THE SPECIAL court hearing the Sohrabuddin Shaikh alleged fake encounter case has directed the CBI to depute an officer to get in touch with a key prosecution witness, who had sought protection from court, but has not been reachable. The witness, pertaining to threats received by Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati who was killed in 2006, was to depose before the court on Tuesday but he did not appear before it. On Wednesday, Special Public Prosecutor, B P Raju informed the court that attempts made to reach the witness were unsuccessful. “I had called the witness on Tuesday around 6pm. He answered the call and I informed him that he has to appear before the court, to which he said that he will talk to me later and cut the call. But, since then, he has not been answering my call”,” Raju told the court. He said that he had called the witness several times since then, but had not received an answer. Special Judge S J Sharma directed the CBI to depute an officer working at Udaipur to go to the home or workplace of the witness and inform him that he has to attend the court on April 18. The court further said that if the date does not suit him, then he should ascertain another date which can be given for him to appear before the court as a prosecution witness. Judge Sharma also told the CBI that if the witness is showing reluctance to appear, the prosecution should submit it in writing. “If he is reluctant or is not obeying (the summons), give it to me in writing. I will issue a warrant and he can be arrested and brought before the court,” he said, before deputing a person to visit the witness. Prajapati was allegedly abducted along with Sohrabuddin and his wife, Kausarbi from a luxury bus by Gujarat policemen, while they were on their way to Sangli in Maharashtra from Hyderabad, as per the CBI case. The CBI claims that Prajapati was killed in December 2006 in a staged encounter as he was a witness to the abduction. Prajapati, while he was lodged in a jail in Udaipur in 2006, had written to various authorities expressing apprehension that he will be killed in a staged encounter and that he had been receiving threats from policemen involved in the crime. Prajapati wrote to authorities including the National Human Rights Commission expressing his fear and the witness had helped him in this regard. In February this year, the witness had written to the court seeking protection when he is brought to court to depose. Accordingly, the court had given directions to the CBI to arrange police escorts for the witness. The CBI prosecutor told the court on Wednesday that the Udaipur police had sent a communication to the witness regarding when he wanted the police escort. Raju told the court that the witness had responded then stating that he would discuss with the CBI and inform them about it. Raju claimed that he had, however, not responded to their phone calls since Tuesday. The CBI had on Tuesday informed the court that since the summons was sent to the witness on March 9, no communication had been made with him till Tuesday morning when he did not appear before the court. While 48 of the 70 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile so far, this witness was the first one to seek protection from the court. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, an official from Udaipur jail deposed before the court. He told the court that in 2010-11, when he was working as a jailor at the Udaipur jail, the CBI had approached the jail authorities seeking documents pertaining to Prajapati, who was an inmate in the jail in 2006. The witness told the court that though he was not the author of the documents, including the prison admission register, barrack register and the history sheet of Prajapati, he had handed over authenticated copies to the CBI. The witness identified his signature on the documents but claimed that since the documents had signatures of the jail superintendent, he had not himself verified the copies and had only signed on them. Also, the CBI informed the court on Wednesday, that they are not examining at this juncture, a senior Rajasthan police officer as a prosecution witness. The witness, who was expected to depose on Wednesday, will not be called now as his statement pertains to the role of the then Udaipur SP, Dinesh MN, who has been discharged from the case by the sessions court. Dinesh’s discharge from the case has been challenged before the Bombay High Court and is yet to be decided. sadaf.modak@expressindia.com
