MUMBAI: Twenty-nine years after a Goregaon resident was murdered at home by inflicting 65 injuries with a chopper, an accused, now 58, has been acquitted with the sessions court observing that the possibility that the evidence was concocted cannot be ruled out.
Suresh Jamsandekar, a Bhandup resident, had been absconding for nearly three decades and was arrested only this May. “On the basis of doubtful evidence, the court cannot come to the conclusion the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt,” said the court.
Five other accused were acquitted in a separate trial in 2004. The court said the statement of admission of guilt of one accused, since acquitted, cannot be accepted as proof against the co-accused unless it is corroborated by other cogent evidence. “The story of the prosecution about the making of the memorandum statement by the accused Vijay (Jadhav) is itself doubtful and not accepted by this court,” said the court.
It added that creating false evidence in the form of the statement created doubt about the integrity and bonafides of the prosecution. “I, therefore, feel that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused,” the court said.
Rajendra Khade was found murdered in his flat on December 26, 1992, after the watchman found blood trickling out of the main door. He immediately informed the housing society officials and an FIR was lodged at Goregaon police station.
Robbery was believed to be a motive, with gold ornaments belonging to the victim recovered from a gold shop. But the court found that invoices related to its purchase by the shop owner were “fishy”. “There were four articles of different weights and, so, it is not possible there could be five receipts of Rs 8,000 each. This creates doubt in accepting these documents to be genuine,” said the court.
About 10 witnesses deposed during the trial. Among them were the watchman, the victim’s brother, jewellery shop employees, cops and medical officers.
Interestingly, the brother told the court that his family did not want any of the victim’s properties. “I could clearly see the anguish on the face of the witness when he made that voluntary statement. The possibility is that the deceased must have had a criminal record, therefore, his brother does not want that property, possibly earned in an illegal manner,” said the court. It added that while passing order on disposal of the property, it will keep his wish in mind.
