You are on page 1of 1668

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, eve