Peter’s affairs with young women ended our marriage, says ex-wife
Peter’s lawyer claims CBI recorded Shabnam Singh’s statement only to malign his client’s reputationmumbai Updated: Jul 21, 2016 00:44 IST
Shabnam Singh, the first wife of former media mogul Peter Mukerjea, who is accused of conspiring to kill his step-daughter Sheena Bora in 2012, told the police in her statement that their marriage ended because Peter had several affairs with young women.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had been treating Singh as a secret witness over fears that her testimony, if given to the accused, could put her at risk. However, Peter’s lawyer Mihir Gheewala had sought a copy of the statement of the secret witness to argue for Peter’s bail, contending that the accused had the right to see all documents submitted before the court.
Accordingly, the court had allowed Singh’s statement to be made available to all the accused with irrelevant paragraphs removed.
In her supplementary statement, recorded on November 25, 2015, Singh alleged that Peter had many affairs, because of which she divorced him. “Peter Mukerjea has no morals and is always fascinated (by) young women around him. He was very fond of late-night parties and had several women in his life. This was the only reason that I decided to break my marriage from him,” Singh said in her statement.
Singh also said that Peter had introduced Indrani to her and their children when the two visited London shortly after their divorce. “He came with a woman whom he introduced as his girlfriend Indrani. He told me that they were planning to marry shortly. I wished him good luck sarcastically told him – “tum nahi sudharoge (you will never change),” Singh said.
Singh added that she thought Peter would dump Indrani like his other girlfriends as he had a penchant for young women. “Later on, I came to know that Peter had married Indrani Mukerjea despite being warned of her reputation in Kolkata,” she said.
On receiving the statement, Gheewala questioned the intentions of the CBI, saying the content of the statement has no relevance to the case. “The Evidence Act strictly says that contents that are not related to the facts and issues (at hand) cannot be considered. This was just a desperate attempt to malign Peter’s reputation,” he said.