‘Beer man’ let off | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 23, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

‘Beer man’ let off

The only case in which Ravindra Kantrole (39) was convicted crumbled on Thursday after the Bombay High Court acquitted him while hearing his bail application.

mumbai Updated: Sep 18, 2009 02:27 IST
HT Correspondent

The only case in which Ravindra Kantrole (39) was convicted crumbled on Thursday after the Bombay High Court acquitted him while hearing his bail application.

The division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice A.R. Joshi absolved Kantrole — nick named ‘beer man’ because he allegedly left an empty beer can near the deceased — of charges of killing a man near the Marine Drive foot over-bridge in 2007 after observing that his statement recorded during his narco-analysis test cannot be treated as evidence.

“Narco-analysis is allowed to gather further evidence for investigation and cannot be taken into consideration as evidence against the accused,” observed the bench. “A psychological report is not evidence but an opinion and the evidences do not connect and can’t prove the guilt of the accused.”

Kantrole, lodged at Nashik Central Jail, had appealed against his conviction by the sessions court in January. He was sentenced to life on January 1, 2009.

“When we filed the appeal in January we had also filed Kantrole’s bail application. It was during its hearing that the court felt there is no substance in the case,” said Kantrole’s lawyer Sushan Kunjuraman.

Kantrole’s wife Anjali, in Raipur, said, “I have always said that my husband is innocent.”

An alleged history sheeter, Kantrole was arrested on February 5, 2007, after seven mysterious deaths rocked the city between October 2006 and January 2007.

The Azad Maidan police, on January 11, 2007, were informed of a body near the Marine Drive foot over-bridge. After Kantrole’s arrest the police charged him in this case too.

The high court refused to accept the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses. “These witnesses had no knowledge of any act. We have the impression that he (one of the eye-witnesses) could have just been there,” the bench observed.