While referring to the government's lackadaisical approach in deciding which forensic laboratory to approach for an independent view on the contradictory ballistic reports, justice Sadhana Jadhav said, "This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Why are you doing like this?
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed serious displeasure over the Special Investigating Agency (SIT) probe in the activist Dr Govind Pansare murder case, by saying, "There are lapses on your part and you (state) are going to send a wrong signal to not only the court but to the public at large through this case, if the benefit is taken by the accused."
While referring to the government's lackadaisical approach in deciding which forensic laboratory to approach for an independent view on the contradictory ballistic reports, justice Sadhana Jadhav said, "This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Why are you doing like this?
There cannot be any lapses on your part. If that is going to be a part of the supplementary charge sheet, then when will you inform the trial court about framing of charges? You cannot keep telling the trial court that you are undecided on which laboratory to send the reports to for forensic tests."
The court made these observations while hearing an application filed by accused Sameer Gaikwad, who is seeking a transfer of his trial to a court outside Kolhapur. Gaikwad, the sole accused arrested in the case on September 16 last year, has been charged under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The SIT recently filed a comprehensive charge sheet before a Kolhapur magistrate and the case was committed to a trial court.
At present, Gaikwad is in the judicial custody at Kolhapur prison. He has sought that the case be moved to a court either in Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri or Sindhudhurg. The application claims that there is pressure from groups supporting Dr Pansare and, thus, he may not get a free and fair trial.
To which, the court said, "No case will be transferred at the convenience of the accused. This court can give an assurance to you (counsel representing Gaikwad) that no court will be influenced by any extraneous things."
The court also expressed surprise that the probe agency had moved an application for further investigation before the magistrate court but now that the charge sheet has been filed, the agency did not inform the trial court about the same. The trial court is likely to frame charges. The court said there should not be a multiplicity of the process, and the accused shouldn't get benefit of the lapses committed by the prosecution.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Pansare")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}