Opinion of the Bombay High Court. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 3, 2024) ordered the Magistrate not later than November 18 to submit the inquiry report into the death of Akshay Shinde, the accused in the Badlapur school sexual assault case.
The Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan gave this direction, and also ordered that all evidence related to the case be collected, preserved and examined by forensic experts.
The bench also emphasized that the police must include strong evidence in their investigation regarding the incident where the suspect was killed during a shootout with the police. The law mandates that all deaths withheld must be inquired into by a Magistrate.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf said that all relevant documents have been forwarded to the Magistrate for investigation. The court said that the Magistrate will start an investigation and listen to all the parties involved.
“The report will be placed before us on November 18. The Magistrate’s investigation report is being expedited,” said the High Court. The court heard a petition filed by the defendant’s father who wants a court-supervised investigation into his death. The State Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is investigating the case.
Shinde (24) was accused of sexually abusing two girls at a school in Badlapur, Thane district. He was being taken to Badlapur from Taloja Jail in Navi Mumbai when the shooting incident took place on September 23, which led to his death.
This incident took place near Mumbra Bypass in Thane when it is suspected that he took away the gun from a police officer while being taken into a police car as part of the investigation regarding the case filed against him regarding the complaint of his estranged wife.
The High Court bench asked the CID about its investigation and urged that all evidence be collected, preserved and examined by forensic experts. The bench asked whether the police had collected evidence for the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The court said that each gun has a different pattern and the residue it leaves is also different.
Badlapur encounter: Maharashtra government appoints a one-member commission to probe the shooting
“The remains were left on the head of the deceased where he was shot, his hands when he fired from the police gun need to be collected, kept and processed according to the law,” he said.
“The dead body is the most silent and reliable witness of all,” said the court, asserting the need to collect and preserve all evidence. The court noted that bullets were fired from two different explosives in this incident.
“Empty shells belonging to two different arms were found. The firing pin of each gun is different. This would be conclusive evidence as to which firing arm will have the firing pin. We want to see a report that shows this,” said the Court.
The Court also asked if it had found the bullet that pierced the accused. Mr. Saraf said the bullet pierced the roof of the police car. “How far did the bullet travel? It was a hidden place. Didn’t you find it?” the court said. Mr. Saraf said the CID will look into it.
The Court expressed its displeasure when it was told that the police did not seize the bottle of water given to the defendant when he asked for water from the car. The police’s case is that the suspect was handcuffed after he asked for water, after which he took the gun of one of the officers by force and opened fire.
The court said that in other cases, the police failed to collect evidence at the crime scene. “It is an important piece of evidence,” said the Bench. The Court also sought the doctor’s report of the police officer who was injured when the accused was shot.
“The police officer who received a gunshot wound…Has he been properly examined? Is there anything left or is it dark in the area? We have to see that. Was there a wound going in and out of the thigh of the injured officer. ?” asked the Court.
“We need to see his injury certificate. The bullet injury must have remains to be associated with the bullet that hit him,” he added. The bench said that each gun has a unique firing pattern and pin and therefore legal evidence is required.
Published – October 03, 2024 02:59 pm IST