The bombay high court on wednesday noted there were discrepancies in the entire timeline leading to badlapur sexual assault case accused Akshay Shinde’s death and asked for the call records of all the five people present in the police van at the time of the incident. The court also said the CCTV footage from the time Shinde emerged from the barrack and entered the van, till the time his body reached the hospital, should be seized.The court remarked that Akshay Shinde’s death cannot be termed as an encounter and said the CCTV of his parents meeting him hours before his death, as claimed by his father and mother, must also be seized.The court’s order came as a bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice prithviraj Chavan was hearing a petition filed by Akshay Shinde’s father, Anna Shinde, demanding a fair probe in the case.
The petition in the court was filed on Tuesday.After the submissions, the court posted the next hearing in the case to october 3 and said it would decide whether a First Information Report (FIR) should be registered or not.
AKSHAY SHINDE’s CASE: WHAT HIS FATHER’s COUNSEL SUBMITTED
As the hearing began, the counsel for Akshay Shinde’s father said, “I am seeking to initiate an investigation of the murder committed of the petitioner’s son, and the registration of the FIR against police officers.”
“The investigation should also be done on the preservation of CCTV footage from Taloja Bridge and shops from where the alleged police officer picked up the deceased,” the counsel said.
The counsel also submitted that Shinde met his parents a day before his death, and was not in a mental state for performing any of the acts alleged by the police. He had sought details as to his bail on the visit and had even received money for essentials, the counsel stated.
“Akshay’s father met him just a few hours before the fake encounter, his demeanour did not indicate that he was planning to flee. He had asked his parents for Rs 500 so that he could avail the canteen facility and eat whatever he needed.”“Akshay has been murdered in view of the upcoming elections,” the counsel argued.
Akshay Shinde’s mother Alka and his father were present in the courtroom at the time of the hearing.
His father’s counsel further submitted, “As per the settled principle of law, in the case of an investigation with respect to a fake encounter, it has been mandated that whenever a person is dead in a fake encounter, an FIR has to be filed. The deceased’s father has approached the high court only because the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFMC) cannot order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
“In the present case, the police are deciding who is convicted. The rule of law must prevail. This is setting a bad example, encouraging the police to commit such acts,” the counsel said.Akshay Shinde was accused of sexually abusing two minor girls at a school in Maharashtra’s Badlapur. He died on monday in retaliatory firing by police after he snatched a cop’s gun and opened fire. The incident happened while Shinde, who worked as a sweeper at the school, was being taken to badlapur from Taloja jail for investigations in the case.
Gunshots were heard in the vicinity as the police vehicle approached the Mumbra bypass. Shinde was admitted to a hospital in Thane’s Kalwa, where he succumbed to his injuries. An assistant police inspector, who was injured in the firing by Shinde, is undergoing treatment at the hospital.
THE COURTROOM EXCHANGE
As Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar submitted details about the case registered against Akshay Shinde under Section 377 of the indian Penal Code (IPC) and the timeline of events, the court asked if the incident happened in a residential area. The bench also asked if there was a hospital in the vicinity.
Referring to social media posts wherein the incident was lauded by political party leaders, the counsel said, “The home minister is doing justice. But, whoever is doing the investigation, monitoring should be done by the court.”“Kalwa shivaji hospital was the closest,” Venegaonkar responded, adding, “Inquest was carried out by the judicial magistrate. The first ADR was at 4.56 am on september 24 and the FIR was registered at 5.40 am against the deceased.”
On being asked about the reason for death, Venegaonkar said, “Bullet wound on the left thigh.”
After the submissions, Justice Chavan asked, “When the pistol was in the holster, whether the deceased took the pistol loaded it and fired,” to which, Venegaonkar responded by saying, “He was in civil dress, hanging on his left side. He was sitting in the vehicle. There were two ways of locking the pistol. One way is pulling the upper portion, the deceased pulled the slider, it popped and he fired.”
Justice Chavan said, “It is hard to believe. It requires strength for the slider to pop. A layman cannot fire a pistol unless he is trained. A revolver is different.  He cannot put the slider back. There is a string attached to the pistol to prevent it from getting stolen. Have you ever used a pistol? I have used it 100 times so I know this.”
“This can’t be termed as an encounter. This is not an encounter.”“According to you, he fired three bullets, but only one hit the police officer.  What about the other? Whether there was a ricochet injury or was it a direct fire?”Venegaonkar submitted that it was a direct injury, to which, the court pointed out that normally the accused should be shot below the knee.
“He did not have time to think. He was sitting right in front,” Venegaonkar said.
“How could we believe that the police, who were trained in firing, couldn’t overpower the accused,” the court remarked.As the counsel for Akshay Shinde’s father argued that he was killed to save the real culprits in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, the court said, “Sealing of the crime scene is very essential. To avoid any tampering, fingerprints also must be taken of all those who were present in the van. All data of the five persons in the van, including their call records for september 23 and 24 should also be collected.”
The court also said an FIR must be registered against the police officers.