Court allows CBI to re-examine police officer in Sheena Bora murder case

The CBI sought to reopen the chief examination, arguing that certain documents and articles needed to be shown to the witness

MUMBAI: A special CBI court in Mumbai has partly allowed the agency’s application to re-examine former investigating officer Nitin Alankure in the Sheena Bora murder case, seven years after his chief examination was recorded and after 143 witnesses have been examined so far. The order was passed on November 28 by special judge Dr J P Darekar.

Sheena Bora

Alankure, examined as a prosecution witness in 2018, had deposed on the seizure of two passports of Sheena Bora, a mobile handset recovered from witness Rahul Mukerjea, and the preparation of CDs containing extracted phone data. His chief examination was closed the same year, and the witness was later summoned only for cross-examination.

The CBI sought to reopen the chief examination, arguing that certain documents and articles—including the passports, mobile phone, related CDs, forwarding letters and marked exhibits—needed to be shown to the witness. Defence counsel for Indrani Mukerjea and co-accused opposed the move as an attempt to fill lacunae after a decade-long delay.

Judge Darekar rejected the agency’s request to set aside the earlier closure of the chief examination but permitted limited re-examination, holding that Section 138 of the Evidence Act empowered the prosecution to seek clarification on matters arising during cross-examination. The court noted that the defence would retain the right to cross-examine the witness further on any new material introduced.

Citing Supreme Court precedent on the scope of re-examination, the court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, particularly as several of the relevant articles had already been marked in evidence through an independent panch witness. It held that the prosecution’s request did not amount to filling gaps in the case and that allowing re-examination would assist in adjudicating the matter on its merits.

The court therefore permitted re-examination on the specified documents and articles while refusing to reopen the chief testimony, and directed the parties to act accordingly.