Sheena Bora case trial: CBI considers appeal over call records order

The defence sought a timeline for supplying the documents, arguing that they were necessary for cross-examining prosecution witness Dinesh Kadam, the former Khar police inspector who conducted the initial investigation before the case was transferred to the CBI

MUMBAI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday told a special court conducting the trial in the Sheena Bora murder case that it is considering challenging an order directing it to produce call detail records (CDRs), subscriber detail records (SDRs), and related correspondence involving several key people connected with the case.

Sheena Bora: Sister of Indrani Mukherjea. Express archive photo.

The submission came after the defence sought a timeline for supplying the documents, arguing that they were necessary for cross-examining prosecution witness Dinesh Kadam, the former Khar police inspector who conducted the initial investigation before the case was transferred to the CBI.

While the special court had, on June 19, held that these documents were “important and relevant” to ensure a fair trial, the CBI on Tuesday said that it was examining the order and considering challenging it before the high court. The matter is now expected to be taken up after the CBI decides whether to file an appeal.

The case relates to the alleged murder of Sheena Bora, a 25-year-old woman, in 2012. Her disappearance was initially portrayed by her family as a decision to leave Mumbai and cut off contact with friends and relatives. The alleged murder came to light in 2015 after the arrest of her mother Indrani Mukerjea’s former driver, Shyamvar Rai, in another case.

On June 19, the trial court had allowed Indrani’s application seeking the production of correspondence exchanged with telecom service providers, requisitions, forwarding letters, acknowledgements, replies, CDRs and SDRs collected during the investigation.

The defence, led by advocate Ranjeet Sangle, argued that the documents were material to the prosecution case and their non-production caused “serious prejudice” by denying it an effective opportunity to confront prosecution witnesses.

While opposing the plea, the CBI, through special public prosecutor CJ Nandode, had argued that it could not be directed to produce documents that were never collected during its investigation or were not in its possession, describing the application as a “fishing and roving inquiry” intended to prolong the trial. It also contended that all documents relied upon had already been supplied to the accused and that the defence was free to summon any specific record from the concerned authority.

Rejecting the CBI’s objections, special judge Dr JP Darekar observed that the prosecution had relied on CDRs and SDRs of some people, while Kadam admitted during cross-examination that correspondence had been made through the deputy commissioner of police (zone IX) to obtain telecom records from service providers.

The court noted that the accused had sought records relating to Sheena Bora, Indrani Mukerjea, Shyamvar Rai, Rahul Mukerjea, Sanjeev Khanna, Peter Mukerjea, Mikhail Bora, Siddharth Das and Pradeep Waghmare, observing that they were connected with the case and that their call records were therefore “important from the trial’s point of view”.

The judge had further noted that while the CBI claimed it did not possess the documents, Kadam had deposed that he had handed over all investigation papers to the agency after it took over the probe. “Thus, there are contradictory statements made by both investigating machineries. Hence, to ascertain the truth, issuance of summons to the concerned officer is necessary,” the court held, while allowing the application.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, the prosecution also examined Rajesh Madhukar Sawant, former orderly to the superintendent of Arthur Road jail, who was cross-examined by the defence. Sawant is a witness to the collection of handwriting specimens of the accused Sanjeev Khanna during the investigation.