Sohrabuddin Shaikh ‘fake’ encounter: FSL officer identifies signatures on ATS vehicle logbook belonging to 2 copshttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/sohrabuddin-shaikh-fake-encounter-fsl-officer-identifies-signatures-on-ats-vehicle-logbook-belonging-to-2-cops-5323903/

Sohrabuddin Shaikh ‘fake’ encounter: FSL officer identifies signatures on ATS vehicle logbook belonging to 2 cops

The witness, an expert in document examination, on Friday identified the specimen signatures to be the same as on the logbook for the dates November 26, 20 and December 1, 2005.

Sohrabuddin fake encounter:
On November 22, 2005, Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi boarded a private luxury bus from Hyderabad to go to Sangli, Maharashtra, to visit a doctor.

In the Sohrabuddin Shaikh alleged fake encounter case, a forensic expert deposed on Friday about the handwriting of the accused policemen in a vehicle logbook in November 2005. The expert, prosecution witness number 171, identified the signatures made in the logbook, identifying them to having the same authors as the specimen signatures of accused policemen Balkrishna Chaubey and Naresh Chauhan.

The CBI has claimed that the logbook maintained at the Gujarat ATS office proves that two vehicles were allotted to Chaubey and Chauhan in the days after the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh in Gujarat on November 26, 2005. It had alleged that the two vehicles were used by the accused policemen to travel to Illol, where Sohrabuddin’s wife Kausarbi was allegedly killed and her body disposed of.

While the logbook does not mention the details of where the vehicles were taken, it has signatures of the two policemen identified by the witness. The witness, an expert in document examination, on Friday identified the specimen signatures to be the same as on the logbook for the dates November 26, 20 and December 1, 2005.
During cross-examination by the defence advocates, the witness, who had retired as an assistant director of the Directorate of Forensic Science in Gandhinagar in 2012, was asked about the differences in the signatures.

The defence had claimed that there were varied underscores and markings between all the signatures. The witness told the court that though he had not mentioned it in the report, the differences pointed out by the defence were variations. He claimed that it only showed that the writer had two habits, to either write in isolation or continuation.