or
Thirdly :-Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of
a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts
to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is
said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at
the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act.
...1546/-
Exh.1124 1546 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 109 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the
act abetted is committed in consequence of
the abetment, and no express provision is made
by this Code for the punishment of such
abetment, be punished with the punishment
provided for the offence.
Explanation: An act or offence is said to
be committed in consequence of abetment, when
it is committed in consequence of the
instigation, or in pursuance of the
conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes
the abetment.
Section 118 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing
it to be likely that he will thereby
facilitate the commission of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life,
* [voluntarily conceals by any act or omission
or by the use of encryption or any other
information hiding tool, the existence of a
design] to commit such offence or makes any
representation which he knows to be false
respecting such design, shall, if that offence
be committed, be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, or, if the offence be not
committed, with imprisonment of either
description, for a term which may extend
to three years; and in either case shall also
be liable to fine.

...1547/-
Exh.1124 1547 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 119 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, being a public servant,
intending to facilitate or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby facilitate the
commission of an offence which it is his duty
as such public servant to prevent.
* [voluntarily conceals by any act or
omission or by the use of encryption or any
other information hiding tool, the existence
of a design ] to commit such offence or makes
any representation which he knows tobe false
respecting such design, if offence be
committed;
shall, if the offence be committed, be
punished with imprisonment of an description
provided for the offence, for a term which may
extend to one-half of the longest term of such
imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided
for that offence, or with both;
or, if the offence be punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to ten years;
or, if the offence be not committed,
shall be punished with imprisonment of any
description provided for the offence for a
term which may extend to one-fourth part of
the longest term of such imprisonment or with
such fine as is provided for the offence, or
with both.
Section 120-A of the IPC reads as under:-
When two or more persons agree to do, or
cause to be done :-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by
illegal means, such an agreement is designated
a criminal conspiracy :
...1548/-
Exh.1124 1548 (J-SC 317/10)
Provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount to
a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides
the agreement is done by one or more parties
to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation :- It is immaterial whether
the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that
object.
Section 120 B of the IPC reads as under:-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is
made in this Code for the punishable of such a
conspiracy, by punished in the same manner as
if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable as aforesaid
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six
months, or with fine or with both.
Section 142 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, being aware, of facts which
render any assembly an unlawful assembly,
intentionally joins that assembly, or
continues in it, is said to be a member of an
unlawful assembly.
...1549/-
Exh.1124 1549 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 143 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever is a member of an unlawful
assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both.
Section 144 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, being armed with any deadly
weapon, or with anything which, used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death,
is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 146 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whenever force or violence is used by an
unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof,
in prosecution of the common object of such
assembly, every member of such assembly is
guilty of the offence of rioting.
Section 147 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
...1550/-
Exh.1124 1550 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 148 of the IPC reads as under:-

Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed
with a deadly weapon or with anything which,
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
Section 149 of the IPC reads as under:-
If an offence is committed by any member
of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or such as the
members of that assembly knew to be likely to
be committed in prosecution of that object,
every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offence, is a member of the
same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 174 A of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, fails to appear at the specified
place and the specified time as required by a
proclamation published under sub-section
(1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both, and
where a declaration has been made under sub-
section (4) of that section pronouncing him as
a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
...1551/-
Exh.1124 1551 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 201 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed,
causes any evidence of the commission of that
offence to disappear, with the intention of
screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he
knows or believes to be false, shall, if the
offence which he knows or believes to have
been committed is punishable with death, be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for any term not extending to
ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment
of the description provided for the offence,
for a term which may extend to one-fourth
part of the longest term of the
imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.

Section 300 of the IPC reads as under:-
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or ----
2ndly,:If it is done with the intention
of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the
...1552/-
Exh.1124 1552 (J-SC 317/10)
person to whom the harm is caused, or ----
3rdly,:If it is done with the intention
of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or -------
4thly,:If the person committing the act
knows that it so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1:Culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the
power of self-control by grave and sudden
provocation, causes the death of the person
who gave the provocation or cause the death of
any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the
following provisos:-
First:That the provocation is not sought
or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for killing or doing harm to any
person.
Secondly: That the provocation is not
given by anything done in obedience to the
law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly: That the provocation is not
given by anything done in the lawful exercise
of the right of private defence.
Explanation :- Whether the provocation
was grave and sudden enough to prevent the
offence from amounting to murder is a question
of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not
...1553/-
Exh.1124 1553 (J-SC 317/10)
murder if the offender, in the exercise in
good faith of the right of private defence of
person or property, exceeds the power given to
him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such
right of defence without premeditation, and
without any intention of doing more harm than
is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3 :Culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender, being a public servant
or aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the
powers given to him by law, and causes death
by doing an act which he, in good faith,
believes to be lawful and necessary for the
due discharge of his duty as such public
servant and without ill-will towards the
personwhose death is caused.
Exception 4:Culpable homicide is not
murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender's having taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation:It is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not
murder when the person whose death is caused,
being above the age of eighteen years, suffers
death or takes the risk of death with his own
consent.
Section 302 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death, or imprisonment for life, and
shall also be liable to fine.
...1554/-
Exh.1124 1554 (J-SC 317/10)
Section 344 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for
ten days or more, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 359 of the IPC reads as under:-
Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping
from India, and kidnapping from lawful
guardianship.
Section 360 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever conveys any person beyond the
limits of India without the consent of that
person, or of some person legally authorized
to consent on behalf of that person, is said
to kidnap that person from India.
Section 361 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever takes or entries any minor under
sixteen years of age if a male, or under
eighteen years of age if a female, or any
person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of
the lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind, without the consent of such
guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or
person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation:The words lawful guardian
in this section include any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such
minor or other person.
Exception:This section does not extend to
the act of any person who in good faith
believes himself to be the father of an
illegitimate child, or who in good faith
...1555/-
Exh.1124 1555 (J-SC 317/10)
believes himself to be entitled to the lawful
custody of such child, unless such act is
committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
Section 362 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever by force compels, or by any
deceitful means induces, any person to go from
any place, is said to abduct that person.
Section 364 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in
order that such person may be murdered or may
be so disposed of as to be put in danger of
being murdered, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 365 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person
with intend to cause that person to be
secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
descriptions for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 368 of the IPC reads as under:-
Whoever, knowing that any person has been
kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully
conceals or confines such person, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he had
kidnapped or abducted such person with the
same intention or knowledge, or for the same
purpose as that with or for which he
conceals or detains such person in
confinement.
...1556/-
Exh.1124 1556 (J-SC 317/10)
1419. Considering oral and documentary evidence on
record, it is evident that death of Ramnarayan
Vishawnath Gupta (the deceased) took place on
11.11.2006 and there is no dispute about it. There are
two investigations before the Court as regards to the
said death.
1420. Earlier version is of C.R.No.302 of 2006 of
Versova police station as the alleged encounter took
place within jurisdiction of Versova police station.
The place of the said alleged encounter was shown to be
at Nana Nani Park. It was said to be a joint operation
of Versova police station and D.N.Nagar police station,
on the basis of information received from an informer
that the deceased, who was allegedly involved in many
offences, was a wanted criminal, was to arrive at the
said place and on the basis of the said information,
police laid a trap and when the deceased arrived at the
said place, directed him to surrender before them, but
without surrendering before the police the deceased
fired two shots from his weapon at the two police teams
and in retaliation, the police had to fire at the said
person to protect their lives and that of public in
general.
1421. As against this, the case as put forth by the
prosecution is that, the case in C.R.302 of 2006 is
...1557/-
Exh.1124 1557 (J-SC 317/10)
totally false, manipulated, as it was a fake and stage-
managed encounter and investigation done in C.R.302 of
2006 was done under the thumb of accused no.9 Pradeep
Suryawanshi and his brother, who was then ACP in D.N.
Nagar Division. It is alleged that, there was a
conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and in
pursuance to it, the deceased and Anil Bheda (the star
witness of the case, who came to be murdered before he
could depose as a witness before the Court) were
abducted from Trisha Collections, Sector 9, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai on 11.11.2006 by the accused and prior to that,
a watch was kept since 10.11.2006 on the activities of
the deceased and Anil Bheda. They were followed up
since 10.11.2006, 11.11.2006 and on the same day the
deceased was killed somewhere after his abduction and
after he was separated from Anil Bheda. The abduction
continued from Trisha Collections, Bhandup Complex,
D.N. Nagar, and a stage-managed encounter was shown to
have taken place at Nana Nani Park. The prosecution has
adduced evidence discussed above, therefore considering
bulky nature of the evidence, it would be just and
proper to discuss various aspects of this evidence.
1422. It has come in evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-38
and PW-40 that, the deceased resided with Anil Bheda in
his house and was doing real estate business in
partnership with him. They were close friends. Anil had
...1558/-
Exh.1124 1558 (J-SC 317/10)
given his mobile hand-set registered in his name to the
deceased for his use. Subhash Ramji Patel @ Lefty was
used as an informer by the accused in abduction of the
deceased. Accused nos. 2,3,4,6 and 7 were keeping watch
on the deceased in Vashi area and near house of Anil on
10.11.2006 from 18.30 to 20.30 hours, but could not
abduct him. On 11.11.2006, since 6.30 am, accused no.4
and accused no.7 were near the house of Anil and were
joined by the informer later on. Accused nos. 4 and 7,
along with others, followed the deceased and Anil to
Sector 9. From in front of Trisha Collections, Sector
9, they abducted Anil and the deceased between 12.33 pm
to 12.39 pm. CDRs of accused no.4 have been relied on
in this behalf.
A No. Resides
at
At Vashi
between
Near
house of
Anil
between
In
contact
with
Exh.
CDR
Exh.
Cell ID
Lefty N.A. 18.29 to
22.46
20 to
20.40
2,4 431 406,421
2 Worli 19.34 to
22.07
19.34 to
20.36
1,3,5,
7,15
543 548,596
3 Bandra 19.32 to
22.08
20.19 to
21.59
2 543 548,596
4 Andheri 16.38 to
22.25
17.42 to
21.48
6 &
Lefty
581 571,573
5 Andheri 19.32 to
22.10
19.32 to
20.27
1,4,7 408 406,421
6 Kalwa 19.21 to
22.05
19.37 to
20.37
1,2,6 409 406,421
...1559/-
Exh.1124 1559 (J-SC 317/10)
1423. CDR shows that, on 10.11.2006, initially they
met at Mulund and thereafter went to Vashi, whereas
accused no.4 and Lefty directly came to Vashi from
different directions.
1424. Prior to that, the deceased had a talk with
PW-38 from the house of Anil at 11.51. Thereafter, from
Sector 9 he made last two calls at 12.31 pm and at
about 12.33 pm. (CDR Exh.652(683) and cell ID Exh.685).
Thereafter, mobiles of Anil and the deceased showed
switched off. There is reference to Exh.114 to Exh.118
and Exh.120, which mentions date, approximate time and
place of abduction. These are the first in time
documents about the incident. PW-38 deposed in this
behalf and about one Avi. PW-40 corroborated PW-38.
Then there is reference to missing complaint Exh.306
filed by PW-40. PW-3 received its information at about
1 pm. PW-38 informed this fact to PW-1 and PW-2. On
26.11.2006, PW-38 showed the place of abduction to
PW-1. Cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 also brought
on record place of abduction. CDRs of accused nos.4,7
and Lefty at Exhs.581,409,401 respectively show their
presence at the time of abduction in Sector 9 i.e. at
Trisha Collections between 12.27 to 12.39. PW-110
corroborated this. Accused no.4, accused no.7, accused
no.8, accused no.10, accused no.12 and accused no.21
...1560/-
Exh.1124 1560 (J-SC 317/10)
actually abducted the deceased. A reference is made to
Progress Report dated 8.2.2010 Exh.895 and dated
3.4.2010 Exh.896. PW-40, PW-60, PW-84 and PW-110
corroborated contents in the progress report. PW-110
categorically deposed that, Subhash Patel acted as an
informer for the accused. There is reference to CDR
Exh.410 of Lefty, Exh.581 of accused no.4, Exh.409 of
accused no.7 and cell IDs Exh.406, Exh.421 of Vodafone
Company and Exh.571 and Exh.573 of Airtel showing that
on 11.11.2006 informer Lefty reached at 7.07 am,
accused no.4 at 6.31 am and accused no.7 at 6.28 am in
Vashi area and were near the house of Anil since
morning and thereafter near Trisha Collections between
12.29 pm to 12.42 pm.
1425. At 12.26, accused no.4 was in Sector 9, at
12.27 he called accused no.7 from Sector 19, talked
with him for 553 seconds. This has been corroborated by
evidence of PW-40. During this time, accused no.4 and
accused no.7 were in regular contact with each other
and with other accused especially with accused no.2 and
accused no.6 and then there was a call to accused no.1
from Sector-9. On 10.11.2006 and on 12.11.2006, accused
no.2, accused no.3 and accused no.4 were at Vashi.
Accused no.6 was at Vashi only on 10.11.2006 and
accused no.7 and accused no.4 were at Vashi on
10.11.2006 to 11.11.2006. This makes clear that, they
...1561/-
Exh.1124 1561 (J-SC 317/10)
were keeping watch and in fact, abducted the deceased
and Anil Bheda. PWs-1,2,38 and 40 also deposed in this
behalf. PW-14 deposed that, accused no.10 took his
silver colour Qualis in the second week of November,
2006. He also deposed that, since 09.11.2006 to
11.11.2006, accused no.10 was not on his duty.
1426. Exh.753 panchanama written by PW-107 and
sketch Exh.753-B prepared by PW-108 show that, route
was Trisha Collections, Sector 9, Vashi, then Bhandup
Complex, then DN Nagar police station. Anil Bheda had
shown the route on 19.3.2010. He also pointed his place
of detention at Hotel Mid-town, where accused no.5,
PW-43 and PW-55 guarded him and also showed Bhattwadi.
Evidence of PW-107, PW-108, PW-109 and PW-110 in this
behalf is there on record.
1427. The deceased and Anil Bheda were last seen in
front of Trisha Collections, Sector-9 by one Nilesh at
about 12.40 pm and there is evidence of PW-38 in this
behalf. Nilesh was the only eye witness, who had seen
the abduction of the deceased and Anil Bheda, but he
could not be traced and hence, could not be examined by
the prosecution. PW-38 saw both of them when they came
to his shop as Accountant Sawant was sitting in his
shop and due to shortage of space they went out and
were waiting. At 12.40 pm, Nilesh informed him about
...1562/-
Exh.1124 1562 (J-SC 317/10)
their abduction. He came out of the shop to see them,
but did not find both. He also tried on mobile phone of
Anil which was shown switched off. There is evidence of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-38, PW-40 and PW-57 about the
alleged abduction between 12.35 to 12.40 pm by persons
looking like policemen from the said spot. A reference
is made to CDRs Exhs.632 (683) and cell ID Exh.685 of
the deceased and Anil to show their presence at Sector
9 at 12.33 pm when the deceased made his last call.
1428. Evidence of PW-32 and PW-55 shows that, they
guarded Anil Bheda on 12.11.2006 at Bhatwadi. PW-40 and
PW-50 deposed that, after the abduction the deceased
and Anil were taken to D.N. Nagar police station and
produced before accused no.1. Thereafter, the deceased
was killed in an encounter. There is evidence of PW-40
in this behalf, which shows that PW-104 mediated for
Anil and same is corroborated by CDR Exh.403 of PW-104
and it is further corroborated by his 164 Cr.P.C
statement Exh.744. Cell ID 4593 shows that, PW-104 had
been to D.N Nagar police station at 3 pm. CDR Exh.523
of accused no.2 and accused no.3 shows that, they were
at D.N Nagar police station at about 4 pm and
thereafter enroute towards Vashi police station. In
short, the prosecution has tried to show that, the
deceased did not die in an encounter but it was a
stage-managed encounter and the deceased died while in
...1563/-
Exh.1124 1563 (J-SC 317/10)
police custody or had disappeared after he was taken
into the custody of the police. The deceased was
spotted as dead in the alleged encounter and Anil was
seen by his wife (PW-40) at Vashi police station where
he was brought by accused no.2 and accused no.3. PW-6
also received information from PW-1 about the abduction
by the police. PW-50 deposed in respect of his
conversation with Anil Bheda and Anil Bheda stating to
him about threats to his life and that of his family.
The witness also deposed in respect of Anil and
Ramnarayan Gupta being lifted by the police team and
being kept in different vehicles at Bhandup Complex and
then being taken to D.N.Nagar police station and life
of Anil being saved due to some fax and documents sent
by Ramprasad Gupta. PW-1 did not disclose name of
accused no.1 in other proceedings till filing of FIR
Exh.121 due to fear as there was threat to the life of
Anil Bheda, which came to be true on 13.03.2011, when
Anil was abducted and murdered. Anil Bheda received
threats between 10.3.2011 to 12.3.2011 and there was
mention of name as PS. Due to this, Anil could not be
examined. His identity could be established only due to
filing of Criminal Writ Petition No.754 of 2011. There
is evidence of PW-40, PW-107, PW-108, PW-109 and PW-110
about it. There is reference to C.R.No.I-24/11 Exh.312
and Exh.334 Habeas Corpus Writ Petition. There is
also reference to letter Exh.316 from evidence of PW-40
...1564/-
Exh.1124 1564 (J-SC 317/10)
as regards to danger to life of Anil. The letter was
sent only to mislead PW-40. Then there is reference to
applications given by PW-40 at Exh.758 (Article 66) and
Exh.756 (Article 68) and Exh.757.
1429. There is also reference to evidence of PW-40,
PW-38, PW-107 to PW-110 as regards to Anil receiving
threats on 12.3.2011, while in the SIT office, PW-108
preparing C.D (Article 67) (A) and their oral evidence
during which they identified voice of deceased Anil
Bheda. CDR of Anil Exh.445 and Cell ID Exh.427
corroborated evidence of these witnesses to prove
presence of Anil at the SIT Office, Pawai during the
relevant time and also at his home.
1430. The prosecution has tried to bring evidence as
regards to formation of squad of accused no.1 at D.N
Nagar police station consisting of accused no.2,
accused no3, accused no.7, accused no.15 and accused
no.16 on oral directions of PW-78. Exh.628 shows that,
on 03.09.2004, accused no.1 was Sr. PI of Crime Branch,
Unit-XI under whom accused no.2 had worked. A reference
is made to evidence of PW-20 and entries dated
11.11.2006 and 12.11.2006 at Exh.208 and Exh.209. PW-25
PSI Mr.Koli and station diary entry Exh.228
corroborated evidence of PW-20. PW-72 and station diary
entries Exhs.611, 612, 613 also corroborated evidence
...1565/-
Exh.1124 1565 (J-SC 317/10)
of PW-20. PW-87, PW-63 corroborated this fact. PW-87,
PW-45, PW-55 and PW-108, office order Exh.668, Exh.208,
CDRs Exh.523 of accused no.13 and Exh.581 of accused
no.9 also corroborated the fact that, accused no.13 was
also working in this squad. PW-32, PW-43, PW-45 and
PW-55 corroborated PW-20. Civilians accused no.5,
accused no.6 and Virendra @ Viru were also members of
the squad. PW-87 and PW-110 also deposed about it. CDRs
of all these accused persons and their communications
with each other clearly proved existence of squad under
accused no.1. It consisted accused no.2, accused no.3,
accused no.7 and accused no.15. Accused no.4 was also
one of the active member of the squad of accused no.1.
It is to be noted that, PW-78 himself has denied that
any squad was formed by his order under accused no.1.
Therefore, it cannot be said that, such a squad under
accused no.1 was formed.
1431. Accused nos.2,3,4,5,6,9,11,13,15,20 and 22
were using mobile numbers registered in their own names
and accused no.1, accused no.7, accused no.17 and
accused no.18 were using mobile Sim Cards registered in
the name of somebody else. Accused no.5 was using one
mobile number registered in his name and one mobile
registered in the name of other persons. This fact can
be seen from relations between the user and registered
owner, location of the mobile numbers such as near
...1566/-
Exh.1124 1566 (J-SC 317/10)
residence, work place and daily visit places, contact
with the people or inter-se contacts. Mobile no.
9821552987 was registered in the name of accused no.5,
but was allegedly used by accused no.1 at the relevant
time. PW-78 was using mobile no.9892753333 registered
in the name of company of his friend. This witness
failed to identify accused no.1 as user of mobile no.
9821552987. This goes to the root of the case as the
witness denied formation of a squad by his orders and
use of mobile no. 9821552987 by accused no.1. PW-68,
PW-75, PW-78, and PW-105 declined to identify or know
accused no.5 Hitesh Solanki @ Dabbu and also declined
to have any contact with him. CDR Exh.543 shows in all
three calls from PW-68, 25 calls from PW-75, 14 calls
from PW-78 and 21 calls from PW-105 to mobile no.
9821552987. PW-32, PW-43, PW-45, PW-55 and PW-87
deposed that, accused no.5 was working for accused no.1
and used to sit outside his office of D.N Nagar police
station. Mobile nos.9821471156 and 9821552987 were used
by different persons for which following chart will
come to help:-
Sr. 9821471156 used by
accused no.5
9821552987 used by
accused no.1
1 On 10.11.2006 from
19.12 to 21.43 location
of accused no.5 is at
Esic Nagar i.e. D.N.
Nagar
On same day and during
same time accused no.1 is
initially at Vileparle
and then at Marine Lines.
...1567/-
Exh.1124 1567 (J-SC 317/10)
2 On 11.11.2006 at 16.48
outgoing call to
9821552987
Incoming call from
9821471156.
3 On 13.11.2006 at 10.47
accused no.5 is at
Santacruz.
At this time accused no.1
is at Vileparle and
before that at J.B.
Nagar.
4 From 14.11.2006 to
18.11.2006 accused no.5
is at Kolhapur with
PW-40 Anil and Parth
During this time accused
no.1 is at Mumbai and on
15.11.2006 at 21.24 had
talk with PW-68 for 62
seconds and also with
other witnesses.
5 During 26.11.2006 to
30.11.2006 accused no.5
is in Mumbai and there
are calls on his other
mobile i.e. 9820995118
from PCO of father of
PW-40.
During this time accused
no.1 is at Delhi from
where he had contacted
other accused and
witnesses in this case.
6 Exh.556 shows cell ID
16961 near to house of
accused no.5. Cell ID
17551 also shows area
of Santacruz as per
Exh.548. This phone
shows 4 calls from cell
ID 17551 on 10.11.2006,
11.11.2006 and
13.11.2006.
This phone do not show a
single call from any of
these two cell IDs or any
call from Santacruz area
i.e. near residence of
accused no.5.
7 This phone does not
show a single call from
J.B. Nagar area
This phone shows about
175 to 180 calls from JB
Nagar area i.e. near
residence of accused no.1
(Cell IDs 10871, 10873,
13101, 13102, 13104,
13622 & 13623 Exh.548 &
Exh.556)
...1568/-
Exh.1124 1568 (J-SC 317/10)
8 --- This phone shows call
from JB Nagar area late
in the night as well as
early in the morning.
9 PWs-68,75,78,104 and
105 who did not know
him had no talk with
him on his two mobiles
at any time
Regular calls between all
these witnesses to
accused no.1.
10 Has no reason and
status to talk to
PW-78.
Accused no.1 called Bipin
Bihari at 20.17 hrs. from
Nana Nani Park and that
being a P.I working under
him (In fact in squad
formed by PW-78 under
him).
11 Has no reason to call
alleged eye witness
Ramrajpal Singh
To show encounter as
genuine accused no.1 has
every reason to introduce
Ramrajpal Singh as an eye
witness.
12 PW-104 had no talks on
this phone.
PW-104 admitted talk on
this number with someone
known to him. He also
admitted knowing accused
no.1.
13 Regular contact between
accused no.5 and other
accused from this
number.
Accused no.1 also has
regular contacts with
other accused from this
number.
1432. PW-68 did not support the prosecution and
declined to state that, she had any calls from mobile
no.9969062638 to accused no.1. She also declined to
support the prosecution that mobile no.9821552987 was
used by accused no.1. PW-75 Vishwanath Shetty also
...1569/-
Exh.1124 1569 (J-SC 317/10)
declined to support the prosecution case, but admitted
his mobile numbers to be 9869054730 and 9892247367.
There are CDRs Exh.543 showing in all 25 talks between
him and 9821552987.
1433. Accused no.7 used mobile no.9820330551, which
was registered in the name of his brother. A reference
is made to SDR Exh.455. PW-108 deposed that cell number
of accused no.7 was traced during CDR analysis. There
is also reference to evidence of PW-90 and personal
details register Exh.688 of accused no.7 from Versova
police station. PW-109 also corroborated this fact of
maintaining personal details register. Exh.687 is entry
in personal details register regarding accused no.2.
Accused no.5 was using mobile no.9820995118. Evidence
of PW-40 and CDR Exh.411 and Exh.270 speak about
contact of PW-40 either with accused no.5 or with her
husband Anil. PW-32, PW-43,PW-45, PW-55 and PW-87
deposed that, accused no.5 was working for accused no.1
and used to sit outside office of accused no.1 at DN
Nagar police station. There is reference to Exh.457,
cell ID 10692, Exh.421, cell IDs 4592 and 4593 covering
D.N. Nagar police station. CDR Exh.411 and cell IDs
regularly show location of this mobile near his
residence and D.N Nagar area or nearby area and his
regular contacts with accused no.13. PW-12 Chandolkar
had talks on mobile no. 9833792771 of Subhash Ramji
...1570/-
Exh.1124 1570 (J-SC 317/10)
Patel.
1434. Accused no.1 had revolver butt no.347 of Rugar
Company (Art.69) from 24.12.2001 to 01.09.2008. Accused
no.2 was possessing pistol butt no.786(Art.23) from
04.09.2004 to 08.12.2009. Accused no.11 was having
pistol butt no.2912 and 6 rounds at the relevant time.
There is evidence of PW-22 stating that, on 11.11.2006,
at 6.00 pm, he handed over revolvers having butt no.475
with 6 rounds to accused no.9, butt no.468 with 5
rounds to accused no.22, butt no.624 with 6 rounds to
accused no.15 and butt no.294 with 6 rounds to accused
no.18 on their demands and took entries in the relevant
registers at Exhs.216, 217, 218 and 219. PW-60, PW-66,
PW-67 and PW-80 deposed in respect of procedure of
issuance of arms and ammunitions. Exh.478 and Exh.491
are one and same documents. PW-110 by letters Exhs.
839,840, reply Exh.841 collected information of weapons
of the raiding party. Then there was demand of weapon
by the SIT by its letters dated 12.11.2006 Exh.494,
Exh.493A. Exh.495 for sending weapons to the FSL for
examination. PW-110 sent PW-109 with authority letter
Exh.496 to collect required arms and ammunitions. Then
there is evidence of PW-98 Mr.Dal as regards to deposit
of pistol butt no.786 and 30 cartridges with letter
Exh.502, sending letter Exh.488 to Dharavi police
station for depositing revolver of accused no.1. Then
...1571/-
Exh.1124 1571 (J-SC 317/10)
there is seizure of articles by the SIT and depositing
the same with the FSL. In this behalf, evidence of
PW-60, PW-28, PW-107, PW-108, PW-109, PW-34 and PW-98
is there. Butt no.347 (Art.69) with 6 rounds (Art.115)
of accused no.1 were deposited on 01.09.2008 at Dharavi
police station. The Armoury did not accept the rounds
as account of 24 rounds was not given.
1435. The prosecution alleged that, there was
manipulation of rounds by accused no.1. On 23.3.2010,
the SIT took charge of 6 rounds of accused no.1
deposited by him at Dharavi police station under
panchanama Exh.486 mentioning description of the
rounds. Out of those 6 rounds, three rounds were of
year 2001. On 24.12.2001, accused no.1 was issued with
weapon Art.69 and 30 rounds but on that date the rounds
of 2001 batch were not with Maharashtra Police. It is
alleged that, here was manipulation of rounds by
accused no.1. Source of these three rounds was best
known to him. It is to be noted that, no witness either
from the Armoury or from police station concerned or
any other witness has deposed about manipulation of
rounds by accused no.1. He did not give account of 24
rounds till date. The empty produced by accused no.22
is of 1998 batch, which did not tally with the weapon
allegedly from which he fired, but tallied with the
weapon of accused no.1. In this behalf, explanation
...1572/-
Exh.1124 1572 (J-SC 317/10)
should come from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
1436. Then there is reference to evidence of PW-66
with reference to butt no.347(Art.69) along with 30
rounds vide entry Exh.512. Evidence of PW-59 Sushil
Kamble, letter Exh.480 to accused no.1, admission in
this behalf by accused no.1 in his 313 Cr.P.C statement
to question no.310, station diary entry Exh.477 and
corroboration to it by PW-56 Kasavalekar. Then receipt
of letter Exh.488 by PW-59 as regards to depositing
arms and ammunitions of accused no.1 and sending of .38
revolver butt no.347 of Ruger Company and 6 rounds, one
9 mm carbine having butt no.600, two magazines and 88
live cartridges to Naigaon Armoury through PW-56 with
letter Exh.478 prepared by him, keeping arms and
ammunitions in a separate cupboard by PW-56 and
corroboration of evidence between PW-59 and PW-56. Then
there is reference to evidence of PW-98, Exh.478 and
Exh.479, evidence of PW-60, PW-58, panchanama Exh.886,
evidence of PW-106 and panchanama Exh.486,
corroboration by PW-107 and PW-108, evidence of PW-109
and that of PW-101 is about issuance of ammunitions
from Khadki factory, which shows that, Mumbai police
did not get these rounds before 18.6.2002. Accused no.1
received revolver butt no.347 and 30 rounds on
24.12.2000, therefore, it became clear that, accused
...1573/-
Exh.1124 1573 (J-SC 317/10)
no.1 managed these three rounds of 2001 batch. Then
there is reference to seizure of articles and FSL
evidence in C.R. No.302 of 2006.
1437. Evidence of PW-29 shows that, Postmortem Notes
Exh.237, in injury no.4, it is mentioned that, one
intact bullet was retrieved. It was observed by him
with naked eyes. Evidence of PW-86 shows that, it was a
deformed bullet and was mentioned in Exh.253 (253A)
dated 18.08.2007. It is to be noted that, at the
relevant time, the SIT did not come in existence and
ambiguity if any was not objected by IO in C.R.No.
302/06.
1438. Ballistic evidence shows that, bullet produced
by accused no.22 was not fired from his revolver but
was fired by revolver (Art.69) of accused no.1 and that
empty found on the spot was fired from pistol (Art.23)
of accused no.2, who was a member of encounter team,
but as per C.R. No.302/06, accused no.2 did not fire.
There is reference to hand notes Exh.657 giving reasons
which led to the Ballistic Expert to come to the
conclusion of his report. Though the defence has
alleged of tampering of crime articles, it is clear
that, initially PW-39 sent crime articles through PW-53
and PW-91 in a sealed condition on 13.11.2006 and after
examination, PW-86 returned those articles to PW-91 in
...1574/-
Exh.1124 1574 (J-SC 317/10)
sealed condition on 18.08.2007 with seal of his office.
Therefore, allegations of tampering can be ruled out.
Exhs.251, 253, 656 and 751 fully corroborated the said
fact. Evidence of PW-86, PW-91, PW-99 and PW-107 also
corroborated this fact.
1439. There is a reference to report Exh.841. Pistol
butt no.2915 was seized by the SIT and was sent to the
FSL. This being based upon the report of the Versova
police station, it cannot be said that, there was
managing of the report. The SIT sought information from
the FSL on the basis of the record of C.R. No.302 of
2006. Expertise of ballistic report cannot be
challenged as he was having sufficient experience in
this field. PW-86 analyzed all the articles under BL
No.938/06 on 28.5.2007, BL No.939/06 and BL No.940/06
on 30.5.2007 and prepared his reports Exhs.251 (251A),
253 (253A) and 254 (254A).
1440. Then there is depositing of the articles in
C.R.No.246/2009 by the FSL. PW-99, PW-1907 have deposed
in this behalf. Those were in sealed conditions. PW-86
and other witnesses have identified the articles before
the Court. Result of analysis is at Exhs.657, 658
having signatures of PW-86 and that of Dr. Deshpande,
Dy. Director of FSL, Mumbai. There are individual
characteristics of every weapons. There is comparison
...1575/-
Exh.1124 1575 (J-SC 317/10)
of fired bullets with test fired bullets under
microscopic comparison and same being tallied. Much
stress has been given by the defence on not taking
photographs of all the bullets is not fatal to the
examination. There is comparison of photographs of
these two types of bullets.
1441. It has come on record that, CDRs of mobile no.
9324349531 and 9323459998 were not available hence
could not be produced or were not furnished. Evidence
of PW-54, PW-62, PW-65, PW69 and PW-89 is about
automatically storing of CDR in the main server and in
the back-up system. There cannot be manual intervention
in recording said data. Old records are available in
archives/ magnetic tapes/ backup system. Cell IDs are
maintained by Maintenance Department on regular basis.
Its details are furnished by Network/Maintenance
Department and are provided to Law Enforcement Agency
on demand. Cell IDs have fixed numbers and addresses
which never change. Therefore, there is no possibility
of tampering with it. Nodal Officer received data of
cell ID and corresponding P.D.S Data from maintenance
and I.T. Department. Airtel and Loop Company have fixed
4-5 digits cell IDs whereas Vodafone has 13 to 14
digits cell IDs. Cell ID covers a particular area,
which varies from 500 mtrs. to 1500 mtrs., as per
service provider. Customers application forms are
...1576/-
Exh.1124 1576 (J-SC 317/10)
manually fed in computer and updated from time to time.
Every cell ID has its unique number and fixed address.
One is address of tower location and other is coverage
area, for example Exh.571 is tower location and Exh.575
is coverage area. There can be difference of 1-2
minutes between timings of two Companies. Ambiguity
between Exh.528 and Exh.535 and also Exh.679 and 685
has come on record, which was caused due to mistake.
This can be made clear from Exh.406 cell ID of Vodafone
Company. Mistake between Exh.459 and Exh.464 has been
cured by furnishing correct copy i.e Exh.464. It has
further come on record that, D.N.Nagar police station
is situated in Esic Nagar. A reference can be made to
Exh.539, Exh.548, Exh.537 and Exh.596.
1442. Following chart shows that, Accused nos.
1,2,3,11,13,15,18,20 and 22 were attached to D.N. Nagar
police station. Their CDRs show cell ID 11891. Number
of calls from this cell ID are given in the chart:-
Accused nos. No.of calls Duration
1 945 10.11.2006 to 25.11.2006
2 656 10.11.2006 to 15.12.2006
3 476 10.11.2006 to 15.12.2006
11 12 11/11/06
13 20 11.11.2006 to 12.11.2006
15 308 10.11.2006 to 25.11.2006
18 11 11/11/06
20 394 11.11.2006 to 30.11.2006
22 56 10.11.2006 to 22.11.2006
...1577/-
Exh.1124 1577 (J-SC 317/10)
1443. Allegations are made that, accused no.1 was
head of the squad and chief of the operation of murder
and fake encounter and was in regular contact with
accused nos.2,3,4,6 and 7, who were at the task of
abduction and bringing the deceased to the police
station. It is also alleged that, he was present at
Nana Nani Park and called PW-78 at 20.18 hours, when
the alleged encounter took place. It is discussed that,
Exh.658 shows that, he was one of the persons, who
fired at the deceased and killed him. He also
introduced and planted alleged eye witness Ramrajpal
Singh and played prominent and vital role to make Anil
to make false statement. Accused no.2 worked under
accused no.1, kept watch on the deceased and Anil on
10.11.2006, went to Bhandup Complex on 11.11.2006, who
was member of encounter team and Exh.658 shows that, he
fired on the deceased and killed him. He took Anil to
Vashi police station on 12.11.2006 to withdraw missing
complaint and thereafter to Ghatkopar Bhatwadi.
Accused no.3 was the member of the squad, kept watch at
Vashi on 10.11.2006 on the deceased and Anil, went to
Bhandup Complex on 11.11.2006 and was also member of
the encounter team. He took Anil to Vashi on 12.11.2006
to withdraw missing complaint and then went to
Ghatkopar Bhatwadi. Accused no.4 was one of the trusted
members of accused no.1 and one of the abductors
...1578/-
Exh.1124 1578 (J-SC 317/10)
keeping watch on the deceased and Anil on 10.11.2006
and on 11.11.2006 since morning till the abduction and
was present at D.N.Nagar police station, Versova police
station and visited Nana Nani Park and police station
on 2-3 occasions. He was present at Nana Nani Park at
the time of the alleged encounter. Accused no.5 was
also present at the police station when the deceased
and Anil were brought to D.N. Nagar police station. He
called PW-38 at 21.10 hrs., took Anil, PW-40 and Parth
to Kolhapur and guarded Anil at Hotel Mid-town, kept
surveillance on Anil and PW-40 and used to remain
present outside office of accused no.1. Accused no.6
was one of the trusted members of accused no.1, kept
watch on the deceased and Anil on 10.11.2006 and
11.11.2006, went to Bhandup Complex and was present at
D.N. Nagar police station and Nana Nani Park and also
at Nana Nani Park at the time of the alleged encounter.
Accused no.7 was one of the close associates of accused
no.1, who abducted the deceased and Anil, kept watch on
them from 10.11.2006 and 11.11.2006 since morning till
abduction and was present at D.N. Nagar police station
and at Nana Nani Park, at the time of alleged
encounter. Accused no.8 and accused no.10 abducted the
deceased and Anil and took them to D.N. Nagar police
station. Accused no.11 claimed to have fired and to be
member of the encounter team, but the bullet did not
match with his weapon (Exh.497). Accused no.13 was
...1579/-
Exh.1124 1579 (J-SC 317/10)
member of the encounter team. He was allegedly in
contact with other accused, including accused no.9 and
worked under accused no.1 and accused no.9. He guarded
Anil in Hotel Mid-town. Accused no.15 was member of the
squad, kept watch at Vashi and was in regular contact
with accused keeping watch. Exh.658 shows that, he
fired on the deceased and killed him and also prepared
false record Exh.669 and Exh.670. Accused nos.16, 17,19
and 20 were members of the encounter team. Accused no.
18 and accused no.22 were members of the encounter
team.
1444. The accused had taken contrary stands. Some of
them claimed that they killed the deceased in the right
of private defence, but some of them denied it. Some of
them also denied that, they were members of the
encounter team. A reference is made to cross
examination and statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C as well
as Writ Petitions and S.L.Ps, as well as evidence of
PW-17, PW-19, PW-60, PW-23 and PW-110. Then there is
evidence as regards to promulgation of proclamation of
the Court against accused nos.20 and 22 with reference
to evidence of PW-24, PW-107, PW-30 and PW-109.
1445. There is evidence of test identification
parade. The prosecution has not much relied on it on
the grounds that there was no need to conduct test
...1580/-
Exh.1124 1580 (J-SC 317/10)
Identification Parades as PW-40 had enough
opportunities of interactions with accused nos.2,3,5
and photographs of the accused concerned were also
published in the newspapers. It has been harped upon
that, accused no.5 denied to give specimen signatures
and handwriting though earlier he put signatures (for
example different Vakalatnama Exh.85). Therefore,
adverse inference has to be drawn against said accused.
1446. The accused created some evidence to
substantiate claim of encounter. These are station
diary entries Exh.897, Exh.669, Exh.670, FIR Exh.278,
statements of accused nos.2,3,11,13,15 to 20 and 22 in
C.R.302/06 u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C and also before the SLAO-
IV after Ld. M.M. Mrs. R.K. Shaikh submitted her report
before the Hon'ble High Court. Accused nos.2,3,9,11,
15,17,18 and 22 filed intervention applications at
Exhs.850, 851 and 852, in W.P. 2473/06. Some of them
filed affidavits claiming right of private defence at
Exhs.823,901,902,Art.120,Art.121 and Art.123. Accused
no.11 filed Cri. Writ Petition No.181/09 at Exh.848
challenging report of Ld. M.M. Mrs. R.K. Shaikh. Then
accused nos. 13, 16, 19 and 20 filed SLP Exh.135(140),
challenging order of the Hon'ble High Court by
contending and supporting their own theory of
encounter.
...1581/-
Exh.1124 1581 (J-SC 317/10)
1447. The prosecution has relied on following chart
which is restricted to not going to Nana Nani Park for
trap and thereafter, guarding spot and not with other
movements of the day :-
Accused At DNN
P.stn.
At N.N.
Park
No call CDR Exh. Cell ID
Exh.
15 Till 19.35
& 21.40
onwards
20.34 to
21.34
19.35 to
20.34
521 548
2 Never at
the spot
20 hrs.to
20.22 hrs.
521 548
3 Till 19.33 20.14 to
21.36
91.33 to
20.14
521 548
9 At
(Versova
P.stn.)
19.42 to
19.59
again from
21.47 to
3.08
20.05 to
21.34
581 571,572
& 573
11 Till 19.18 20.20 to
20.36
19.32 to
20.20
521 548
13 Till 20.07
& 22.08
onwards
20.34 to
21.19
At 21.33
JVPD, Vile
Parle(W)
521 548
18 Till 19.28 21.03 19.28 to
21.03
521 548
20 Till 19.40 20.07 to
21.28
521 548
22 Till 19.54 20.07 to
20.37
521 548
...1582/-
Exh.1124 1582 (J-SC 317/10)
1448. FIR Exh.278 is shown to be recorded between
8.50 pm to 9.50 pm. During this time accused no.22
called accused no.9 and informed him that, the deceased
died before admission. Therefore, the prosecution
claimed that the FIR was ante-timed. Station diary
entry Exh.617, panchanama Exh.283 have been described
by the prosecution as fabricated documents. It is also
alleged that, railway tickets have been planted on the
deceased.
1449. The defence argued on the point of evidence of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-38 and PW-40 being hearsay and in
absence of actual evidence as regards to abduction, fax
messages and telegrams are of no value to establish any
incriminating circumstances against the accused
persons. Therefore, principle of res-gastae would not
come into play as this is totally inadmissible
evidence. There is no chain of circumstances pointing
at the guilt of the accused. But this cannot be
accepted to be true.
1450. It is a fact that, telephone no.9821552987
stood in the name of accused no.5. PW-62, PW-68, PW-75,
PW-78, PW-104, PW-15 have not supported the prosecution
case in respect of above mentioned mobile numbers being
used by accused no.1. There is no material to show that
this mobile was used by accused no.1 during the
...1583/-
Exh.1124 1583 (J-SC 317/10)
relevant time. Therefore, question of accused no.1
being present in the area of tower nos. 17691 and 17692
would not arise.
1451. One of the bullets which was sent to the
Chemical Analyzer/ Ballistic Expert, out of three
bullets retrieved from the body has been alleged to
have belonging to the revolver allotted to accused no.1
and same tallied with one of the bullets having been
fired from the said revolver, therefore the prosecution
inferred that, the revolver was in possession of
accused no.1 on 11.11.2006 and was actually used at the
time of firing on Ramnarayan Gupta. Evidence of
Dr.Gajanan Chavan (PW-29) is referred to. The expert
has admitted during cross examination that, there might
be other peculiarities on a breech face. It might
easily become indented by some knock or accidental
touch with a tool even before the weapon ever left the
factory and such accidental markings commonly occurred
during use, especially if the weapon was not looked
after very carefully. There are complete characteristic
difference between test fired bullet and crime bullet.
Even then submission that PW-86 is not an expert cannot
be accepted to be true.
1452. As regards to the squad, prominent witnesses
have not come forward to substantiate prosecution case
...1584/-
Exh.1124 1584 (J-SC 317/10)
about the squad under accused no.1. For connecting
mobile no. 9821552987, the prosecution has not examined
Ramrajpal Singh and A.T. Patil has declined to support
the prosecution case in this behalf. Accused no.1 came
to be implicated only on the basis of mobile number
which did not stand in his name and the bullet
retrieved from the dead body of Ramnarayan Gupta. It is
submitted that, there are no circumstances which
unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It
is case of accused no.7 that, mobile no. 9820330551 did
not stand in his name but at the same time, the
prosecution has produced record showing that, this
mobile number was given by him to the police station.
Exh.123 C.D shows his presence on 11.11.2006 at Nana
Nani Park. Accused no.7 has taken stand that C.D.(Exh.
123) cannot be relied on though the prosecution has
tried to bring his presence at Nana Nani Park on the
basis of this C.D. Entries in Exhs.687, 688, 689 are
also relevant in this behalf. Accused no.7 has taken
stand that, he was not named in the FIR but it could be
seen that, FIR cannot be said to be an encyclopedia. It
is true that, circumstantial evidence should not only
be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should
be inconsistent with his innocence.
1453. As regards to motive, the defence has argued
that, the prosecution failed to establish motive. It is
...1585/-
Exh.1124 1585 (J-SC 317/10)
to be seen that, in each and every crime, there is no
necessity of establishing a motive, but it is to be
inferred from the acts done by the accused persons.
Duty of the prosecution is to prove each of
circumstances independently and to pinpoint overtact of
the accused persons. The defence argued that, the
prosecution failed to establish that, there was a
communication between the alleged acts done and
property of Anandibai Deshmukh, cannot be accepted to
be true. It is to be noted that, though the fact is
accepted that the deceased had criminal antecedents, it
does not necessarily give any authority to the accused
persons to cause his death. It is pertinent to note
that, the police personnel (accused persons in this
case) from Versova police station or D.N. Nagar police
station were in no way related to any of offences
alleged to have been committed by the deceased.
Therefore, it cannot be said that, the background of
the deceased was relevant to the encounter. Nobody
assigned them task of arresting or killing the
deceased. Even they did not have warrant of arrest with
them.
1454. It is true that, Section 32 of the Evidence
Act relates to death of the maker of the statement and
not to death of others. It is to be noted that, every
person need not be present in each of the acts alleged
...1586/-
Exh.1124 1586 (J-SC 317/10)
to have been done in furtherance of the common
intention or in prosecution of the common object,
therefore it is not warranted that each and every
accused person should be present at the time of the
abduction. It applies to role of accused no.9. The
prosecution has already alleged that, the railway
tickets (Art.116) were planted on the deceased,
therefore, it cannot be said that, the prosecution case
of abduction and custody is contrary of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has to
establish abduction first and then the question of
custody and invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act
would come. The prosecution has adduced substantial
oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no rule
so as to discard testimonies of police witnesses in
this behalf. There is evidence of witnesses as regards
to Hotel Majestic and Hotel Mid-town though it was a
difficult job to secure more evidence after a lapse of
a period of three years.
1455. Letters Exhs.190,191,192 in respect of
recording 164 statements are sent by PI Mr.Avdhut
Chavan in the name of Sr.PI. It has come on record
that, the letters were not sent by Sr.PI or by the
investigating officer but by a person, who was not
related with the case. It has been alleged that,
statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C recorded by the SIT, came to
...1587/-
Exh.1124 1587 (J-SC 317/10)
be recorded under coercion and threats by the SIT, but
this aspect cannot be accepted to be true as the
witnesses concerned did not make any protest about it
at the relevant time but some of the witnesses have
deposed for the first time before the Court without
giving any plausible explanation for their silence for
such a long period.
1456. Arguments on behalf of accused no.9 and others
that, it was a genuine encounter and a joint operation
of Versova police station and D.N. Nagar police station
with additional help for protection of their own lives
and that of general public, the deceased being armed
with a weapon and having fired at the two groups at
Nana Nani Park is not supported even by the defence
witness, as D.W.-1 failed to give correct description
of the alleged encounter though there were street
lights and head lights of his vehicle, which were on.
Entries Exh.670 and Exh.897 show that there is name of
then Addl.C.P. Mr.Bipin Bihari, but it is pertinent to
note that, Mr. Bipin Bihari has totally declined to
support the theory put forth by the accused persons.
Interaction by accused no.1 to the deceased and Anil
Bheda has not been duly proved for want of evidence of
the prosecution witnesses. Though no one from and
around Nana Nani Park came forward as a witness (except
that of DW-1), it does not necessarily mean that, the
...1588/-
Exh.1124 1588 (J-SC 317/10)
prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in this
behalf. The defence say that, there cannot be a stage-
managed encounter but it was a genuine encounter,
cannot be relied on only on the basis that there was a
pool of blood, a revolver of Lakhan Bhaiya and one
cartridge and also that there was traffic, sufficient
light etc. The defence has referred to non-examination
of the persons related to C.D produced from Aaj-tak,
therefore genuineness of the same in view of Section
65A, 65B of the Evidence Act has been challenged. It is
argued that, if encounter did not take place at Nana
Nani Park then where was Lakhan Bhaiya killed. The
prosecution could not pinpoint it. To this, the
prosecution has relied on running panchanama to show
that, the deceased was kidnapped from in front of
Trisha Collections, Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, then
was taken to Bhandup Complex, then to D.N. Nagar police
station and was killed somewhere in between and a
stage-managed encounter was shown at Nana Nani Park.
Therefore, when the accused are police personnels and
when the investigation of the crime was taken at a
belated stage i.e. three years after the date of
incident, it is not expected to fix a place of offence
when it was shown in CR No.302 of 2006 that the
encounter took place at Nana Nani Park. Moreover this
fact was within the knowledge of the accused persons.
Further argument that evidence of four constables is
...1589/-
Exh.1124 1589 (J-SC 317/10)
vague and that Exhs.572 to 578 falsified evidence of
these constables as regards to presence of accused no.9
in D.N.Nagar police station cannot be accepted.
1457. It has further come on record that, the
procedure for hand-wash has not been duly followed,
also cannot be accepted as due care and caution was
taken for taking and sending the hand-wash.
1458. Thereafter, existence of velocity, effective
range, maximum range are taken and it is argued that,
the deceased was hit on frontal side during the
encounter and he was moving, therefore considering
these aspects the gun shot wounds are possible as he
was in a standing position. It is to be noted that,
real question is not as to whether gun shots that were
fired when the deceased was in a standing position but
the question is as to whether the shots were fired at
Nana Nani Park as mentioned in CR No.302 of 2006. The
argument as regards to test fire done on a cloth and
shots/shot holes found on the clothes of the deceased
are discussed, it is argued that, effective range of
the weapon is important and target is beyond powder
range. Texts are referred to as discussed supra and it
has been tried to be discussed that, it was a genuine
encounter as there was danger to the lives of police
personnel and general public, but this argument does
...1590/-
Exh.1124 1590 (J-SC 317/10)
not create confidence, in the light of prosecution
evidence.
1459. A reference is made to omissions and
contradictions from 161 and 164 Cr.P.C statements, but
it is to be noted that, when the witnesses are deposing
in a natural course, some infirmities are bound to be
there. The stand of right to private defence is taken
with reference to criminal background of the deceased
and danger started running, though it was not a case
of anticipated danger. The commencement and continuance
of the right of private defence of body is discussed as
a preventive right, but it is to be noted that, the so
called right of private defence extended in causing
death of the deceased. Arguments are also advanced on
the point of withholding best of its evidence by the
prosecution, but it is to be noted that, after a gap of
three years investigation resumed and it became
difficult for the investigation agency and the
prosecution to collect evidence. At the same time, it
is to be noted that, the Court has to see what
prosecution has placed before it and whether the
evidence on record is sufficient to connect the accused
with the alleged offences. The Court need not look into
as to what evidence is not adduced when it is not there
and when witnesses are not coming forward in such a
case, but has to look into what material is placed
...1591/-
Exh.1124 1591 (J-SC 317/10)
before it in connection with the alleged offences.
1460. Non-examination of Subhash Lefty, Kaling and
Urmesh Udhani has been referred to during argument on
behalf of accused no.14, but it cannot be said that it
has become fatal to the prosecution case especially in
the light of examination of Girish Shankar Dal Singh @
Girish Nepali. It is argued that, accused no.14
allegedly made a suspicious statement to PW-57 i.e
Shankar Dal Singh. The prosecution has tried to
establish the motive on the part of accused no.14. It
cannot be said that, it failed to place any material on
record in this behalf before the Court. It has come on
record that, PW-74 handed over his mobile no.9833886791
to accused no.14. It cannot be said that documents at
Exh.414 to Exh.417 are concocted documents. There might
be minor infirmities, but it cannot be said that there
are inconsistencies and contradictions as regards to
these documents. PW-108 recorded statement of PW-57 and
deposed in respect of his mobile and CDR though it did
not reflect in statement. It is also argued that,
statement of Urmesh Udhani and evidence as regards to
24 plots of Anandibai Deshmukh at Airoli are not placed
before the Court. It is to be noted that, evidence can
be either oral or documentary and after a lapse of
period of three years, it became a difficult task for
the SIT to collect each and every material particulars
...1592/-
Exh.1124 1592 (J-SC 317/10)
as regards to the crime. The SIT could not collect CDRs
of mobile number of PW-57, but it also shows that, the
investigation began at a belated stage and there were
hurdles in collecting evidence. Though minor omissions
such as, +=|`` and +=| n||`` have been brought on record,
these do not go to the root of the case and therefore
do not prove to be fatal to the prosecution case.
1461. It is true that, quality of circumstantial
evidence adduced by the prosecution must be
unimpeachable and there should not be any room for
surmises and conjectures. There should not be any
suppression, fabrication and tutoring of witnesses.
There should not be any room for doubt and suspicion.
The allegations by the defence that there is
manipulation in CDRs and SDRs have not been
substantiated by the defence.
1462. On 20.02.2013, Ld. Advocate Mr.Pasbola for
accused no.1 has submitted a list of Cell IDs of
Vodafone Company showing tower location/ coverage area
and also submitted the said document showing how there
were difference in column numbers in Exhibits shown
therein. There was also mention as regards to the
contents stating that, some of the contents such as,
SMS were not reflected in some documents provided by
the Company. On 18.02.2013, Ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola
...1593/-
Exh.1124 1593 (J-SC 317/10)
submitted call details record of accused no.2 Tanaji
Desai of mobile no.9870341323 of Loop Mobile to show
that, the locations are totally different than that
alleged by the prosecution. Then on 18.02.2013, Ld.
Advocate Mr.Pasbola submitted call details of accused
no.3 Ratnakar Kamble of Mobile No. 9870213457 of Loop
Mobile for the same purpose with reference to Exhs.543,
521 and 523.
1463. On 22.02.2013, Ld. Advocate Mr.Vanjara
submitted a chart of cell IDs and tower locations in
respect of mobile no.9867429023 with reference to Exh.
581 to show that, the locations as alleged by the
prosecution do not find place in it but these are
totally different than shown by the prosecution.
1464. Ld. SPP for the State has rightly relied on
authorities mentioned supra in respect of abduction and
murder on Prithpal Singh's case; for burden of proof
on Sucha Singh's case; for plausible explanation and
conspiracy part on Abuthagir's case; on Eshar
Singh's case for common intention and conspiracy part;
on R.Shaji's case for statements u/s. 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C, circumstantial evidence, criminal conspiracy,
T.I. Parades; on Rattan Singh's case for first
information report and Section 32(1) of the Evidence
Act, 313 Cr.P.C. statement; on C. Narayanan (Writer)'s
...1594/-
Exh.1124 1594 (J-SC 317/10)
case for Sec.32(1) of the Evidence Act, on Krishan
Kumar Malik's case for Section 6 of the Evidence Act
and FIR, contemporaneous acts; on Gentela
Vijayavardhan Rao's case for the same purpose, on
Bhairon Singh's case for the same purpose i.e. res-
gastae; on Javed Alam's case on the same point; on
Sukhar's case on the same point; on Raja @
Pannadaian @ Madheswaran's case on circumstantial
evidence as well as Section 6 of the Evidence Act and
Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.; on O.M. Singh's case on the
point of Sec.6 of the Evidence Act; on The State of
Punjab V/s. Karnail Singh's case on the point of Sec.
313 Cr.P.C; on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan's case on the
point circumstantial evidence and last seen together as
well as presumption and Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.; on
Dhanabal & Anr.'s case on the point of Statement u/s.
164 Cr.P.C.; on Dewan Chand's case for continuous of
offence; on Vikas Chaudhary's case on the point of
'continuous offence'; on Satish Kondiba Gawali's case
on the point of Sec. 8, Sec.103, Sec.106 and Sec.114 of
the Evidence Act and 'facts which are especially within
knowledge of accused' as well as Sec. 32(1) of the
Evidence Act; on Balram Prasad Agrawal's case on the
point of Sec.60 of the Evidence Act and 'What witness
heard' and about hearsay evidence; on Mobarik Ali
Ahmed's case on the point of presumption to the
documents such as telegrams, letters and telephone
...1595/-
Exh.1124 1595 (J-SC 317/10)
messages as well as Sec. 45 and Sec. 47 of the Indian
Evidence Act; on Distt. Magistrate's case on the
point of telegrams etc.; on Deepti Anil Devasthali's
case on the point of CDRs and Sec.60 and Sec.67 of the
Indian Evidence Act; on Gajraj's case on the same
point; on Mohan Singh's case on the point of
conspiracy and framing of charge and particulars
therein; on Vikram Singh's case on the point of CDRs
as well as circumstantial evidence and kidnapping and
murder and its sentence; on Chandrasehkhar Surechanra
Bhatt's case on the point of improvements by witnesses
and some marginal variations in evidence adduced by
them; on Sone Lal's case on delay in lodging FIR,
statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C; on Kalpnath Rai's case on
the point of sanction to prosecute, evidence of police
witnesses and presence of independent witnesses; on
Sukhdev Yadav's case on the point of discrepancies,
Sec. 145, 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C, for the purpose of
contradicting witnesses, minor discrepancies and
certain facts going into the root of the matter
demolishing entire prosecution story; on Brijpal
Singh's case on the point of contrary stand taken in
statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C to the defence taken earlier
by the accused; on Shri Johnson's case on the same
point; on State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Balu's case on
the point of 313 statement and inconsistent stand; on
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma's case on Sec. 313
...1596/-
Exh.1124 1596 (J-SC 317/10)
Cr.P.C, admissibility of telephone calls u/s.8 and u/s.
27 of Evidence Act, proof beyond reasonable doubt,
accused influencing witnesses; on High Court on its
own motion V/s. Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi, 2011 ALL
MR (Cri) 1729's case on the point of interfering in
the administration of justice process; on Choudhary
Parveen Sultana's case on the point of protection of
Sec.197 Cr.P.C.; on Ganeshlal's case on the point of
requirement of motive; on Rupsinghbhai Punabhai
Patel's case on quality and not quantity of evidence;
on Paltan Mallah's case on the point of examination
by FSL and preparation of report; on Ramanathan's
case on the point of expert's evidence; on Satyavir
Singh Rathi's case on the point of death by public
servant/ police officials, common intention, statement
u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, sanction to prosecute.
1465. The defence has also relied on the authorities
referred to supra. There cannot be two opinions as
regards to the ratios laid down in the reported
authorities, but the question is whether the said
ratios can be made applicable to case in hand.
1466. Dhanpal Singh's case has been relied on with
reference to Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act and for the
purpose of bringing to the notice of the Court that
burden of proof on the prosecution cannot be shifted.
...1597/-
Exh.1124 1597 (J-SC 317/10)
Another case State through C.B.I's case, Babu's
case, State of West Bengal V/s. Mr. Mohammad Omar's
case, P.Mani's case have been relied on for the same
purpose. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case has been
relied on for the purpose of circumstantial evidence.
Same is with Dinesh's case and Dr.Sunil Clifford
Daniel's case. Case of Ramesh Gyanoba Kamble has
been relied on for 'hearsay evidence'. Same is with
Manoharsing Raghuvirsingh Thakur's case and that of
State of M.P. V/s. Ramesh & anr.'s case. Kirtan
Prasad's case is relied on for the purpose that oral
evidence must be direct. Sheikh Rashid's case has
been relied on for Res-gastae. Same is with Krishan
Kumar Malik's case, Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao's case
and Bhairon Singh's case. Case of Shivaji S/o. Vedu
Salunke has been relied for Sec. 157 of Evidence Act
and submissions are made that, D.D by accused cannot be
made u/s. 157 of Evidence Act. Javed Alam's case is
referred to for res-gastae. Khasbaba Maruti Sholke's
case is relied on for Sec.60 in respect of police
entry even of hearsay evidence and same is not
admissible. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal's case and State
of Himachal Pradesh V/s.Jai Lal's case are relied on
for expert evidence as well as for discussing
conspiracy with Sec.45. Santokh Singh's case is
referred to explain as to who is expert with reference
to Sec. 45 of Evidence Act. Same is with The State of
...1598/-
Exh.1124 1598 (J-SC 317/10)
Gujarat V/s. Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya & ors.'s case.
1467. S. Partap Singh's case has been relied with
reference to tape-recording and tampering, hearsay
evidence. State (NCT of Delhi) V/s.Navjot Sandhu's
case has been relied on for secondary evidence and
call records. Ganesh Bhavan Patel's case has been
relied on for delay in recording statement and FIR.
Narain and others's case has been referred to for
keeping away material witnesses. Vikramjit Singh @
Vicky's case is referred to for Sec. 106 of Evidence
Act. State of W. B. V/s. Mir. Mohammad Omar & ors.'s
case is referred on the point of burden of proof and
presumption u/s. 114 of Evidence Act. State of
Maharashtra V/s. Prabhu Barku Gade's case has been
relied on for circumstantial evidence and Om Prakash's
case and that of Kailashpati Singh's case have been
relied on for sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. Rohit
Dhingra's case has been relied on for circumstantial
evidence. State of Gujarat V/s. Zarinabibi Ibrahim
Hasanbhai Patel's case has been relied on for test
Identification Parades, V.S. Sasikala's case for
statement u/s. 313; The State of Maharashtra V/s.
Ganesh Ramkrishnaji Burbade's case for report of
expert, Hanmant Shankar Salunkhe's case for
circumstantial evidence and abscondance is not a ground
for conviction; Sau.Rekha Uttam Mondhe's case for
...1599/-
Exh.1124 1599 (J-SC 317/10)
appreciation of evidence u/s. 3 of Evidence Act and a
false defence taken and on Aghnoo Nagesia's case for
the purpose of confession and inadmissibility.
1468. Ld. Advocate Mr.Dhairyasheel Patil for accused
no.9 has relied on 1) Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma's
case on the point of statement of Anil Bheda being hit
by Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C. and Sec. 32 of the
Evidence Act, 2) D.Satyanarayana and another's case
and 3) Ram Charan and others's case on the point of
recording of 164 statement, 4) Pt. Parmanand Katara's
case for providing medical aid.- duty of, 5) The
State of Gujarat V/s. Adam Fathe Mohmed Umatiya and
others's case to show as to who is an expert, 6)
Mayur Panabhai Shah's case to show as to who is an
expert and also that opinion of the expert is not
truth, 7) S. Gopal Reddy's case on the point that
expert's evidence is a weak evidence, 8) Madan Gopal
Kakkad's case on the point of evidence of expert need
not be relied on, 9) Seriyal Udayar's case on the
point of right of private defence with reference to
Sec.96, 100 r/w. Sec. 307, 10) Jai Dev and Hari
Singh's case on the same point, 11) State of Madhya
Pradesh V/s. Imrat and another's case on the same
point, 12) Deo Narain's case on the point that right
of private defence is not punitive but preventive, 13)
Rajbir Singh Dalal's case with reference to Sec. 96,
...1600/-
Exh.1124 1600 (J-SC 317/10)
100 r/w. 307, 14) Sayyed Amir Sayyad Amanoddin's case
on the point of assumptions and presumptions, 15) Kali
Ram's case on the point of appreciation of evidence
with reference to Sec.162, 16) Sunil Kumar's case on
the point that 164 statement is not substantive piece
of evidence, 17) Ram Kishan Singh's case on the point
that procedure laid down in Sec. 281 Cr.P.C is for
confession and not for statement, 18) General Officer
Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles and others' case on the
point of sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C and Sec. 165 of
Bombay Police Act.
1469. A reference has to be made to Sections 4 to
11, 17, 24 to 27, 32, 39, 45, 60 to 63, 65A, 65B, 80,
88, 88A, 106, 114 and 154 of the Indian Evidence Act
in relation to evidence adduced by both the parties,
arguments advanced by them and the reported authorities
relied on by the respective parties. It is crystal
clear that, there is no direct evidence available on
the actual taking place of incident dated 11.11.2006
and other related events, but it is available in the
form of circumstantial evidence. At the same time,
evidence is available as regards to wrongful
concealment and wrongful confinement of Anil Bheda and
it is of direct nature. Though minor infirmities have
cropped up, these do not go to the root of the case.
...1601/-
Exh.1124 1601 (J-SC 317/10)
1470. It is to be seen that, there is ample evidence
in respect of abduction of the deceased and Anil Bheda
through a vehicle bearing No.MH-04-AW-8824 from in
front of Trisha Collections, Sector 9, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai by the persons as discussed supra. Then there is
evidence which shows that, they were taken to Bhandup
Complex and then to D.N. Nagar police station and then
to Nana Nani Park, Versova Link Road, where the alleged
encounter had been shown to have taken place. Then
there is evidence as regards to disappearance of Anil
Bheda and the deceased. It is in the form of missing
report, fax messages and telegrams and subsequently
Anil Bheda appearing in Vashi police station and the
missing complaint being withdrawn. There is again
abduction and murder of Anil Bheda prior to his
deposing before the Court (for which a separate crime
has been registered and investigation is going on).
There is evidence that, prior to that, Anil Bheda and
his wife were taken to Majestic Hotel, Kolhapur and
then Anil was kept in Hotel Mid-town, Mumbai.
Substantial oral evidence has been adduced in this
behalf. There is documentary evidence as discussed
supra in corroboration to the oral evidence. Entries in
Hotel Mid-town are not available on record as the said
hotel is situated within the jurisdiction of D.N. Nagar
police station and this might be the reason that, Anil
Bheda was kept in the said hotel without making any
...1602/-
Exh.1124 1602 (J-SC 317/10)
entry in the relevant record. A story of Anil Bheda
going to Shirdi was also brought forward which was
subsequently turned down by Anil Bheda himself as well
as his wife Aruna Bheda.
1471. There is also reference to two inquiries by
the SLAO-IV and by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, recording of statements
u/s.161 and u/s.164 in C.R.302/2006 and in C.R.
246/2009. It is to be noted that, what witnesses
deposed or stated in their earlier statements were
subsequently turned down and a new case was made out
during the course of investigation by the SIT. It is
also to be noted that, in C.R.302/2006, weapons
involved in police firing were not sent to the FSL, but
subsequently those weapons were sent by the SIT after
it had taken charge of it, during the course of
investigation. There is a running panchanama, as
mentioned supra, which shows the place of abduction and
places where the deceased and Anil Bheda were taken and
places where allegedly the deceased was killed i.e.
alleged place of encounter at Nana Nani Park. A vehicle
bearing No.MH-04-AW-8824 was involved in the abduction.
Some infirmities as regards to engine number, chasis
number, colour etc. were brought on record, but the
fact remains that, it was the same vehicle through
which abduction of the deceased and Anil Bheda was
...1603/-
Exh.1124 1603 (J-SC 317/10)
done.
1472. The prosecution has not much relied on the
test Identification Parades due to publishing of
photographs of some of the accused and due to previous
interaction of witness Aruna Bheda with the accused.
Test Identification Parade has been challenged by the
defence on the grounds that, the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court and the provisions of Criminal
Manual were not duly followed while conducting the test
Identification Parades and timings mentioned do not
tally with the timings mentioned in the record of the
Central Prisons. It is to be noted that, the
prosecution has not relied on the test Identification
Parades, therefore, much importance need not be
attributed to the test Identification Parades, as there
is other evidence available against the accused
persons.
1473. There is evidence of CDRs and SDRs.
Considering ratio laid down in Deepti Anil
Devasthali's case, referred to supra, this is also no
less evidence considering the fact that, the
investigation was taken over after a lapse of a period
of about three years. This was an important evidence on
the basis of which the SIT could make progress in the
investigation. There are certain documents such as,
...1604/-
Exh.1124 1604 (J-SC 317/10)
station diary entries and other record from the police
stations and entries in the police stations and Armoury
as regards to distribution and depositing of the arms
and ammunitions as well as entries as regards to
distribution of duties to the police personnel
concerned.
1474. One more aspect which cannot be turned down is
death of Anil Bheda, who was star witness in this case,
who could have thrown much light on the case but due to
his death, the prosecution lost a very important
witness. Then there is aspect of non-examination of
witnesses from Trisha Collections and from the alleged
place of encounter at Nana Nani Park. It is to be noted
that, after a lapse of a period of three years, one
cannot expect that the witnesses would come forward and
stick up to the prosecution case especially when some
of the accused persons are police personnel. Even then,
independent role of accused persons have been
sufficiently disclosed through CDRs and SDRs and other
related documents, as well as oral evidence on record.
1475. Though the defence has challenged the
expertise, it cannot be said that, PW-86 is not an
expert and he did not follow proper procedure for
examination of arms and ammunitions. On the contrary,
with available means, he has properly done examination
...1605/-
Exh.1124 1605 (J-SC 317/10)
and then submitted report. It is true that, the Court
need not rely upon the said opinion as it cannot be
said that is is truth and also being a weak type of
evidence, but at the same time the report corroborates
other evidence on record. It cannot be said that,
whatever evidence is there on record is of hearsay
nature. On the contrary, evidence on record can be said
to be circumstantial in nature. In the light of ratio
laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's
case (referred to supra), especially para nos.152 and
153, which read as under:-
152. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established: (1) the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between 'may be
proved' and 'must be proved or should be
proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
2 SCC 793 where the following observations
were made : certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a Court can
convict and the mental distance between 'may
be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the
facts so established should be consistent only
with only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not
...1606/-
Exh.1124 1606 (J-SC 317/10)
be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty. (3) the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency. (4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and (5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused
and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
153. These five golden principles, if we say
so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of
a case based on circumstantial evidence.
1476. It can be said that, this touchstone comes in
application to the evidence adduced by the prosecution
in the case in hand. It cannot be said that, the
prosecution has adduced only hearsay evidence.
1477. Role of accused no.1, as emerged from the
prosecution case, is based on CDRs, SDRs, recovery of
weapons and the retrieved bullet (the retrieved bullet
was found to be deformed from both sides). It has
already been made clear that, mobile number attributed
to accused no.1 does not stand in his name and on the
basis of these aspects, implication of accused no.1
would mean an implication on the basis of surmises,
conjectures and wrong inferences. None of the witnesses
have attributed any role to accused no.1. Though some
of the witnesses have mentioned that, he was head of
...1607/-
Exh.1124 1607 (J-SC 317/10)
the alleged squad, it has got no force. The evidence in
this behalf is quite a weak type of evidence, therefore
only on its basis he cannot be connected with the
alleged offences, especially when PW-78 himself has
denied forming of any special squad under accused
Pradeep Sharma.
1478. Accused nos.2,3,4,6,7,8 and 10 actually
abducted the deceased and Anil Bheda to Vashi police
station on 12.11.2006 and made him to withdraw the
complaint filed by his wife and then they went to
Bhattwadi. Accused no.4 kept watch and visited
D.N.Nagar police station and Versova police station and
also at Nana Nani Park. Accused no.5 was present in
D.N. Nagar police station when Anil Bheda was brought
there and he also took Anil, Aruna and Parth to
Kolhapur, guarded Anil at Hotel Mid-town and kept
surveillance on Anil Bheda. Accused no.6 also kept
watch on Anil Bheda and was also present at D.N. Nagar
police station and at Nana Nani Park. Same is with
accused no.7. Accused no.9 played key role in all the
acts, including preparation of record in C.R.302 of
2006. Accused no.11 and accused no.13 were members of
the alleged encounter team and claimed firing. Accused
no.15 kept watch on Anil Bheda and the deceased and was
also a member of the alleged encounter team. Accused
no.16, accused no.17, accused no.18, accused no.19,
...1608/-
Exh.1124 1608 (J-SC 317/10)
accused no.20, accused no.22 were members of the
alleged encounter team and they so claimed in all
proceedings. Accused no.14 was man behind curtain,
setting everything in motion. Accused no.12 was one of
them who entered into the conspiracy. Accused no.4,
accused no.7, accused no.8, accused no.10 and accused
no.21 formed an unlawful assembly having deadly weapons
with them committed rioting, abducted the deceased and
witness Anil Bheda, secretly and wrongfully confined
Anil with a view also to murder the deceased, wherein
accused no.2, accused no.3, accused no.4, accused no.5,
accused no.6, accused no.7, accused no.8, accused no.
10, accused no.12 and accused no.21 took active part.
At the same time, there is no iota of evidence as
against accused no.1 so as to prove his involvement in
any of the alleged offences or as regards to forming of
the alleged squad, having particular mobile number and
killing the deceased or abducting the deceased and Anil
Bheda. There is no force in arguments of the
prosecution that, name of accused no.1 appeared as PS
during conversation and threats to Anil Bheda while he
was in office of the SIT, but this could be said to be
based on surmises and conjectures if one comes to a
conclusion that, PS only means Pradeep Sharma. In
short, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to
show any involvement of accused no.1 in the alleged
offences. The prosecution has much relied on the
...1609/-
Exh.1124 1609 (J-SC 317/10)
retrieved bullet from the body of the deceased and
alleged that, it belonged to the weapon of accused no.
1. As discussed supra, only on the basis of this
circumstance accused no.1 cannot be connected to the
alleged offences, especially when there is absolutely
no other evidence and when this kind of evidence is a
weak piece of evidence. The prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the said offences beyond reasonable
doubt against accused no.1.
1479. Considering oral evidence of the witnesses and
documentary evidence in the form of CDRs, SDRs, cell
IDs as well as fax and telegrams etc., there is
definitely ground to show that, the accused (except
accused no.1) were members of an unlawful assembly and
that they were armed with deadly weapons. They
committed rioting while they abducted the deceased and
Anil Bheda and also that, it was in prosecution of the
common object of the said unlawful assembly. It was the
outcome of the conspiracy hatched earlier and also it
was well-contemplated abetment.
1480. It is also to be noted that, accused no.20 and
accused no.22 remained absconding. It was published in
police notice and the order of proclamation of the Ld.
M.M was promulgated by following procedure established
by law. Therefore, it cannot be said that, due
...1610/-
Exh.1124 1610 (J-SC 317/10)
procedure of law was not followed for the promulgation
of proclamation against these accused persons. There is
substantial documentary and oral evidence on record in
this behalf.
1481. It would not be out of place to mention here
that, as discussed earlier, there are two
investigations; one is in C.R.No.302 of 2006
(originally from Versova police station and then to
Oshiwara police station, wherein abate summary has been
prepared but order is not yet passed) and another C.R.
No.246 of 2009 of Versova police station by the SIT.
There were inquiries by the SLAO-IV and the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri
and the NHRC as well as various proceedings before the
Hon'ble High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. There were again statements recorded u/s.164
Cr.P.C in C.R.No.302 of 2006 and in C.R.No.246 of 2009.
It cannot be overlooked that the case is against some
of the police officers, along with others, who were
members of the alleged encounter team wherein death of
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta had occurred. It became
very difficult for the SIT to investigate the case
especially when it was against some of the police
officers and when investigation started at a belated
stage. Almost it was a 'Herculean Task', but the team
headed by DCP Mr.Prasanna which mainly included PI Mr.
...1611/-
Exh.1124 1611 (J-SC 317/10)
Gaonkar, API Mr.Ghorpade and PSI Mr.Chalke and the
staff, did the herculean task to successfully complete
the investigation in pursuance to the orders of the
Hon'ble High Court and brought the accused to the book.
1482. There is one more aspect of the case as
regards to hostility of the witnesses. The witnesses,
who have declined to support the prosecution are,
Mr.Anil Anant Hegiste(PW-33), Exh.259, Mrs.Geetanjali
Shrikrishna Datar(PW-68), Exh.604, Mr.Vishwanath
Jagannath Shetty(PW-75) Exh.618, Mr.Shashidhar Sitaram
Shetty(PW-95), Exh.704, Mr. Mehmood Mahammad Ali Shaikh
(PW-96), Exh.705, Mr.Amit Jayantibhai Patel(PW-103),
Exh.740, Mr.Anant Tukaram Patil(PW-104), retired ACP,
Exh.743 and Mr.Sanjay Shivaji Vhanmane(PW-105), Exh.
748. Moreover, there are some other witnesses, who were
not declared hostile but who adduced vague evidence as
regards to the alleged incident.
1483. It is to be noted that, when the witnesses are
deposing before the Court, particularly in such a case,
it is like taking bull by horns. They are sand-
witched between the two investigations and two
inquiries as well as 164 Cr.P.C statements given in
earlier proceedings and in this proceeding as well as
affidavits submitted by them. It is alleged that, they
gave their statements under threats and duress in the
...1612/-
Exh.1124 1612 (J-SC 317/10)
earlier proceedings conducted by the SLAO-IV and in
C.R.302 of 2006 and they made different statements
during investigation in C.R.246 of 2009 and in their
statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. These are different
investigations/ inquiries as regards to one and the
same offence during which the witnesses took different
stands as per then prevailing circumstances. Therefore,
while considering evidence of these witnesses, the
Court has to look into as to what they deposed before
the Court. It is to be noted that, if the witness has
supported the stand that he had taken in C.R.302 of
2006 he would come in trouble, when he faces cross
examination on the basis of his statement/s in C.R.246
of 2009. If the witness remains stick up to his version
from C.R 246/09, the cross examination would bring his
statements from C.R.302 of 2006 and the SLAO-IV inquiry
and the witnesses would come in trouble. This has
happened in respect of almost all the witnesses as
statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C have been recorded of almost
all the witnesses during the course of investigation by
the SIT. For the purpose of bringing omissions and
contradictions on record, there was ample material
before the Court so as to corner the witnesses.
Reference can be made to the case of Tahsildar Singh &
Anr. v/s. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1959, Supreme
Court, 1012. In short, there was a very difficult
situation in which the witnesses in this case were made
...1613/-
Exh.1124 1613 (J-SC 317/10)
to depose before the Court on the backdrop of the
inquiry by the SLAO-IV and by Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri,
investigation in C.R.302/2006, investigation in C.R.
246/2009, statements u/s.161 Cr.P.C and u/s.164 Cr.P.C
as well as affidavits filed by the witnesses concerned
during inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the
witnesses are liable for perjury. PW-104 Mr.A.T. Patil,
who has in clear terms admitted that, he deposed false
during his statement in earlier proceeding but he is
remorseful for stating false before the Magistrate and
that he was under mental tension. There was fear of
arrest in his mind. It becomes crystal clear that, this
was the fact in relation to almost all the witnesses
while their statements were recorded in all previous
proceedings also. This witness has gone to the extent
of saying that, he was threatened by the SIT, therefore
he gave such a previous statement. This cannot be said
to be true as this witness did not make complaint to
any authority as regards to the alleged threats by the
SIT. This example goes to show as to in what mental
state the witnesses were placed since year 2006 to year
2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that, this can be a
case for perjury as against the hostile witnesses.
1484. PW-104 was earlier in police department. Same
is the case with DW-2, who also served in police
...1614/-
Exh.1124 1614 (J-SC 317/10)
department. PW-68 Mrs. Geetanjali Datar is serving as
Sheristedar in the Court. She has also been placed in
the same situation as that of PW-104 and DW-2. It also
applies to other witnesses, who have been declared
hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be
said that, due to hostility of these witnesses to the
prosecution, they are liable for perjury.
1485. Ld. Advocate Mr.J.G. Bhanushal has relied on
Hanmant Shankar Salunkhe V/s. The State of Maharashtra,
2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2416 (para 12), so as to bring the
point home that fact that the accused was absconding
itself cannot be a ground for conviction.
1486. It is to be noted that, there are
incriminating circumstances other than the fact of
absconding against accused nos.20 and 22, therefore, it
cannot be said that, these accused are merely being
held guilty on the basis that they were absconding.
1487. Much has been argued on the point of sanction
to prosecute as per provisions of Sec.197 of the
Cr.P.C. and Sec.161 of the Bombay Police Act. It is to
be noted that, sanction to prosecute is required when
the alleged acts have been committed by the public
servant while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty. The accused being
...1615/-
Exh.1124 1615 (J-SC 317/10)
police officers it is not necessary to obtain sanction
to prosecute as the acts done by them are not covered
under the acts to have been done in the discharge of
their official duty.
1488. Last but not the least, several objections
have been raised during the course of recording of
evidence. These objections are in hundreds. Those were
raised before my Ld. Predecessors and also when the
trial continued in this Court. Most of the objections
are as regards to admissibility of oral/ documentary
evidence. It is to be noted that, the objections are
removed as discussions about admissibility of the
evidence have been done supra. Therefore, now the
objections raised by either of the parties do not
sustain in the light of the discussions made about oral
and documentary evidence herein-before.
1489. It would be justifiable to quote following
observations from the reported authority of the Hon'ble
Apex Court Prakash Kadam & etc. etc. V/s. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta & Anr., 2011 (4) Bom. C.R.(Cri) 123
(Supreme Court);
23. In our opinion this is a very serious case
wherein prima facie some Police Officers and staff
were engaged by some private persons to kill their
opponent i.e. Ramnarayan Gupta and the Police
Officers and the staff acted as contract killers
for them. If such Police Officers and staff can be
...1616/-
Exh.1124 1616 (J-SC 317/10)
engaged as contract killers to finish some person,
there may be very strong apprehension in the mind
of the witnesses about their own safety. If the
Police Officers and staff could kill a person at
the behest of a third person, it cannot be ruled
out that they may kill the important witnesses or
their relatives or give threats to them at the time
of trial of the case to save themselves. This
aspect has been completely ignored by the learned
Session Judge while granting bail to the accused
persons.
24. In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly
justified in canceling the bail to the accused
appellants. The accused/ appellants are police
personnel and it was their duty to uphold the law,
but far from performing their duty, they appear to
have operated as criminals. Thus, the protectors
have become the predators. As the Bible says If
the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it
be salted?, or as the ancient Romans used to say,
Who will guard the Praetorian guards? (see in
this connection the judgment of this Court in (CBI
Vs. Kishore Singh), 2010 DGLS (soft) 2240 Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2047-2049 decided on 25.10.2010.
25. We are of the view that in cases where a fake
encounter is proved against policemen in a
trial,they must be given death sentence, treating
it as the rarest of rare cases. Fake 'encounters'
are nothing but cold blooded, brutal murder by
persons who are supposed to uphold the law. In our
opinion, if crimes are committed by ordinary
people, ordinary punishment should be given, but if
the offence is committed by policemen much harsher
punishment should be given to them because they do
an act totally contrary to their duties.
26. We warn policemen that they will not be
excused for committing murder in the name of
...1617/-
Exh.1124 1617 (J-SC 317/10)
'encounter' on the pretext that they were carrying
out the orders of their superior officers or
politicians, however high. In the Nuremburg trials
the Nazi war criminals took the plea that orders
are orders, nevertheless they were hanged. If a
politician is given an illegal order by any
superior to do a fake 'encounter', it is his duty
to refuse to carry out such illegal order,
otherwise he will be charged for murder, and if
found guilty sentenced to death. The 'encounter'
philosophy is a criminal philosophy, and all
policemen must know this. Trigger happy policemen
who think they can kill people in the name of
'encounter' and get away with it should know that
the gallows await them.
28. Before parting with this case, it is
imperative in our opinion to mention that our
ancient thinkers were of the view that the worst
state of affairs possible in society is a state of
lawlessness. When the rule of law collapses it is
replaced by Matsyanyaya, which means the law of the
jungle. In Sanskrit the word 'Matsya means fish,
and Matsyanyaya means a state of affairs where the
big fish devours the smaller one. All our ancient
thinkers have condemned Matsyanyaya vide 'History
of Dharmashastra' by P.V. Kane Vol. III p. 21. A
glimpse of the situation which will prevail if
matsyanyaya comes into existence is provided by
Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's 'Julius
Caesar' Act 3, Scene 1 (quoted) -
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds;
...1618/-
Exh.1124 1618 (J-SC 317/10)
All Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion mean, groaning for burial.
29. This idea of matsyanyaya (the maxim of the
larger fish devouring the small ones or the strong
despoiling the weak) is frequently dwelt upon by
Kautilya, the Mahabharata and other works. It can
be traced back to the Shatapatha Brahmana XI 1.6.24
where it is said whenever there is drought, then
the stronger seizes upon the weaker, for the waters
are the law, which means that when there is no
rain the reign of law comes to an end and
matsyanyaya beings to operate.
30. Kautilya says, if danda be not employed, it
gives rise to the condition of matsyanyaya, since
in the absence of a chastiser the strong devour the
weak'. That in the absence of king (arajaka) or
when there is no fear of punishment, the condition
of matsyanyaya follows is declared by several
Shantiparva of Mahabharat 15.30 and 67, 16.
Kamandaka II. 40, Matsyapurana 225.9, Manasollasa
II. 20.1295 etc.
31. Thus in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharat Vol.1
it is stated :-
Raja chen-na bhavellokey prithivyaam
dandadharakah shuley matsyanivapakshyan durbalaan
balvattaraah.
32. This Sloka means that when the King carrying
the rod of punishment does not protect the earth
then the strong persons destroy the weaker ones,
just like in water the big fish eat the small fish.
In the Shantiparva of Mahabharata Bheesma Pitamah
tells the world than lawlessness, for in a state of
...1619/-
Exh.1124 1619 (J-SC 317/10)
Matsyanyaya, nobody, not even the evil doers are
safe, because even the evil doers will sooner or
later be swallowed up by other evil doers.
33. We have referred to this because behind the
growing lawlessness in the country this Court can
see the looming danger of matsyanyaya.
1490. Now, it has become crystal clear that, the
prosecution has proved that, accused nos.2 to 22,
during the period between October 2006 to 11.11.2006,
at Mumbai and Navi Mumbai were party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit offences punishable u/s.364, 365,
368 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in as much as
these accused conspired (I) to abduct deceased
Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya in order
that he might be murdered, (II) to abduct witness Anil
Jethalal Bheda with intent to cause him to be secretly
and wrongfully confined, (III) to wrongfully conceal or
confine deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya knowing that he had been kidnapped or had
been abducted for murder, (IV) to commit murder of
deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya and
that thereby accused nos.2 to 22 committed offences
punishable u/s.120(B) r/w. 364, 365 and 368 of the
Indian Penal Code.
1491. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21, on 11.11.2006 from at about 12.30
...1620/-
Exh.1124 1620 (J-SC 317/10)
pm, at Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai in pursuance of the
said conspiracy and in the course of same transaction,
were members of unlawful assembly, intention of which
was to abduct deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta@
Lakhanbhaiya and witness Anil Jethalal Bheda and
thereby accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21 committed
offence punishable u/s. 143 of the Indian Penal Code.
1492. The prosecution has proved that, at the same
time, and place, the above stated accused (accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21) being members of the unlawful
assembly were armed with deadly weapons like firearms
and thereby accused nos. 4,7,8,10,12 and 21 committed
offence punishable u/s. 144 of the Indian Penal Code.
1493. The prosecution has proved that, above
mentioned accused (accused nos.4,7,8,10,12 and 21)
mentioned in the charge no.3, at the same time and
place, being members of the unlawful assembly committed
offence of rioting and thereby committed offence
punishable u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
1494. The prosecution has proved that, all accused
persons mentioned in charge nos.3 and 4 above (accused
nos.4,7,8,10,12 and 21) at the same time and place
being members of the unlawful assembly and while
committing the offence of rioting were armed with
...1621/-
Exh.1124 1621 (J-SC 317/10)
deadly weapons like firearms and thereby accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21 committed offence punishable u/s.
148 of the Indian Penal Code.
1495. The prosecution has proved that, above
mentioned accused as mentioned in charge nos. 3,4 and 5
(accused nos.4,7,8,10,12 and 21), at the same time and
place, in pursuance of said conspiracy and in
prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful
assembly had abetted deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath
Gupta@ Lakhanbhaiya in order that he might be murdered
and thereby accused nos.4,7,8,10,12 and 21 committed
offences punishable u/s.149 r/w. 364 of the Indian
Penal Code.
1496. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21, at the same time and place, in
pursuance of the said conspiracy and in prosecution of
the common object of the said unlawful assembly,
abetted witness Anil Jethalal Bheda with intent to
cause said Anil Jethalal Bheda to be secretly and
wrongfully confined and thereby accused nos.
4,7,8,10,12 and 21 committed offences punishable u/s.
149 r/w. 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
1497. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 and 21, at the same time, in
...1622/-
Exh.1124 1622 (J-SC 317/10)
pursuance of the said conspiracy and during the course
of same transaction at Bhandup Complex, Mumbai at about
1 pm, in furtherance of their common object, abetted
deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @ Lakhanbhaiya in
order that he might be murdered and thereby committed
offences punishable u/s.364 r/w. 149 of the Indian
Penal Code.
1498. The prosecution has proved that, at the same
time and place and during the course of same
transaction, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the
accused (accused nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 and 21) named
above in charge no.8, in furtherance of their common
object abducted witness Anil Jethalal Bheda with intent
to cause said Anil Jethalal Bheda to be secretly and
wrongfully confined and thereby committed offences
punishable u/s.365 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code.
1499. The prosecution failed to prove that, accused
no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma on the same date at D.N.
Nagar police station, Mumbai at about 2.30 pm, in
pursuance of the said conspiracy had concealed or
confined deceased Ramnarayan Vishwanath Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya knowing that the said deceased had been
abducted for murder and thereby accused no.1 committed
offence punishable u/s. 368 of the Indian Penal Code.
...1623/-
Exh.1124 1623 (J-SC 317/10)
1500. The prosecution has proved that, since
offences punishable u/s.364 and 365 of the IPC
committed by accused nos.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 and 21
were committed in pursuance of the conspiracy of all of
accused nos.9,11,13 to 20 and 22 abetted by
conspiracy, commission of the said offences punishable
u/s. 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
accused nos.9,11,13 to 20 and 22 committed offences
punishable u/s.365 r/w.109, r/w. 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code. The prosecution could not make out this
charge against accused no.1 for want of oral as well as
documentary evidence pointing at the guilt of accused
no.1.
1501. The prosecution has proved that, since offence
punishable u/s. 368 of the Indian Penal Code was in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy of all of the accused
(except accused no.1), accused nos.2 to 22 abetted
commission of the said offence punishable u/s.368 of
the Indian Penal Code and thereby accused nos.2 to 22
committed offence punishable 368 r/w. 109, r/w. 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to
substantiate the charge that accused no.1 committed
offence punishable u/s. 368 of the Indian Penal Code,
but at the same time there is substantial evidence as
against the remaining accused persons.
...1624/-
Exh.1124 1624 (J-SC 317/10)
1502. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
2,3,5,13 and 16, in pursuance of the said conspiracy,
during the course of same transaction and in
furtherance of their common intention had wrongfully
confined witness Anil Jethalal Bheda for a period of 30
days commencing from 11.11.2006 at D.N. Nagar police
station, Mumbai, Hotel Majestic, Kolhapur and at Hotel
Mid Town, Andheri, Mumbai and thereby committed offence
punishable u/s. 344 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Again no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution
to substantiate this charge against accuse no.1.
1503. The prosecution has proved that, the above
stated offence punishable u/s. 344 of the Indian Penal
Code was committed in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy of all accused (except accused no.1) i.e.
accused nos.4,6 to 12, 14, 15 and 17 to 22 abetted
commission of the said offence punishable u/s. 344 of
the Indian Penal Code by conspiracy and thereby
accused nos.4,6 to 12, 14, 15 and 17 to 22 committed
offences punishable u/s. 344 r/w.109, r/w.120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code.
1504. The prosecution has proved that, at the same
time i.e. on 11.11.2006 at or around D.N. Nagar police
station, at about 8.00 or at around 8.00 pm, accused
...1625/-
Exh.1124 1625 (J-SC 317/10)
nos.2,9 and 15, in furtherance of their common
intention had committed murder by intentionally or
knowingly causing the death of deceased Ramnarayan
Vishwanath Gupta@ Lakhanbhaiya and thereby accused nos.
2,9 and 15 committed offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also to be noted
that, there is absolutely no iota of evidence to show
that, accused no.1, along with other named accused nos.
2,9 and 15 committed murder by intentionally or
knowingly causing death of deceased Ramnarayan
Vishwanath Gupta@ Lakhanbhaiya. The prosecution failed
to adduce any evidence to that effect to the extent of
accused no.1, but there is substantial evidence against
accused nos.2,9 and 15 in this behalf to show that, the
act on the part of accused nos. 2,9 and 15 was a
premeditated act and that there was prior meeting of
minds of these accused persons.
1505. The prosecution has proved that, since the
above said offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian
Penal Code was committed in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy of all accused (except accused no.1) i.e.
accused nos.2 to 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 22 had abetted
by conspiracy the commission of the said offence and
thereby accused nos.2 to 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 22
committed offences punishable u/s.302 r/w.109, r/w.
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
...1626/-
Exh.1124 1626 (J-SC 317/10)
1506. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
2,3,9,11,13,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 22 near Nana Nani
Park, Versova on 11.11.2006 at about 8.00 pm, in
pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy and in the
course of same transaction and in furtherance of their
common intention caused disappearance of evidence of
the commission of offence of murder with intention of
screening the offenders from legal punishment knowing
or having reason to believe that an offence of murder
had been committed and thereby accused nos.
2,3,9,11,13,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 22 committed offence
punishable u/s. 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
1507. The prosecution has proved that, since the
said offence punishable u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal
Code had been committed in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy of all the accused (except accused no.1)
i.e. accused nos.2 to 8,10,12,14 and 16 had abetted
commission of the said offence by accused nos.4 to 8
and thereby committed offences punishable u/s.201 r/w.
109, r/w.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As discussed
supra, the prosecution could not adduce any evidence as
against accused no.1 to substantiate the said charge.
1508. The prosecution has proved that, accused no.9
at Versova police station on 11.11.2006 at about 8.00
...1627/-
Exh.1124 1627 (J-SC 317/10)
pm in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, gave
information respecting the offence which he knew or had
reason to believe to be false with intention of
screening the offender from the punishment and thereby
accused no.9 committed offence punishable u/s. 201 of
the Indian Penal Code.
1509. The prosecution has proved that, since the
offence mentioned in charge no.18 was committed in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy of all, accused nos.2
to 8 and 10 to 22 committed offences punishable u/s.201
r/w.109, r/w.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. There is
no iota of evidence as against accused no.1 to bring
him within purview of this charge.
1510. The prosecution has proved that, accused nos.
20 and 22, in the month of October, 2010 failed to
appear before Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile
Court, Andheri, as required by the proclamation duly
published and despite the fact that the accused were
declared as proclaimed offenders and thereby accused
nos.20 and 22 committed offence punishable u/s.174 (A)
of the Indian Penal Code.
1511. The prosecution has proved that, in the course
of same transaction and pursuant to the said
conspiracy, accused nos.2,3,7,9,11,13,15 to 20 and 22
...1628/-
Exh.1124 1628 (J-SC 317/10)
being public servants namely members of Mumbai Police
Force, whose duty was to prevent the commission of the
offences punishable u/s. 364 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code with intention of facilitating or with the
knowledge that all the above accused would thereby
facilitate the commission of the above said offences
punishable with a term of imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, death or imprisonment for life and thereby
committed offence punishable u/s.119 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is to be noted that, in this behalf
also, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence as
against accused no.1, but at the same time there is
sufficient evidence as against the remaining accused
persons.
1512. Considering facts and circumstances of the
case and evidence discussed supra, I hold accused no.1
not guilty for the offences, as mentioned in charges
vide Exh.46, Exh.46A and Exh.88. At the same time, I
hold accused nos. 2 to 22 guilty for the offences, as
mentioned in charges vide Exh.46, Exh.46A and Exh.88.
1513. Before I proceed to pass sentence against
accused nos.2 to 22, here I take a pause to hear the
prosecution and the accused on the point of sentence.
...1629/-
Exh.1124 1629 (J-SC 317/10)
1514. (The Ld. SPP for the State and Ld. Advocates
for the accused requested for time to argue on the
point of sentence and also requested to post matter on
08.07.2013- Granted. The matter is posted for arguments
on the point of sentence to 08.07.2013).
(V.D. Jadhavar)
Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date:05.07.2013. Gr. Bombay.
09.07.2013:-
1515. Heard accused nos.2 to 13 and 15 to 22 in
person and Ld. Advocate Mr. Prakash Shetty for accused
no.14, who is hospitalized.
1516. Accused no.2 Tanaji Desai has submitted that
he is not guilty. He has served the police force and
people honestly. Real criminal was Ramnarayan Gupta @
Lakhanbhaiya. He has two children and parents. His
parents are agriculturists, therefore, a lenient view
be taken.
1517. Accused no.3 Ratnakar Kamble has submitted
that, during his service he has seized arms and
...1630/-
Exh.1124 1630 (J-SC 317/10)
ammunitions of the terrorist. He gave full time for the
service of general public. He has not a single diary
against him. Whatever he did was right. He has a family
depending on him. If there were not policemen like
them, the public present in the Court would not have
survived. Women walk freely because of them. He has not
done anything wrong. Therefore, a lenient view be
taken.
1518. Accused no.4 Shailendra Pandey has submitted
that, his advocate has made submissions on his behalf
and same be considered as his submissions. It is
submitted that, a lenient view be taken.
1519. Accused no.5 Hitesh Solanki has submitted
that, he has not done anything. He is a poor person.
There is nobody from his family to support him,
therefore, a lenient view be taken.
1520. Accused no.6 Akhil Khan has submitted that,
whatever his advocate has made are his submissions. He
has a family depending on him. He has been falsely
implicated in this case. Therefore, a lenient view be
taken.
1521. Accused no.7 Vinayak Shinde has submitted
that, he has a son. His father is bed-ridden. He has
honestly served the police department and people. He
...1631/-
Exh.1124 1631 (J-SC 317/10)
has given everything to his job. Because of it, he
could not be a good son, a good brother or a good
husband. Therefore, a lenient view be taken.
1522. Accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj has submitted
that, his advocate has made submissions on his behalf
and same be treated as his submissions. It is submitted
that, a lenient view be taken.
1523. Accused no.9 Pradeep Suryawanshi has submitted
that, since 1979 he has served in police department.
His record is spot-less. He also served in CBI. Lie
detection test of PWs-1,2,3 and 4 was carried out at a
belated stage, otherwise truth would have come out.
There was a recreation of crime conducted by the SIT.
There was video-recording. A panchanama was carried
out. Ballistic expert Mr.Ghadge was also present at the
time of recording panchanama, but all these documents
(evidence) have been suppressed by the SIT. It also
suppressed the railway tickets found on the person of
the deceased. The action was taken under right of
private defence. Before taking action, he apprised the
superior officers, who were attending Umang Programme.
The alcohol found in the body of the deceased also
shows that, he was killed at Nana Nani Park. There was
NHRC Report in their favour. They were not arrested for
four months. The SIT suppressed log books. The SIT had
...1632/-
Exh.1124 1632 (J-SC 317/10)
a revengeful attitude. There are independent witnesses
in favour of the accused. The SIT suppressed many
reports from the Court. He has a marriageable daughter.
He is 59 years of age and already has suffered heart-
attack. He has not done anything wrong. He is ready for
any kind of sentence. The Court may award sentence as
per its wish.
1524. Accused no.10 Sunil Solanki has submitted that
there is no other earning member than him, therefore a
lenient view be taken.
1525. Accused no.11 Nitin Sartape has submitted
that, he has served for 22 years in police department.
He has never done any illegal act. His family has
become homeless. A lenient view be taken.
1526. Accused no.12 Mohd. Taka has submitted that,
he has adopted the submissions made by his advocate. It
is submitted that, a lenient view be taken.
1527. Accused no.13 Devidas Sakpal has submitted a
written application (Exh.1121). It is submitted that,
he followed the orders of his superior officers and
deliberately did not do any act. He is dead if he
follows his seniors' orders, he is dead if he does not.
He has served in police department for 26 years and no
...1633/-
Exh.1124 1633 (J-SC 317/10)
stigma has been attributed to him. He has old parents,
wife and children, who are dependent on him. He has
been falsely implicated in this case. Considering this,
a lenient view be taken.
1528. Ld. Advocate Mr.Prakash Shetty has made
submissions on behalf of accused no.14, who is
hospitalized. It is submitted that, considering the
fact that the accused has been hospitalized for the
last 12 years and various ailments from which he is
suffering. A lenient view be taken.
1529. Accused no.15 Dilip Palande has submitted
that, a lesser punishment be awarded.
1530. Accused no.16 Prakash Kadam has submitted
that, a lesser punishment be awarded.
1531. Accused no.17 Ganesh Harpude has submitted
that, his children are studying in Engineering. He has
been made a scapegoat due to following the orders of
his superiors. A lenient view be taken.
1532. Accused no.18 Anand Patade has submitted that,
he has served for 17 years and has been lodged in jail
for more than three years. He had joined the police
station one month prior to the alleged incident. His
...1634/-
Exh.1124 1634 (J-SC 317/10)
mother is a cancer patient and his father is old. He
has responsibility of his parents and a divorced sister
as well as his daughter and a wife. He has become
homeless and therefore, a lenient view be taken.
1533. Accused no.19 Pandurang Kokam has submitted
that, he has served in police department for 17 years.
He has become a scapegoat of the police system. It is
submitted that, though he is physically alive, he is
already counted amongst the dead. Therefore, a lenient
view be taken.
1534. Accused no.20 Sandeep Sardar has submitted
that, he has been a scapegoat of the system. When a
senior officer says to sit, he has to sit. Mr.
Bhanushal also conveyed the feelings of wife of this
accused. It is requested that, a lenient view be taken.
1535. Accused no.21 Suresh Shetty has submitted
that, his advocate has made the submissions and same be
treated as his submissions. A lenient view be taken.
1536. Accused no.22 Arvind Sarvankar has submitted
that, his service record is good and the same be
considered. A lenient view be taken.
...1635/-
Exh.1124 1635 (J-SC 317/10)
1537. Again heard accused no.2, who submitted as
regards to his service to the police department and
society and this aspect should have been considered.
1538. Heard accused no.14. Since 12 years he has
been bed-ridden. He is depending on his sons. He is in
no way related to this case.

1539. Ld. SPP for the State has relied on following
reported authorities :-
(1) Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana Vs.
State of W.P.,1994 SCEX 00036. (paras
12 to 16).
(2) Vikram Singh V/s. State of Punjab, LAWS
(SC)-2010-1-74 AIR (SC)- 2010-0-1007.
(paras 10, 11 and 12).
(3) Gentela Vijayvardhan Rao and another V/s.
State of A.P., 1996 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 1290 (paras 20,21 and 22).
(4) Central Bureau of Investigation V/s.
Kishore Singh, LAWS (SC) 2010-10-66AD
(Cr)-2010-5-325. (para 14).
(5) Mehboob Batcha & Ors. Vs. State Rep. by
Supdt. of Police, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1674
(S.C.). (paras 20,21).
(6) Prakash Kadam & etc. etc. v. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta & Anr., 2011 CRI. L.J.
...1636/-
Exh.1124 1636 (J-SC 317/10)
3585. (paras 2,19,23,25).
(7) Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral V/s. State
of Maharashtra, LAWS (SC)-2011-9-81-AD
(Cr)-2011-4-441. (para 23).
1540. The defence has relied on following reported
authorities :-
(1) Mohd. Mannan Alias Abdul Mannan V/s.
State of Bihari, (2011)2 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 626 (2011) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 317. (para 24).
(2) Ramnaresh and others V/s. State of
Chattisgarh, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 382 (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases
257. (paras 33, 37).
(3) Swamy Shraddananda (2) Alias Murali
Manohar Mishra V/s. State of Karnataka,
(2009)3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 113
(paras 41, 42, 43). (also relied on by
Adv. Mr. Bhanushali).
(All above citations are relied on by Adv. Mr.
Pasbola).

(4) Santoshkumar Satishbhushan Bariyar V/s.
State of Maharashtra AND State of
Maharashtra V/s. Sanjeevkumar
...1637/-
Exh.1124 1637 (J-SC 317/10)
Mahendraprasad Roy and another, (2009) 2
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1150. (paras
43,45,46,50,53 to 64, 66 to 69,71,72,110
to 112).
(This is also relied on by Adv. Mr. Pasbola and
Adv. Mr. Nangre).
(5) Bishnu Prasad Sinha V/s. State of Assam,
2007 LawSuit (SC) 44. (paras 57,58,60).
(relied on by Adv. Mr. Bhanushali)
(6) Bachan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1980)
2 Supreme Court Cases 684. (para 206).
(relied on by Adv. Mr.Nangre).
(7) Sangeet & another V/s. State of Haryana,
(2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452.
(relied on by Adv. Mr. Ponda and Adv. Mr.
Vanjara).
1541. Ld. SPP for the State has argued that, this is
the 'rarest of rare' case. The Court must not keep in
view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of
victim of crime and a society at large (society's cry
for justice against the criminals), while considering
imposition of appropriate punishment, especially when
policemen commit murder in the name of encounter. It
is also argued that, if the protector becomes the
predator, civilized society will cease to exist and
...1638/-
Exh.1124 1638 (J-SC 317/10)
also if the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall
it be salted?, who will guard the praetorian
guards?. There is also a reference to the reported
authority of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, 1997
(1) SCC 416 with regards to custodial violence,
increasing incidents of torture and death in custody.
It is also argued that, this is a very serious case and
cannot be treated like an ordinary case. The Ld. SPP
prayed for death sentence to those held guilty for an
offence punishable u/s. 302 etc. of the Indian Penal
Code.
1542. As against this, Ld. Advocates for the accused
have argued that, this case does not fall under the
category of the rarest of rare case. Individual acts
of the accused have to be considered while sentencing.
Ld. Advocate Mr.Bhanushali argued that, accused nos.
2,8,12,20,21 are not liable for capital punishment
considering individual role attributed to them by the
prosecution.
1543. Ld. Advocate Mr.Pasbola has argued for accused
nos.3 and 7 and has submitted that, there must be
something 'uncommon' while awarding capital punishment.
Special reasons have to be recorded for it. The
prosecution must show extreme depravity. It is also
argued that, there is doubt as regards to presence of
...1639/-
Exh.1124 1639 (J-SC 317/10)
accused no.7. Evidence of motive is absent. The
prosecution has not put forth a case of contract
killing. Accused no.7 is connected only on the basis
of CDRs. Presence of accused no.3 is also doubtful on
the spot of incident. The allegations that, accused
nos. 2,3 and Hitesh Solanki came to Bhandup is also not
proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused are
not liable for capital punishment.
1544. Ld. Advocate Mr. Ponda for accused nos.4 and 6
has argued that, it is not an exceptional case but the
case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution has not made out, the rarest of rare case
against accused nos. 4 and 6. The Ld. Advocate has also
placed reliance on Exhs.407, 408, 578, 579 and paras
6,7,16 of page 5 of charge-sheet, part-II. It is argued
that, these accused cannot be held liable for the
reason that, they remained in the police station.
witness Subhash Lefty has not been examined by the
prosecution.
1545. Ld.Advocate Mr.Vanjara for accused no.5 argued
that, there are no circumstances from prosecution
evidence which could make accused liable for the
punishment.
...1640/-
Exh.1124 1640 (J-SC 317/10)
1546. Ld. Advocate Mr.Iayaz Khan for accused nos.
6,7 and 10 adopted arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate
Mr. Pasbola.
1547. Ld. Advocate Mr.Rajeev Sawant for accused nos.
13,16,19 has submitted that, there is only
circumstantial evidence. Individual acts of each of the
accused has to be considered. The accused are not
liable for death penalty.
1548. Ld. Advocate Mr.Prakash Shetty for accused no.
14 mainly harped upon the deteriorating physical
condition of accused no.14, who has been bed-ridden
for the last 12 years. Ld. Advocate referred Exh.1039
(W.P. No.2206/2010) filed by accused no.14. The Ld.
Advocate referred para no.4 for the same purpose.
1549. Ld. Advocate Mr.Pendse for accused nos. 11 and
18 has submitted that, a sympathetic approach be taken
and capital punishment be not awarded.
1550. Ld. Advocate Mr.Vadke for accused no.17 has
adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of other
accused.
1551. Ld. Advocate Mr.Girish Kulkarni for accused
nos.15,17 and 22 has argued that, motive and connection
...1641/-
Exh.1124 1641 (J-SC 317/10)
of money was raised in exceptional cases. Death penalty
cannot be awarded only because the accused are
policemen.

1552. Ld. Advocate Mr.Nangre for accused no.9 has
adopted arguments advanced by other Ld. Advocates as
mentioned above.
1553. I have carefully considered evidence on
record, arguments advanced on behalf of the rival
parties, authorities relied on by both sides,
submissions made by Ld. SPP for the State and Ld.
Advocates for the accused on the point of sentence. I
have also personally heard the accused on the point of
sentence. Now the only point, which is left before the
Court is as regards to awarding punishment/s, either
capital punishment or imprisonment for life for the
relevant offences and other punishments, as discussed
above or to show a lenient view to the accused persons.
1554. For this purpose, the above cited authorities
come in play. Mainly, the ratios laid down in the
reported authorities (1) Bachan Singh V/s. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 684 AND (2)
Sangeet & another V/s. State of Haryana, (2013) 2
Supreme Court Cases 452, along with that in others are
of great value.
...1642/-
Exh.1124 1642 (J-SC 317/10)

1555. It is to be noted that, the defence argument
that, brutality and heinousness of crime itself does
not turn the scale towards the death sentence. When the
crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque,
diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to
arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community
and when collective conscience of the community is
petrified one has to lean towards the death sentence.--
If these factors are presence, the Court has to see as
to whether the accused is a menace to the society and
would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and
harmonious co-existence. The Court has to further
enquire and believe that the accused condemned cannot
be reformed or rehabilitated and shall continue with
the criminal acts. In this way a balance sheet is to be
prepared while considering the imposition of penalty of
death of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a
just balance is to be struck. So long the death
sentence is provided in the statute and when collective
conscience of the community is petrified, it is
expected that, the holders of judicial power do not
stammer dehors their personal opinion and inflict death
penalty.
1556. Further reference is made to Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 Supreme Court
...1643/-
Exh.1124 1643 (J-SC 317/10)
Cases 684 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
following mitigating circumstances (para 206) are
undoubtedly relevant circumstances and must be given
weightage in determination of sentence :- (1) That the
offence was committed under the influence of extreme
mental or emotional disturbance; (2) The age of the
accused. If the accused is young or old he shall not be
sentenced to death; (3) The probability that the
accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as
would constitute a continuing threat to society; (4)
The probability that the accused can be reformed and
rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that
the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4)
above; (5) That the facts and circumstances of the case
the accused believed that he was morally justified in
committing the offence, (6) That the accused acted
under the duress or domination of another person and
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he
was mentally defective and that the said defect
impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of
his conduct.
1557. A reference is also made to Machhi Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. It is argued that,
the Court is expected to consider aspects relating to
the nature, motive and impact of crime, culpability of
convict, etc. Quantity of evidence adduced is also a
...1644/-
Exh.1124 1644 (J-SC 317/10)
relevant factor. Information relating to
characteristics and socio-economic background of the
offender, probability that the accused can be reformed
and rehabilitated also is an important factor. The
Court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the
convict is not fit for any kind of reformative and
rehabilitation scheme. It is further argued that, the
accused are held guilty only on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence. There are authorities for the
proposition that, if the evidence is proved by
circumstantial evidence, ordinarily, death penalty
would not be awarded. Sentencing discretion is to be
exercised judicially on well recognized principles,
after balancing all the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of the crime. The principles have been
crystallized by judicial decisions illustrating as to
what were regarded as aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. The extreme penalty can be inflicted in
gravest cases of of extreme culpability. In making
choice of the sentence, in addition to the
circumstances of the offence, due regard must be paid
to the circumstances of the offender also. The victim
of murder was allegedly involved in serious crimes.
Reference is also made to special reasons,
exceptional reasons, founded on the exceptional
grave circumstances, extreme cases and the rarest
of the rare cases.
...1645/-
Exh.1124 1645 (J-SC 317/10)
1558. So now on the background of discussions made
supra, it becomes crystal clear that, the case in hand
is totally based on circumstantial evidence, which
includes oral as well as documentary evidence and CDRs,
SDRs, Cell IDs, Tower Locations, medical evidence,
ballistic expert's evidence and mainly the record from
different police stations/ offices, record from
Armoury, etc. It is to be noted that, when the case is
mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has
to consider this factor while convicting the accused.
This includes antecedents of the accused persons i.e.
the police officers and men involved in the offences as
well as that of the other accused persons. The Court
has to consider the question of probability of
reformation and rehabilitation of the accused persons.
It has to consider age factors of the accused. At the
same time, a consideration must given to aggravating
and mitigating circumstances. The accused persons are
having their families depending on them. This is also a
point of consideration. As discussed supra, the case
has got multifarious aspects including different types
of inquiries and investigations, which includes
investigation of C.R. No.302 of 2006 of Versova police
station against deceased Ramnarayan Gupta @ Lakhan
Bhaiya wherein present accused no.9 was the
complainant, C.R.No.246 of 2009 of Versova police
...1646/-
Exh.1124 1646 (J-SC 317/10)
station against the present accused investigated by the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the head of DCP
Mr. Prasanna. Then there was a Magisterial Inquiry by
the SLAO-IV in respect of the alleged encounter wherein
Ramnarayan Gupta @ Lakhan Bhaiya was killed. Again
there was inquiry by the NHRC. There was also inquiry
by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, which was carried
out after the Hon'ble High Court directed the said
inquiry in Criminal W.P.No.2473 of 2006. There were
various proceedings and Writ Petitions before the
Hon'ble High Court. There was also one S.L.P before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. There was loss of important
evidence as the SIT took over investigation in the year
2009 and the incident took place in the year 2006. It
would not be out of place to mention here that, the
prime witness in this case by name Anil Jethalal Bheda
was murdered three days before he could depose in the
Court. It is also to be noted that, many of the
witnesses have taken contrary, contradictory and self-
conflicting stands during different proceedings,
inquiries, investigations and before the Court. This
has also left a great impact on this case. Therefore,
it would not be justifiable to impose capital
punishment to the accused concerned, but imprisonment
for life to the accused concerned would suffice the
purpose.
...1647/-
Exh.1124 1647 (J-SC 317/10)
1559. There are no special reasons to record the
death penalty and the mitigating factors in the present
case are sufficient to place it out of the rarest of
rare case category. It cannot be said that, there is
something uncommon about the crime which renders
sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls
for a Death Sentence. It also cannot be said that,
there are circumstances of the crime such that there is
no alternative but to impose Death Sentence even after
according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances, which speak in favour of the accused.
There is nothing on record to show that, the accused
would be a menace to the society and would continue to
be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious co-
existence. It cannot be said that, they cannot be
reformed or rehabilitated and would continue with the
criminal acts. These factors have to be given
consideration while imposing sentence.
In view of this, I pass following order:-
O R D E R
(I) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
acquitted as per provisions of Sec.235 of Cr.P.C. of
the offences mentioned below :-
...1648/-
Exh.1124 1648 (J-SC 317/10)
(1) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under
Section 120(B) r/w. 364, 365, 368 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code (charge no.1).
(2) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.368 of
the Indian Penal Code (charge no.10).
(3) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s. 364
r/w. 109, r/w. 120(B) and offences punishable u/s.365
r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (charge
no.11).
(4) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.368 r/w.
109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (charge no.
12).
(5) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.344 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code (charge no.13).
(6) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code (charge no.15).
(7) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.201 r/w.
109 r/w.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (charge no.18).
(8) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.201 r/w.
...1649/-
Exh.1124 1649 (J-SC 317/10)
109 r/w.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (charge no.20).
(9) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma is
hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.119 of
the Indian Penal Code (charge no.22).
(II) Accused nos.2 to 22, named-below, are
convicted as per provisions of Sec.235 of the offences
mentioned below :-
(1) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.364
of the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
...1650/-
Exh.1124 1650 (J-SC 317/10)
fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
(2) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offences punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.
365 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them are
hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
term of Seven Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
each, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of One Year.
...1651/-
Exh.1124 1651 (J-SC 317/10)
(3) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.368
of the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of
Seven Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in
default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
One Year.
(4) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
...1652/-
Exh.1124 1652 (J-SC 317/10)
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w.302
of the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years.
(5) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.143 of the Indian Penal Code and
...1653/-
Exh.1124 1653 (J-SC 317/10)
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Six Months and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
(6) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.144 of the Indian Penal Code and
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(7) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.147 of the Indian Penal Code and
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
...1654/-
Exh.1124 1654 (J-SC 317/10)
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(8) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.148 of the Indian Penal Code and
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(9) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.149 r/w.364 of the Indian Penal
Code and each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
each, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of Two years.
(10) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
...1655/-
Exh.1124 1655 (J-SC 317/10)
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@
Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused
no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12 Mohamad
Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and accused no.21
Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby convicted for the
offence punishable u/s.149 r/w. 365 of the Indian Penal
Code and each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of Seven Years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year.
(11) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb
Desai, accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu,
accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky,
accused no.5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused
no.6 Akhil Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak
Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @
Mannu, accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.
12 Mohamad Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and
accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.364 r/w.149 of
the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
...1656/-
Exh.1124 1656 (J-SC 317/10)
(12) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb
Desai, accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu,
accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky,
accused no.5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused
no.6 Akhil Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak
Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @
Mannu, accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.
12 Mohamad Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh and
accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.365 r/w.149 of
the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of
Seven Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in
default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
One Year.
(13) Accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang
Suryawanshi@ Nana, accused no.11 Nitin Gorakhnath
Sartape, accused no.13 Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal,
accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram Bhanage, accused no.15
Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused no.16 Prakash Ganpat
Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush Harpude, accused no.
18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.19 Pandurang Ganpat
Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj Sardar and accused
no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby convicted for
the offence punishable u/s. 364 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
...1657/-
Exh.1124 1657 (J-SC 317/10)
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
Accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@
Nana, accused no.11 Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape, accused
no.13 Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14
Janardan Tukaram Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram
Palande, accused no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused
no.17 Ganesh Ankush Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji
Patade, accused no.19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused
no.20 Sandip Hemraj Sardar and accused no.22 Arvind
Arjun Sarvankar are convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.365 r/w.109 r/w.120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and each of them are hereby sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of Seven Years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year.
(14) Accused nos.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb
Desai, accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu,
accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky,
accused no.5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused
no.6 Akhil Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak
Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @
Mannu, accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@
Nana, accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11
Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh
...1658/-
Exh.1124 1658 (J-SC 317/10)
@ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.368 r/w.109
r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and each of them
are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment
for a term of Seven Years and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/-each, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of One Year.
(15) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.13
Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal and accused no.16 Prakash
Ganpat Kadam are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.344 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
...1659/-
Exh.1124 1659 (J-SC 317/10)
(16) Accused no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan
Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.6 Akhil Shirin Khan @ Bobby,
accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, accused
no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu, accused no.9 Pradeep
Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana, accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh
Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape,
accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin
Shaikh, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram Bhanage, accused
no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused no.17 Ganesh
Ankush Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade,
accused no.19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20
Sandip Hemraj Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath
Shetty and accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are
hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s.344
r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and each
of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(17) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana and
accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.34 of
the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
...1660/-
Exh.1124 1660 (J-SC 317/10)
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years.
(18) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused
no.17 Ganesh Ankush Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji
Patade, accused no.19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused
no.20 Sandip Hemraj Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh
Manjunath Shetty and accused no.22 Arvind Arjun
Sarvankar are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.302 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and each of them are hereby sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years.
(19) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.9 Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana, accused no.11
...1661/-
Exh.1124 1661 (J-SC 317/10)
Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram
Palande, accused no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused
no.17 Ganesh Ankush Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji
Patade, accused no.19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused
no.20 Sandip Hemraj Sardar and accused no.22 Arvind
Arjun Sarvankar are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
each of them are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(20) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki@ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde @ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.12
Mohamad Shaikh @ Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.
14 Janardan Tukaram Bhanage and accused no.16 Prakash
Ganpat Kadam are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.201 r/w. 109 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and each of them are hereby sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three
Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default
...1662/-
Exh.1124 1662 (J-SC 317/10)
to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three
Months.
(21) Accused no.9 Pradeep Pandurang
Suryawanshi @ Nana is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.201 of the Indian Penal Code and is
hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of Three Months.
(22) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble @ Rattu, accused
no.4 Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey@ Pinky, accused no.
5 Hitesh Shantilal Solanki @ Dhabbu, accused no.6 Akhil
Shirin Khan @ Bobby, accused no.7 Vinayak Babasaheb
Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.8 Manoj Mohan Raj @ Mannu,
accused no.10 Sunil Ramesh Solanki, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.12 Mohamad Shaikh @
Mohd. Taka Moiddin Shaikh, accused no.13 Devidas
Gangaram Hari Sakpal, accused no.14 Janardan Tukaram
Bhanage, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar, accused no.21 Suresh Manjunath Shetty and
accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
...1663/-
Exh.1124 1663 (J-SC 317/10)
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.201 r/w.109
r/w.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and each of them
are hereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of Three Years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.
(23) Accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj Sardar
and accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable u/s.174(A) of the
Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby sentenced
to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three
Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default
to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three
Months.
(24) Accused no.2 Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai,
accused no.3 Ratnakar Gautam Kamble@ Rattu, accused no.
7 Vinayak Babasaheb Shinde@ Veenu, accused no.9 Pradeep
Pandurang Suryawanshi@ Nana, accused no.11 Nitin
Gorakhnath Sartape, accused no.13 Devidas Gangaram Hari
Sakpal, accused no.15 Dilip Sitaram Palande, accused
no.16 Prakash Ganpat Kadam, accused no.17 Ganesh Ankush
Harpude, accused no.18 Anand Balaji Patade, accused no.
19 Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, accused no.20 Sandip Hemraj
Sardar and accused no.22 Arvind Arjun Sarvankar are
hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.119 of
...1664/-
Exh.1124 1664 (J-SC 317/10)
the Indian Penal Code and each of them are hereby
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
Three Months.
(III) A set off of a period already undergone
by accused nos. 2 to 22, named above, is given to them.
(IV) All substantive sentences to run
concurrently.
(V) Accused no.1 Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma be
released forthwith, if he is not required in any other
crime.
(VI) Accused no.1, named above, is hereby
directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) with a surety/ sureties in the like
amount as per provisions of Sec.437-A(1) of the Cr.P.C.
for a period of Six Months from today to secure his
presence, if the State files any appeal challenging
judgment and order of acquittal before the Hon'ble
Appellate Court.
Four weeks time is granted to furnish surety/
sureties on accused executing Personal Bond of Rs.
10,000/-.
...1665/-
Exh.1124 1665 (J-SC 317/10)
(VII) Order as regards to disposal of
Muddemal Articles.
(1) Article-11 Wallet, Article-12 telephone
diary, Article-73 full shirt, Article-77 full pant,
Article-81 sando baniyan and Article-85 underwear, be
destroyed after appeal period.
(2) Article-13 G.C.Notes (Rs.100 X 9 & Rs. 10
X 1) and Article-14 Coins (Rs.5 X 1, Rs.2 X 2 and Rs.
0.25 X 7 (paise)), be confiscated to the State after
appeal period.
(3) Arms and Ammunitions :-
Article-15 a Revolver butt no.475 (BL 975/09,
Ex.1), Article-16 Revolver butt No.468 (BL 975/09 Ex.
2), Article-17 Revolver butt No.294 (BL 975/09 Ex.3),
Article-18 revolver Sr.No.N-405648 (BL 975/09 Ex.4),
Article-19 Pistol butt no.2912 (BL 975/09 Ex.5),
Article-21 pistol butt no.2915 (BL 975/09 Ex.7),
Article-23 pistol Sr.No.15179446, Article-29-one
bullet, Articles 30/1 to 30/3- three bullets,
Article-32/1 three bullets, Article-32/2 five empties,
Article-32/3 two empties, Article-32/4 five leads,
Article-32/5 two leads, Article-34/1- five bullets,
Article-34/2 five empties, Article-34/3 five leads,
...1666/-
Exh.1124 1666 (J-SC 317/10)
Article-36/1 two bullets, Article-36/2 three empties,
Article-36/3 five empties, Article-36/4 five leads,
Article-36/5 three leads, Article-38/1 one bullet,
Article-38/2 three empties, Article-38/3 three empties,
Article-38/4 three empties, Article-38/5 three leads,
Article-38/6 three leads, Article-38/7 three leads,
Article-40/1 three bullets, Article-40/2 seven empties,
Article-40/3 five leads, Article-40/4 two leads,
Article-46 two empties' shells, Article-49 revolver,
Article-51 two empties' shells, Article-54 two bullets,
Article-57 one empty shell, Article-60 one empty shell,
Article-63 one empty shell, Article-69 Ruger revolver
and Article-115 six live bullets, be handed over to The
Commissioner of Police, Gr. Mumbai through Sr. Police
Inspector, Versova police station for onward
transmission to Naigaon Armoury for disposal according
to law.
(4) Article-20-label of Article 19 (BL 975/09
Ex.16), Article-22 label of Article-21, Article-24
label of Article-23, Article-25 label of Article-15,
Article-26 label of Article-16, Article-27 label of
Article-17, Article-28 label of Article-18, Article-31
one empty box, Article-33 label, Article-35 label,
Article-37 label, Article-39 label, Article-41 label,
Article-42 label(BL-975/09-Ex.8), Article-43 seal(wax),
Article-44 brown wrapper, Article-45 inner brown
...1667/-
Exh.1124 1667 (J-SC 317/10)
envelop, Article-47 white sealed packet, Article-48
brown colour packet, Article-50 brown colour packet,
Article-52 label, Article-53 brown packet, Article-55
brown coloured envelop, Article-56 outer brown packet,
Article-58 brown coloured envelop, Article-59 outer
brown coloured envelop, Article-61 envelop with label,
Article-62 outer brown packet, Article-64 brown
envelop, Article-70 brown paper (BL 938/06 Ex.10A to
10D), Article-71 label, Article-72 tag label,
Articles-74 to 76 yellow labels, Articles-78 to 80
yellow labels, Articles-82 to 84 yellow labels,
Articles-86 to 88 yellow labels, Article-89 wrapper on
the bottle, Article-90 big envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.1),
Article-91 big envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.2), Article-92
brown envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.3), Article-93 wrapper (BL
975/09 Ex.4), Article-94 envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.5),
Article-95 envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.6), Article-96 envelop
(BL 975/09 Ex.7), Article-97 envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.8),
Article-98 small envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.1 test Ex.9),
Article-99 big envelop (BL 975/09 Ex.9), Article-100
white wrapper marked BL 975/09 i.e. Ex.2 for test,
Article-101 big envelop, Article-102 small envelop,
Article-103 big envelop prepared at the time of
returning muddemal property, Article-104 one small
brown envelop, Article-105 big brown envelop,
Article-106 big brown envelop, Article-107 big brown
envelop, Article-108 big brown envelop, Article-109 big
...1668/-
Exh.1124 1668 (J-SC 317/10)
brown envelop, Article-110 big brown envelop,
Article-111 wrapper, Article-112 big brown envelop,
Article-113 big brown envelop, Article-114 brown
envelop and Article-116 two railway ticket nos.94303
and 36825, be destroyed after appeal period.
(5) Vehicle bearing registration No.MH-04-
AW-8824 (unmarked article), be handed over to its
registered owner after appeal period.
(6) Sessions Department is directed to
furnish copies of this Judgment and Order free of cost
to the accused forthwith.
(7) Pronounced in open Court.
(V.D. Jadhavar)
Date-12.07.2013 Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil Judge,
Gr. Bombay.
(C.R.No.40).
.../-