Mumbai court refuses to interfere in 2017 Dahisar murder probe
The sessions court on Saturday refused to interfere with the way a murder case was being investigated by the Dahisar police, claiming it did not have the power to do so. The victim was allegedly murdered by his wife’s cousins in 2017, as her parents were against the marriage.
The Dahisar police have so far failed to find any evidence or witness against the accused, said the prosecution.
The couple had got married on February 23, 2016, against the wishes of the woman’s family. They did not approve of the marriage as her father had got her married to a relative when she was a child, claimed the prosecution. “The couple eloped on March 4. Five days later, her family tracked them to Madhya Pradesh, and forced her to stay with the man her father had married her off to,” said the prosecution.
However, the man went to the police and sought their help to get his wife back. They later shifted to MP as her cousins had threatened to kill the man, the prosecution claimed. When the couple returned to Mumbai in 2017, the wife’s relatives attacked the man in Dahisar, on March 23, and kidnapped him. They took him to their locality and beat him to death, said the prosecution.
The woman filed a petition in the sessions court in 2018, highlighting the “lacuna in the probe” and seeking directions to the investigating officer to inspect the accused’s call data records and look for a witness as the crime took place in “daylight”.
The court, which has already examined five witnesses , including the woman, her sister and a cousin, however, said it is not within its power to order the police to carry out further probe “in a particular manner or particular angle and record the statement of particular witness or witnesses”. It also noted that one of her cousins, who was a witness, had turned hostile and “there was nothing on record against the accused” so far.
The woman told the court that though the incident had occurred in “daylight”, the police had not managed to get a single eye-witness. The prosecution has also objected to the investigating officer’s reply that he had “tried his level best to solve the case”.