Sohrabuddin, Prajapati ‘fake’ encounter cases: CBI submits revised list of documentshttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/sohrabuddin-prajapati-fake-encounter-cases-cbi-submits-revised-list-of-documents-5285500/

Sohrabuddin, Prajapati ‘fake’ encounter cases: CBI submits revised list of documents

On Tuesday, special public prosecutor B P Raju submitted a revised list of 10 documents, nine on evidence in the Sohrabuddin case and one on Tulsiram.

Sohrabuddin, Prajapati ‘fake’ encounter cases: CBI submits revised list of documents
Tulsiram Prajapati (File)

In the alleged fake encounter cases of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati, the CBI Tuesday submitted a revised list of documents after the defence opposed the earlier list.

Last week, the CBI had submitted a list of 34 documents, which it sought to admit instead of summoning the respective witnesses.

The defence, however, opposed the plea after it found that many of the documents on the list were in violation of Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which the application was filed.

On Tuesday, special public prosecutor B P Raju submitted a revised list of 10 documents, nine on evidence in the Sohrabuddin case and one on Tulsiram.

Advertising

Meanwhile, two nodal officers deposed before the court as prosecution witnesses Tuesday. The first witness, who worked in a telecom company in Hyderabad, deposed on details such as mobile tower location and call data records sought by the CBI of certain mobile numbers.

He told the court that he had given information pertaining to a mobile number taken in the name of Ghattamaneni Rao, the then police sub-inspector in Andhra Pradesh police.

The witness told the court that as per information given to the CBI, the location of the number was in Ahmedabad in November 2005, the period of the alleged abduction of Sohrabuddin.

The witness contended during cross-examination that just because the phone was in the name of a particular subscriber, it was not enough to prove that it was in use by the person.

Further, the second nodal officer based in Ahmedabad said that while the CBI had sought various information from him, including mobile user information for 2005 and 2006, it was not given as it could not be extracted after a period of one year. He told the court that the CBI had sought the information in 2012.