Satish shetty murder case, Why CBI filed closure report?

In its closure report submitted to Vadgaon Maval court in Satish Shetty murder case CBI had claimed that the motive behind murder has not established beyond reasonable doubt. However, Earlier in i.e on 8 august 2014 CBI in its case in Bombay high court, as a petitioner CBI had submitted that Shetty was murdered after he had unearthed the scam in respect of land, which was acquired by the State Government for constructing Pune Express Highway from the farmers, but, the said land was purchased by certain private limited companies, who entered into postdated transaction. The CBI had also submitted that Shetty was murdered since he had unearthed this land scam and asked for direction to re-investigate the crime which has arisen out of the said scam or transaction.

That means CBI knew the motive behind Shetty’s murder. Then what are those circumstances that suddenly it took “U” turn and said that motive has not been established .If CBI wants to close the murder case then what is point in reinvestigating the complaints filed by Satish Shetty in land dealing scams?. CBI could have done that also by keeping murder case open.

CBI has given following difficulties to prima facie prove charges against the accused persons:

1.            No prosecutable definite evidence arrived at so far. There is no evidence which can prove beyond reasonable doubt that this particular accused killed the deceased.

2.            The deceased was having many enemies. None of the enemies could be tangibly co-related and connected. The deceased had applied for police protection for his life but had not mentioned anybody by name,

3         Telephonic conversations are not recorded conversations and it will not be helpful for the prosecution.

4.            Polygraph test is not a confirmatory test and not a substantive piece of evidence hence absolute reliance cannot be placed on it.

5.            There is no direct evidence against Sh.Virendra Dattatreya Mhaiskar (A-10).

6.            There is no cogent evidence to prove the action of abetment and therefore the case is on weak foundations.

7.            The available evidence is mostly circumstantial but there are missing links in the chain of evidence.

S.           The main eye witness Smt. Vandana Murhe is silent on the most vital issue. This is the biggest hurdle in the case.

9.            No direct or circumstantial evidence has come to fore indicating prima fade that the murder of the deceased was the handiwork of any of the suspects. The real assailant had not yet been identified or traced.

10.          There is no positive evidence either direct or circumstantial as admissible in law to identify the actual person who murdered the deceased

11.      The motive has also not established beyond reasonable doubt

12.       Weapon of offence had not been recovered

Page 1 of Bombay High Court

Page 2 of Bombay High Court