Khairlanji: Court Proceedings on 25th July ’08


   The defence lawyer Adv.Khandewale rise to speak .

Adv.Khandewale :  Sir, we will start with F.I.R. first.At the start of my arguements , I will compliment Adv.Khan for his marathon of arguments . I shall borrow somme words from him.  My first contention is that the F.I.R. was first written and later it was printed at the C.B.I.’s behest. There are discrepancies in it from the beginning.

From the narration of the complainant , Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange, the rage and vengeance is not reflected as per the arguments of the prosecution lawyer.And if the record does not support their arguments then my arguments stand proved.

In the cross examination , Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange  categorically admitted the names of the persons cited in the F.I.R. that do not creep into his statement before this court. That means he  also told the names of those persons who are not accused in this case.

In para 12 of his statements , he says before this court that the attackers were shouting ‘ Mahar dhedano , you have implicated us in the false case’ …

Now, pausing here , why this sentence is improved  which is not there in his original complaint ? The false accusations are done deliberately not only to attract the provisions of P.O.A.(prevention of atrocity act) but to implicate the accused.So, if there was any attack on Bhotmange, it was not on the basis of caste.Witness reveals the names of many birds , because he say he  says that he was frightened at that time.

C.B.I. had recorded his statement on 7/12, 8/12/ and 22/12 in 2006. Now, this witness says there , (Reads through the statement of Bhotmange of C.B.I.)He says that Prabhabai  is not name of the male and it is wrongly written by C.B.I. According to the Supreme Court, this is discrepancy that he embellishes, exaggerated his earlier statement by uttering some new new names of the accused in his  later statements.

Sidhhartha Gajbhiye was so close to him that he used to help in his material difficulties. On the evening of the incident he went to him that night.  Whether he was really present on the place of the incidence?

Judge: But he says he ran away from the place of the incident.His only improvement is that he ran away to Dhusala. There is no contradiction.

Adv.Khandewale:   But he says that he was there when the attack began. Please see what he says in para 5 of his statement(reads through the statement) Now, here he says that all 50-60 people attacked his house and  they were not onlookers as contended by the prosecution . If the complainant says that there were 50—60 attackers then how is it that only 11 persons stand accused? How did the investigation authority sorted only these 11 persons and on what basis ? The other witnesses failed to tell that 50-60 people attacked his house. His statement was recorded by C.I.D. police on 29/11/06 . There he tells the names of more than 11 accused persons.Now, see the statement that he gave to C.B.I.  The names he gives to  them are different that from that of C.I.D. When asked about the  difference , he said that he can not assign any reasons for that.

Judge: But names are same.

Adv.Khandewale: Bhaiyyalal says that he  did not tell so many names to C.B.I.and he can not assign reasons for that.

Adv.Khan: Sir, that was the recital of the earlier statement to C.B.I.He only gave names of 12 persons to C.B.I. We asked why he gave names of so many names to police and C.I.D. and he said that he did not tell to them those names and he had not known why they wrote so many names in his statement.

Adv.Khandewale :  But the record show clearly that there are more than 11 persons names in the statement of Bhaiyyalal  Bhotmange.

My submission at this stage is that the point raised during  this discussion should be noted by the Hon.Court  for perusal  to be used for judgement. Now, I shall seek for the leave of the court since I have another matter to be heard  in the High Court.

(The court is adjourned till 30th July since Adv.Khandewale has another pressing matter in the  High Court of Nagpur)

No Responses Yet to “Khairlanji: Court Proceedings on 25th 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: