3 more witnesses declared hostile in Sohrab case
Sheikh was allegedly killed in an encounter in November 2005 and his wife was allegedly killed and her body was burnt thereafter.
Mumbai: Three more witnesses in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case were declared hostile in the Central Bureau of Investi-gation (CBI) court on Thursday turned hostile.
They were concerned with the panchnama of Disha Farmhouse and Arham Farmhouse, where Sohrabuddin was allegedly kept before he was killed, but they said they were asked to sign the panchnama without being taken to the farmhouses. Meanwhile, in the Bombay high court, former SP Dinesh M.N.'s lawyer argued that his visit to Ahmedabad when Sheikh was killed in the encounter was official and he had taken oral permission from DIG to visit Ahmedabad.
CBI court judge Sunil Kumar Sharma declared the witnesses hostile one after another on the request of CBI counsel B.P. Raju.
Mr Raju had requested the court to declare the witnesses hostile, as they had told the investigating agency in their statements that they had visited the farmhouses with the policemen. They had also said that they had seen the police taking a video of those farmhouses and nothing was seized from those places as evidence.
However, before the court on Thursday they claimed that they had signed the panchnamas at their places and had not gone with the police to the farmhouses.
According to the witnesses, the police had approached them to become witnesses when they were passing through a place called Koba Circle, which is a kilometre away from one of the farmhouses and they had signed the panchnamas at Koba Circle only.
Sheikh was allegedly killed in an encounter in November 2005 and his wife was allegedly killed and her body was burnt thereafter. Both of them were kept at the above said farmhouses before their killing but the panchnama at these places were drawn two years after the incident (i.e. April 2007 and May 2007).
Advocate Raja Thakare, on behalf of discharged Rajasthan IPS officer Dinesh M.N. argued before the Justice Revati Mohite-Dere of the Bombay high court that he could not be prosecuted only on the basis of his call data record (CDR). Mr Thakare said the prosecution was trying to show that Dinesh was in touch with Gujarat IPS officer D.G. Vanzara but if his call records were checked, it could be seen that he was in touch with many senior police officers from different places for different cases.
He also argued that as far as his presence in Ahmedabad is concerned, he had taken oral permission from the DIG, hence the claim that he didn't visit Gujarat in an official capacity is false.
It was also claimed that the CBI didn't challenge his discharge from the case because there was no prima facie case against him. Mr Thakare said the court didn't discharge two of his lower ranking officers because they are facing the charge of having opened fire at Sheikh. Dinesh's contention is that he had gone to Ahmedabad to attend an official training programme.
The HC is hearing revision applications filed by Sheikh's brother Rubabuddin, challenging the discharge of Vanzara, former deputy inspector general of Gujarat; Dinesh; and Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandiyan. The court is also hearing applications filed by the CBI challenging the discharge of Rajasthan police constable Dalpat Singh Rathod and Gujarat police officer N.K. Amin.