Khairlanji Massacre: High Court Proceeding Starts, it’s 7th April 2010
Amidst huge chaos and dismay, the High court intiated the proceedings as the years progresses.. Readers may soon be realising how can the justice changes the side while the society has seen the naked dance of Caste-violance killing entire Dalit family in Khairlanji.
PROCEEDING OF KHAIRLANJI MASSACRE CASE IN HIGH COURT ON 7TH APRIL, 2010
- The hearing on Khairlanji Case has now been shifted to the benches of judge A.P.Lavande and R.C.Chavan. The prosecution lawyer Adv. Khan is arguing for the case. When the court begins its work at 2:30 P.M., he rises to speak over the issue of how hard and blunt object had caused incised wound to Priyanka Bhotmange. He reads the precedents of apex court wherein it is said that ‘ It is not unnatural that incised wound cannot be caused by hard and blunt object, skin splits due to injury by hard and blunt object and so it looks like to be incised wound. The doctor who did the P.M., Avinash said in his cross-examination, “ It is true to say that external injuries numbers 1 and 2 as mentioned in Col.17 of P.M. report of Priyanka Bhotmange could have been caused by sharp and edged weapons.”
- Then Adv.Khan speaks about incised wound caused to Surekha Bhotmange. He reads over post-mortem report of Surekha Bhotmange. He again refers to the previous judgments of Supreme court saying that incised wounds can also be caused by hard and blunt objects. Lathi (stick) which is hard and blunt object is capable of causing incised wound. Medical evidence is not deviating from ocular evidence. Dr. Shende stated the general thing in his cross-examination that incised wound may be caused by sharp edged weapon. Medical evidence is not contrary to ocular evidence.
- Public Prosecutor , Adv. Khan then speaks about extra-judicial confession made to P.W.10 (Prosecution Witness) ,Anil Lede by accused no. 2 Sakru Binjewar about involvement of his own and that of accused Prabha Mandalekar, Jagdish Mandlekar, Shatrughna Dhande , Ramu Dhande, Gopal Binjewar and Shishupal Dhande . He cites the judgment of Supreme Court wherein it is said that word by word extrajudicial confession is not required. He corroborates witness’s account by reading through the testimonial of JFMC (PW 35 Pradip Ladekar), Mohadi who recorded statements of witnesses Mahdadeo Zanzad, Premlal Walke, Anil Lede, Suresh Khandate and Mukesh Pusam. He also talks about apex court observations that extrajudicial confessions should not be presumed by the court to be tainted. The confessions should be voluntary and the circumstances under which they were made should be scrutinized. The apex court also says that even without corroboration extrajudicial confession can be relied upon.
- Another extra judicial confession of accused, Sakru Binjewar to Anil Lede is referred by Adv.Khan. He reads the judgment order of trial court under para 139, page 114 that, “ An admission made by PW 10, Anil at para 14 of his cross at 14 of his cross-examination. It shows that he admitted that when accused no.2, Sakru met him, Sakru was in drunken condition. He then denied a suggestion that Sakru was murmuring about anything under influence of alcohol. He then changed his stand and deposed that Sakru was murmuring like a drunken man……..” At this juncture a question is asked by Hon. Judge Chavan as to how a murmuring can be heard, then Adv. Khan says that since he was loudly murmuring, his words were heard. Then the court opines that the choice of the words are wrong, since it should not murmuring but muttering. Adv.Khan then adds that accused was drunken but not intoxicated by the influence of alcohol. He then cites A.I.R.2009, 1314, para 22 that, if extra-judicial confession passes test of credibility then it can be relied upon.
- Then Adv. Khan talks about deposition of Yadnpal Khobragade, Surekha’s brother who gave statements about Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange coming to his house and asking for Surekha and children’ s wherewithal.
- Adv. Khan then reads through the deposition of PW 5 , Rashtrapal Khobragade as, “ On 29.9.2006, at about 5.30, p.m. I received phone call from Surekha Bhotmange on my mobile phone. She told me to come to Khairlanji. I asked her as to what happened. She told me that 12 persons who were arrested in the case of Sidharth Gajbhiye were released on bail and they returned to village. She also told me that those persons with sticks boarded a tractor to go to Kandri to beat Sidharth Gajbhiye and Rajan Gajbhiye. She told me that because of this she and her family members are in danger of life. Surekha Bhotmange told me to come to Khairlanji. I told her that as it is evening he is unable to come there. I told her to come to our village. She told me that she has cattle and therefore she cannot come there. I told her to complain to Andhalgaon Police Station. She told me that she cannot go to Andhalgaon Police Station as about 2/3 days ago Dy. Sarpanch and PSO Bharne threatened her by coming to her house. She told me that they threatened her by saying that she was giving statement against villagers and if anything happen then they will not be responsible as support of MLAs and MPs are behind them. She told me that they threatened not to give statement against her villager. I asked her as to what to do then. She told me that those persons went to Kandri and if they attack her then she would make phone to me. By saying so she put off the phone”. Adv.Khan asks the court to taken into consideration and appreciation of this fact.
- Adv. Khan then tries to read through Sidhharth Gajbhiye’s deposition, but is intercepted by Hon.Judge Chavan. Hon. Judge asks Adv.Khan as to why his statement was recorded in the first place. Adv.Khan replies that since he was assaulted on 3rd Septmeber , 2006 by 10- 12 villagers of Khairljanji village and since he was rescued by Surekha, who latter stood as the witness, his statements were recorded. But Hon. Judge did not seem to be satisfied with the answer and asks Adv.Khan whether Siddhartha Gajbhiye named any of the villagers in his statement. Adv.Khan denies. He then asks Adv.Khan to study section 6 of Indian Evidence Act related with the incidence, accused, witness and victims’ testimonial. It is already 4:30 P.M. So, court is adjourned for next day i.e. 8th April.
Filed under: dalit atrocity, khairlanji developments | Leave a Comment