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 |
