E-Paper
Akansh Sen ‘not even touched’ by car, argues defence counsel
Sen, a relative of former Himachal Pradesh chief minister Virbhadra Singh, was allegedly run over by a BMW car after a brawl in Sector 9 in February 2017
Akansh Sen, who was allegedly run over by a BMW car and killed in February 2017, was not “even touched by any car,” the defence counsel has claimed during the final hearing of the case related to Sen’s murder on Friday at the Punjab and Haryana high court.
Sen, a relative of former Himachal Pradesh chief minister Virbhadra Singh, was allegedly killed after a brawl in Sector 9 on February 9, 2017.
Balraj Singh Randhawa, who was allegedly behind the wheel of the car that crushed Sen after being instigated by another accused, Harmehtab Singh, is still absconding.
Harmehtab Singh was arrested on February 16, 2017.
Defence counsel NPS Waraich also read out the statement of (prosecution witness) Karan Yog mentioning that the BMW car driven at 70 kmph hit Akansh Sen in the abdominal area. Stating that the height of bonnet of the car was around 29 inches, he said if it (the car) hit Sen, who stood at 5 feet 10 inches, then it would have led to severe injuries such as fracture of the thighs, but it could not have hit him in the abdominal area.
Waraich then pointed how the postmortem report and other documents did not mention “any injury caused by hitting of car.” He added, “it was quite late - October 2017- when ‘frictional tyre movement’ was mentioned in the report prepared by the board of doctors of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research” .
The report mentions cause of death as “cranio-cerebral damage” consequent to injury number 3, which is sufficient cause of death in the ordinary course of nature... due to forceful fall on hard surface, in an alleged case of a car hit.
Waraich stressed that the report also mentioned: “Pattern of injury number 11 and 12 bilaterally is suggestive of frictional tyre movement over abdominal region.”
Contradicting this point, Waraich said the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were “scrabbed abrasions” and did not mention any tyre marks.
Stating that the doctor who headed the board was under the influence of the prosecution, Waraich said, the doctor, during trial, stated that the car ran over the victim’s abdominal region. He (the doctor) had “admitted that this opinion regarding the injury was given by him personally and individually when he gave evidence.”
Waraich also said that the doctor had made the statement that “… tyre prints will remain the same even if the tyre passes 100 times over the body…” which showed he had been influenced.
“Akansh Sen was not even touched by a car, what to talk about being hit or run over by it,” the defence counsel said.
He ended his arguments by asking where the clothes on Sen’s upper body were. “Those were withheld by investigating agency and prosecution as it did not suit their theory,” Waraich said adding that he would argue on the point during the next hearing.
