CBI court seeks original copies of Rai's statements
Pasbola then wanted to confront Rai with the original copy of his statement however it could not be found in court.
Mumbai: The special CBI court on Monday directed prosecution and Khar police station in the April 2012 Sheena Bora murder case to produce original copies of accused-turned-approver Shyamvar Rai’s statements, recorded by Khar police station, before the court.
Defence was trying to bring on record the first contradiction in Rai’s statement however court proceedings were adjourned till Friday, as the original copy of the statement could not be found in court.
During cross examination, prime accused Indrani Mukerjea’s lawyer, Sudeep Pasbola, asked Rai, “During your service, did it happen that you asked for money from Indrani madam and she refused?”
Rai replied in the negative, to which Pasbola further asked him, “The Khar police recorded your first statement (after arrest) on August 24, 2015, in which it is mentioned that you had asked for money and she refused.” Rai once again said that he had not made any such statement before the police.
Pasbola then wanted to confront Rai with the original copy of his statement however it could not be found in court.
Later, special public prosecutor Bharat Badami and Kavita Patil informed special judge J.C. Jagdale that the said statement was not part of the charge sheet because prosecution was not relying on that document.
Also, while the court had issued direction to provide copies of certain documents on defence’s application, defence had not applied for the copy in question.
Judge Jagdale then directed Khar police as well as CBI, which conducted investigation into the sensational murder case, to find and provide the original copy of Rai’s statement to the court. The judge deferred hearing till August 11.
To most of the questions on Monday, Rai either replied that he did not recollect or did not know what had been asked by defence.
Rai could not answer whether he was paying his credit card bills on time, from where and when he purchased his two SIM cards, and in whose name the cards were registered.
Rai also failed to answer what and whose documents were submitted to procure the SIM cards he was using, for how long he had been using them, and whether he had bought any new mobile phone since 2012.
Rai said after losing Indrani madam’s job, he survived by working as a temporary driver and did not have any fixed salary.