The Bombay High Court on Wednesday noted there were discrepancies in the entire timeline leading to Badlapur sexual assault case accused Akshay Shinde’s death and asked his father’s counsel to seize the CCTV footage from the time he emerged from the barrack and entered the van, till the time his body reached the hospital.
The court also said the CCTV of Akshay Shinde’s parents meeting him hours before his death, as claimed by his father and mother, must be seized.
The court’s order came as a bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan was hearing a petition filed by Akshay Shinde’s father, Anna Shinde, demanding a fair probe in the case.
The petition in the court was filed on Tuesday.
AKSHAY SHINDE’s CASE: WHAT HIS FATHER’s COUNSEL SUBMITTED
As the hearing began, the counsel for Akshay Shinde’s father said, “I am seeking to initiate an investigation of the murder committed of the petitioner’s son, and the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) against police officers.”
“The investigation should also be done on the preservation of CCTV footage from Taloja Bridge and shops from where the alleged police officer picked up the deceased,” the counsel said.
The counsel also submitted that Shinde met his parents a day before his death, and was not in a mental state for performing any of the acts alleged by the police. He had sought details as to his bail on the visit and had even received money for essentials, the counsel stated.
“Akshay’s father met him just a few hours before the fake encounter, his demeanour did not indicate that he was planning to flee. He had asked his parents for Rs 500 so that he could avail the canteen facility and eat whatever he needed.”
“Akshay has been murdered in view of the upcoming elections,” the counsel argued.
Akshay Shinde’s mother Alka and his father were present in the courtroom at the time of the hearing.
His father’s counsel further submitted, “As per the settled principle of law, in the case of an investigation with respect to a fake encounter, it has been mandated that whenever a person is dead in a fake encounter, an FIR has to be filed. The deceased’s father has approached the high court only because the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFMC) cannot order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
“In the present case, the police are deciding who is convicted. The rule of law must prevail. This is setting a bad example, encouraging the police to commit such acts,” the counsel said.
Referring to social media posts wherein the incident was lauded by political party leaders, the counsel said, “The Home Minister is doing justice. But, whoever is doing the investigation, monitoring should be done by the court.”
Akshay Shinde was accused of sexually abusing two minor girls at a school in Maharashtra’s Badlapur. He died on Monday in retaliatory firing by police after he snatched a cop’s gun and opened fire. The incident happened while Shinde, who worked as a sweeper at the school, was being taken to Badlapur from Taloja jail for investigations in the case.
Gunshots were heard in the vicinity as the police vehicle approached the Mumbra bypass. Shinde was admitted to a hospital in Thane’s Kalwa, where he succumbed to his injuries. An assistant police inspector, who was injured in the firing by Shinde, is undergoing treatment at the hospital.
THE COURTROOM EXCHANGE
As Shinde’s counsel submitted details about the case registered against Akshay Shinde under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the timeline of events, the court asked if the incident happened in a residential area. The bench also asked if there was a hospital in the vicinity.
“Kalwa Shivaji hospital was the closest,” counsel for Shinde’s father responded, adding, “Inquest was carried out by the judicial magistrate. The first ADR was at 4.56 am on September 24 and the FIR was registered at 5.40 am against the deceased.”
On being asked about the reason for death, the counsel said, “Bullet wound on the left thigh.”
After the submissions by Shinde’s father, Justice Chavan referred to the deceased and said, “A layman cannot fire a pistol. A weak man cannot load the pistol as it needs strength. Have you ever used a pistol? I have used it 100 times so I know this.”
“Why be so negligent and casual when you are escorting a man, who is accused of serious offences? What is the SOP? Was he handcuffed?” Justice Chavan asked Shinde’s counsel, to which he responded by saying he initially was handcuffed but was opened after he asked for a glass of water.
Justice Chavan also asked if the fingerprints on the pistol were taken.
“The fingerprints were taken by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL),” the counsel submitted.
Comments
0 comment