D B Marg police rapped for making up arms case

The police got two panchas from the locality while the accused, Shahdt Rehmat Hussain and Rashid Abdul Wahab Shaikh, were searched for weapons. The panchanama had recorded that the accused were found with a chopper, a jimmy and screw-driver, two cutters, high-powered glass, 19 live cartridges and other items. The prosecution later contended that currency worth Rs 10,000, two notes of 20 US dollars and five wrist-watches were recovered from the group of five, ofwhich three were absconding.

The witnesses who presented evidence against the accused were mainly police officers Kokil and Sonavne and one of the panches, Pramod Padwal. In a judgement delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, V C Singh recently, the court however found the statements of all three witnesses discrepant with each other. “The number of articles which are deposed by these three witnesses differ in material particulars,” the court said. Police records showed that siezed article 7 constituted 19 live cartridges. “…curiously, article 7 has 20 cartridges and five fired shells of cartridges. One fails to understand how there could be a counting mistake…” the court said.

The court also found that the police records of the materials seized did not match the record of the seized materials sent to the ballastics expert. The latter also included articles that the panchanama has no record of – six .32 bullets and two Webly revolvers.

“The absence of two revolvers (in the seizure panchanama),the absence of six .32 bullets… is something which must backfire on the prosecution. It would therefore mean that the recovery as claimed was not as was made,” the court said.

The court also wondered how the accused continued to be at the junction even when they heard eight to 10 police officers, who would have made some noise while walking, approaching them. “All these aspects are not believable and therefore cannot be accepted,” the court said.

It pointed to the possibility that the case had been fabricated by the police because none of the witnesses had deposed on the aspect of recovery of revolvers and the missing .32 bullets. The accused, who had been arrested under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, were therefore released.

Advocates R G Tahilramani and R N Kochave appeared for the accused while the state was represented by Special Public Prosecutor, R Keni.