Hosbetkar attack case: Judge observed several inconsistencies

[related-post]

While dropping charges of attempted murder, the judge also ruled that Jerrit intended to hurt but not kill her, and that injuries to Hosbetkar’s eyes were not due to the attack but a pre-existing infection. She also remarked on the prosecution’s decision not to examine Hosbetkar’s mother, a former employee of the city civil and sessions court, Judge Joshi observed, “She is a staff of court. She knows the sanctity of oath and to avoid it, though she was material witness, she was not examined. For not examining the material witness, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.”She observed that John intended to cause pain to Hosbetkar because “she hurt him by asking him to end the relationship.” Judge Joshi said this led John to buy a mild acid “to cause injury but not damage her permanently. It proves he did not have any intention to cause injury which would end her life.” The judge had noted that John “secretly collected the acid with preparation to harm the victim” by giving a false name to a shopkeeper in Marine Lines while purchasing it.

The judge also observed that planting of the aluminium bottle in which he allegedly brought the acid “cannot be ruled out” and “there is no connection with the accused and the bottle”, as none of the witnesses stated if John had taken it with him or if it was thrown there. Judge Joshi noted that Hosbetkar had not disclosed to doctors that she had an infection, reduced vision and wore spectacles. “Burning to her eye was not because of the said liquid,” Judge Joshi observed.

FSL found chloride radicals in the bottle and on the clothes worn by Hosbetkar and her friend Shami Sethi, but could not definitively identify the chemical.

srinath.rao@expressindia.com