Mumbai: The trial in the high profile murder case of Sheena Bora is turning out to be murkier with every single hearing. On Thursday, Peter Mukherjea accused his wife and prime accused Indrani of making desperate attempts to ‘wriggle out’ of her sticky situation. He told a special court that Indrani is playing the ‘victim card.’
This comes in response to the application moved by Indrani seeking the copy of the Call Data Records (CDRs) of Peter. She had indirectly accused Peter of conspiring along with Shyamvar Rai to make her 24-year-old daughter Sheena Bora disappear.
In his brief response to Indrani, Peter has said, “The application moved by Indrani is with an ulterior motive to malign my reputation and to cause prejudice against me. Her conduct is highly condemnable, contemptuous and is clearly an attempt to cause interference in the administration of justice.”
“The allegations levelled against me by Indrani are completely false and per se defamatory and I deny the same. It appears to be a desperate attempt of Indrani to wriggle out of the situation, thereby trying to play the victim card,” Peter’s response reads. Peter has also claimed that he does not wish to engage himself in such ‘mud-slinging’ since he has complete faith in the justice system.
The two-page reply further reads, “I am not aware whether making of such false allegations is Indrani’s well thought legal strategy or not but, yes, I suspect a sinister plot to drag me into the controversy. The entire allegations (by Indrani) are based on the figment of imagination (of Indrani) which are false and have been deliberately made at a belated stage with a mala fide intention.”
Interestingly, even the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) backed Peter by saying, “Indrani’s plea is filed with a mala fide and dishonest intention only to divert or twist the attention of approver Rai, who is being cross examined by her lawyers since August.”
“It may not be out of place to mention that Indrani is delaying the trial by filing applications seeking production of CDRs of number of witnesses and accused persons as the cross examination of the approver Rai is continuing since the last four months now,” the agency has said.
Surprisingly, the CBI does not seem in a mood to bring Peter’s CDRs on record, since the agency has claimed that the same would not be admissible in the trial. The response states, “Even if the CDRs are retrieved from the online forum then too the mobile phone companies would not certify the data as contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certification, CDR may not be exhibited during the trial.”
Accused v/s co-accused
During the course of hearing, the special judge posed a query to all the accused asking them if Indrani’s application can be considered under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. This is the particular section pertains to a situation wherein the confession of one accused can be considered against himself/ herself or also against the co-accused who are jointly being tried.
The judge has asked the advocates of all the three accused to clarify their stand on Indrani’s plea. He has asked them to spell out if Indrani’s allegations can be considered as ‘exculpatory’ (in her favour) or ‘inculpatory’ (against her favour).