Sohrabuddin ‘fake’ encounter: Gujarat DGP Vanzara’s discharge order doesn’t factor in points relevant to his case, states Bombay HC

Senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Vanzara, however, told the Bombay High Court that the CBI had no case against Vanzara except for the statements of two key witnesses, which were later retracted before the trial court.

Written by Sailee Dhayalkar | Mumbai | Published: July 13, 2018 4:44:25 am
Former cop D G Vanzara is currently out on bail

The Bombay High Court, while reading the trial court’s order granting discharge to former Gujarat DGP D G Vanzara passed by the trial court, said the latter had not taken into account factors relevant to the case against Vanzara. “This discharge order does not take into consideration any factors relevant to Vanzara’s case. It is as if the judge mistakenly passed the same order as Pandian’s (Rajasthan IPS officer Rajkumar Pandian) in Vanzara’s case. It seems that the judge re-discharged Pandian instead of granting discharge to Vanzara,” Justice A M Badar observed.

Senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Vanzara, however, told the Bombay High Court that the CBI had no case against Vanzara except for the statements of two key witnesses, which were later retracted before the trial court. Jethmalani and lawyer Gunjan Mangla told the court that it should consider the additional evidence in the form of deposition of the witnesses before the trial court under Section 391 (Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken) of the Criminal Procedure Code. “Section 391 is an instrument to know the truth of the matter,” Jethmalani said. “Is it not important for this court to look into the trial court’s status to fortify the order. It will be like shutting its eye on what is happening in the trial court.”

The key witnesses have informed the trial court through their affidavits that every detail in their statements was concocted. “The stories put in their (key witnesses) mouth by the investigating agency are fabricated,” Jethmalani told the court. On Wednesday, lawyer of Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin, Gautam Tiwari, and Anuj Dave, had told the court that Tulsiram Prajapati’s disclosure to his nephew and jail inmates should be considered as a dying declaration. Jethmalani told the court that Prajapati’s disclosure that “he was party to the Hyderabad trip and back… unless it is a dying declaration the truth of the statement cannot be proved because Prajapati is dead and he cannot be subjected to cross examination.”

Tiwari read out statements of the inmates who were with Prajapati, which stated that Prajapati was induced into getting the whereabouts of Sohrabuddin and later he would be arrested for two-three months and assured that no harm would be caused to him. “Prajapati was used as a tool to rat about information of his close accomplice,” Tiwari said.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement