Khairlanji: Court Proceedings on 23rd July ’08


The court reassembles at 3.30 pm after lunch break.
Adv.  Azaz  khan continues his arguments.

Adv. Khan: – sir, I will now peruse the statements of Sunil Lede before this court

He says, 

“ On 30.9.2006, at about 6.00 to 6.30 A.M. ,acused Jagdish Mandlekar came to my shop to drink tea. He demanded tea on credit.  I told him that I do not give credit at morning hours.  He told me that he burnt his clothes, in which Rs. 150/- was there which were also burnt.  I asked him why he burnt his clothes.  He told me that on earlier day i.e. on 29th he killed 4 members of family of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and his clothes were stained with blood and therefore he burnt same clothes. At that time Gopichand Mohature was present there.  I did not give tea to him.”  
From these statement two factors comes to this court. First being the presence of the accused and his conversation with sunil lede is not denied by the defense, secondly he states Gopichand Mohature was also present there.Kindly see Gopichand Mohature’s deposition in this court, He says,

“On 30.9.2006, at about 6.00 a.m. I went to tea stall of Sunil Chirkut Lede to take tea.  Sunil Chirkut Lede was present there.  Then accused Jagdish Mandlekar arrived there.  Then Jagdish demanded   tea to Sunil Lede. Jagdish demanded tea on credit.  Sunil told that at morning hour he would not give tea on credit. Jagdish Mandlekar then told that he killed 4 members of family of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and in the process his clothes were stained with blood.  He also told that he took those bodies to lake and threw them and burnt those blood stained clothes and therefore Rs. 150/- kept in pocket of his clothe, was also burnt.  He told that he killed those persons on the night of 29.9.2006.  Jagdish Mandlekar threatened that if he   did not provide tea to him then he would implicate him in that case.  Therefore, I became frightened and left for my house. 

Four things come out of the statements of these two witnesses:-
The accused came there at the tea shop
Demanded Tea
Was denied tea
Confessed to kill the Bhotmange family
Your honor since this is extra-judicial confession, I would read the 2007’s supreme court ruling which says that, “ extra-judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if the person before whom it is stated be made to appear to be unbiased and are not even remotely inimical to the accused” The court has to be conscious whether it is inimical to the accused..The first and foremost is that there should be no enmity between witness and accused. I have read entire evidence, chief as well cross. There is good relation with Jagdish mandalekar , although he is not close friend of him. But he has no enmity with Jagdish mandlekar. That confession was addressed to Sunil Lede and another person Gopichand  Mohature also heard the confession .There is no bias. All  the requirements of law are fulfilled . The statement is conspicuous and unambiguous. The subject matter of both statement of Sunil Lede and Gopichand Mohature are same, their presence was also not denied by the defense anywhere. Instead they emphasized the drunkan state of the accused. He was drunken but was not intoxicated. There are three parts in this whole confession, 1) the accused murdered the victims 2) disposed of their bodies 3) burnt his clothes.

This all has been establish now .

The last line of sunil lede’s statement says,

“After my arrest, I told about incident of say of Jagdish Mandlekar, to police officer Shri Bharne as well as on my first production before Court, I told to Magistrate about the incident of say of Jagdish Mandlekar, but none paid attention to it.  After my release on bail, I came to know that Police recorded the statement of my brother Anil Lede.  It is not true to say that my father being physically handicapped person, he opens shop at morning.  Witness volunteers that either he or his brother opens shop at morning.  I have close relations with Jagdish Mandlekar.  It it true to say say that accused Jagdish Mandlekar is not my close friend .”

Your Honour will remember that Bharne is same person, who went to Surekha and threanted her of dire consequences if she deposes against the assailants of Siddharth Gajbhiye. He also states in his statement U/S 164 that he told this fact to PSO Bharne but he did not take care to notice that .The witnesses did not remain quite they told this to SDPO, other investigation officer and to magistrate but nobody recorded it. There are two stages in this whole episode of reporting the matter.

1st Stage – Reporting to  P.S.O. & I. O.s

2nd Stage – when he was produced before magistrate

Magistrate only asks whether the witness has any complaint against police but he never inquires. What is the final suggestion? The defense never challenged the fact that accused was not present. The statement  U/S 164 before judicial magistrate also was not challenged, so the condition of law regarding extra judicial confession has been fulfilled.

Now I will peruse Anil Lede’s Statement he says,

On 29.9.2006, I went to Mohadi Court alongwith others for taking bail of Pankaj Athilkar.  On that day I alongwith accused Nos. 1 Gopal, No. 2 Sakaru,, No. 4 Mahipal. No.6   Vishwanath, No.8 Jagdish, Bhojraj Dhande, Ambilal Khurpe, Nanhya Mandalekar, Pankaj Athilkar and others went to Mohadi Court in tractor of Umesh Dhumankhede. On that day we left Khairlanji at about 10.00 a.m.  We first went to Andhalgaon Police Station at about 10.30 a.m.  After 5 to 10 minutes we proceeded for Mohadi Court. We reached Mohadi Court at about 11 to 11.30 a.m. Bail papers were then made ready by 3.00 p.m.  I then stood surety for Pankaj Athilkar. I Stood as surety for Pankaj Athilkar on his request. Meanwhile, accused No. 9 Prabhakar Mandalekar told me that he received phone from Kandri that Rajendra Gajbhiye, brother of Sidharth Gajbhiye, took out sword for Khairlanji villagers.  Thereafter, at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. we those persons left Mohadi Court for Khairlanji village in that tractor.  We reached Khairlanji village at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m.  Then, Pankaj Athilkar and myself alighted from tractor in front of my shop situated near primary school.  Thereafter, I went to my shop.  

My father went to temple and returned to our shop by 6.00 p.m.  Thereafter, I went to my house.  On that day, due to snakebite, my sister-in-law had swollen leg. I have 2 houses at our village.  One house is adjacent to our shop and second is in main village. I went to the house situated behind our shop, from that shop.  By that time Pankaj Athilkar came to me. My sister-in-law told me to go to Prakash Kadhav and to bring medicine for snakebite. Therefore, Pankaj Athilkar and myself went to Prakash Kadhav. We brought Prakash Kadhav to my sister-in-law. Prakash Kadhav gave treatment and medicine to my sister-in-law.  I alongwith Pankaj Athilkar attended my sister-in-law till 8.00 p.m.  Thereafter, Pankaj Athilkar and Prakash Kadhav went to their houses and I went my other house to take dinner.

Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., I proceeded to my house adjacent to the shop for tying cattle.  Then, on the way near our shop accused no. 2 Sakru met me. He requested for kharra (Pan-masala). I said that I did not have Kharra. I then asked him where he went at such night. He then told me that 4 Bhotmange family members were murdered. Then I asked him who murdered them.  He then told me that Prabha Mandalekar.

(Accused no. 9) Jagdish Mandalekar (accused no. 8) Shatrughan Dhande (accused no. 3) Ramu Dhande(accused no. 7) Gopal Binjewar(accused no. 1) Shishupal Dhande (accused no.11) and he himself (Sakaru Binjewar) committed murders. Thereafter, he proceeded to his house and I proceeded to my house. 

CBI recorded my statement.  I also made statement before Judicial Magistrate. I narrated same facts to them.” 

The Statement is voluntary and not under coercion now the statement to judicial magistrate says (reads through the statement U/S 164). I have now shown the record of judicial magistrate. From this the presence of the accused is established, conversation is established and extra judicial confession also established. The defense of my colleagues was that, the accused was in drunken state during this confession but there is the difference between drunken and intoxicated state. The intoxicated man has excess level of alcohol and in drunken state it is within level. But this extra-judicial confession fulfills all the conditions, which are sufficient to convict the accused. The only positive contention through cross examination is that, “It is not true to say that I made false statement to Judicial Magistrate under the pressure of CBI.”

We are here fortunate that we have got extra-judicial confession apart from ocular evidence and reports. Beside that, it is recorded U/S 164 so recording of extra-judicial confection before judicial magistrate has more sanctity. The Supreme Court does not require extra-judicial confession to be recorded. So why 164?  Because he was not heeded by Bharne and magistrate so no other option except to record it U/S164 .All parameters were followed .So all caution about extra judicial confession are observed which are rare in other cases.So it demands credibility and worthy of acceptance ,so it much be accepted. Now I will move to Mahadeo Zanzad’s statement who is one of the finest statements.

( At this point, Hon.Judge suggests five minutes rest since he was talking from a very long time otherwise he could continue on the next day . Adv. Khan says, he would do it the next day. Judge agrees. The court is adjourned at 4.30pm till the next day i.e. 24th July.)

No Responses Yet to “Khairlanji: Court Proceedings on 23rd July ’08”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: