Sohrabuddin case: 2 witnesses turn hostile

So far, 62 witnesses have been examined and 44 turned hostile

Three witnesses deposed before the trial court in Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case on Monday, of which two were declared hostile by the prosecution.

Two panch witnesses, who were present while making a record of the cartridges used by the four officers, retracted their statement. (HT FILE)

So far, 62 witnesses have been examined and 44 turned hostile.

The prosecution called IPS officer E Radhakrishnan as a witness who testified before the special CBI court that Rajkumar Pandian, Gujarat IPS officer, had called him on November 21, 2005, asking for a room at the officer’s mess in Hyderabad. He said that later he came to know that three other people stayed with Pandian at the mess.

Pandian was the superintendent of police, anti-terrorists squad, at the time of the encounter. He was discharged by the special CBI court in August 2016. Out of the 38 people charged in the case, 15 people have been discharged.

Two panch witnesses, who were present while making a record of the cartridges used by the four officers, retracted their statement.

One of them said he is not sure if the signatures on the label of sealed evidence were his, the other identified his signature on the packet. However, the other witness said it was not true that the officers showed him the cartridges and sealed it in front of him. Both the witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case and were declared hostile.

According to the CBI, on November 23, 2005, Sohrabuddin was travelling on a Hyderabad-Sangli bus with his wife Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati when they were allegedly abducted by the Gujarat police anti-terrorists squad and members of the Special Task Force from Rajasthan.

Two days later, Sohrabuddin was killed, allegedly in an encounter, and Kausarbi was allegedly killed the next day.

Tulsiram, who had been arrested in connection with a case in Udaipur, was taken to Gujarat and allegedly killed in an encounter in December 2006. The case was transferred to Mumbai on orders of the Supreme Court.

.