PUNE: From earlier arrests to Naxal-links, the team of defence lawyers tried to display alternate theories for the murder of Dr Narendra Dabholkar on the concluding day of the cross-questioning of his son Dr Hamid Dabholkar on Saturday in Pune.
The cross questioning was happening in the court of Judge SR Navander with special public prosecutor Prakash Suryavanshi and defence lawyers Prakash Salsingikar and Suvarna Vast. Four of the five accused - Virendra Tawade, Sharad Kalaskar, Sachin Andure, and Vikram Bhave - were present in court while Sanjeev Punalekar was granted exemption.
Salsingikar questioned Dr Hamid about the complaints that his late father was working on before he was gunned down near Omkareshwar bridge on the morning of August 20, 2013. The witness maintained a steady answer of not knowing anything about the workings of his father’s organisation before his murder.
The lawyer questioned him about work and complaints by the slain rationalist regarding bogus doctors, traders of stones claimed to have magical powers and religious organisations. The lawyer questioned Dr Hamid about the differences between Dr Dabholkar and the warkari community. However, he said that he did not know. The lawyer read a section from a Writ Petition filed in the Bombay High Court that mentioned opposition by the warkari community to the Anti-Black Magic Bill that was the brainchild of Dr Dabholkar. To this, Dr Hamid said, “I had told the lawyers who wrote the writ petition that a section of warkari community had opposed to the bill and not the entire community.”
Advocate Salsingikar questioned him about the split in the organisation. “The organisation was called Akhil Bharatiya Andhashradha Nirmoolan Samiti where he (Dr Narendra Dabholkar) used to work. Shyam Manav was the president of that organisation. Why did they split?” asked advocate Salsingikar.
{{/usCountry}}Advocate Salsingikar questioned him about the split in the organisation. “The organisation was called Akhil Bharatiya Andhashradha Nirmoolan Samiti where he (Dr Narendra Dabholkar) used to work. Shyam Manav was the president of that organisation. Why did they split?” asked advocate Salsingikar.
{{/usCountry}}“It was 32 years ago. I was barely 7-8 years of age. I do not remember. But I do know that they had a difference of opinion. The difference was in relation to the procedure of work and not the work itself,” said Dr Hamid.
The next hearing of the case is slated to be held on January 15.