First witness in RPF jawan trial cross examined

As reported by HT, the trial against Chaudhary commenced at the Dindoshi sessions court on November 11

Mumbai: When Chetan Singh Chaudhary – the 34-year-old Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable who shot dead his senior and three passengers in a running train while on duty on July 31, 2023 – appeared in court through video conferencing on Wednesday, he appeared very different from the photo that was flashed across the media after the gruesome incident.

First witness in RPF jawan trial cross examined

The photo featured Chaudhary in police uniform, wearing a pair of sunglasses and exuding confidence. But on Wednesday, the Akola Central Prison inmate was dressed in the white prison uniform with a white cap and kept checking nervously if his shirt was buttoned up. He even dozed off during the afternoon session when his lawyer Jaywant Patil cross-examined the first witness in the trial, former RPF constable Amay Acharya.

As reported by HT, the trial against Chaudhary commenced at the Dindoshi sessions court on November 11, with Acharya deposing before the court. Dismissed from service after the shooting incident, Acharya was on duty with Chaudhary and two others on board the Jaipur Mumbai Superfast Express on July 31, 2023. Though not an eye-witness to the shootings, he witnessed all that went before and after them.

On Wednesday, advocate Patil cross-examined Acharya in detail, pointing out all the discrepancies between what he had told the court in his examination in chief on November 11, and what had been recorded in the first information report (FIR), his supplementary statement, and his statement made before a magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, additional sessions judge Nandkishor L More told Patil that according to section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inconsistencies between the examination in chief and statements recorded by the police should be material and significant in nature and minor omissions would not amount to contradictions in testimony. The inconsistencies must go to the core of the prosecution case, added additional public prosecutor Sudhir Sapkale.

One discrepancy pointed out by Patil related to Acharya’s last interaction with Chaudhary.

In his examination in chief, Acharya had said Chaudhary, who was not feeling well and insisting on getting off at Valsad instead of continuing till Mumbai Central, had been persuaded to rest by the team in-charge, assistant sub inspector (ASI) Tikaram Meena. While Chaudhary rested, Acharya took custody of his rifle as per Meena’s instructions. However, Chaudhary soon got up, insisted on taking back his rifle, and when Acharya resisted, he attempted to throttle him. In the scuffle, Chaudhary picked up Acharya’s rifle.

In his examination in chief, Acharya said that these events occurred in coach B5. But, as per the FIR based on his statement to the police, the events took place in coach B4.

Acharya could not give any reason for this discrepancy.

Earlier, during the examination in chief, two videos recorded by Acharya on his phone were played in court. The first showed an interaction between Meena and Chaudhary after the latter had taken back his rifle and removed its safety catch. The second showed a conversation between two passengers and Acharya, in which the passengers reassured Acharya that neither he, nor ASI Meena, were to blame for the scuffle that took place between him and Chaudhary. As it happened, ASI Meena and one of the passengers were later shot dead by Singh.

Meena’s blood-stained uniform and broken belt and Chaudhary’s uniform were also displayed in court in Wednesday.

Advocate Patil was assisted by advocates Bhushan Manchekar and Swapnil Sagwekar, while advocate Fazlurrahman Shaikh was present as intervenor on behalf of the family of Sadar Mohammad Hussain from Rajasthan, one of the victims.

Acharya’s cross examination will continue on Thursday.