Mumbai: The prosecution in the Sheena Bora murder case on Friday said that the preliminary statements of co-accused-turned-approver Shyamvar Rai, which were recorded just after his arrest, cannot be made a part of the murder case. However, the special CBI court has directed the Khar police that recorded these statements, to place on record, all the original documents pertaining to the Sheena Bora case.
Interestingly, these statements of Rai that were recorded by the Khar police on August 24, 2015, had blown the lid off the murder of Sheena Bora. The Khar police had relied on these statements and had went on to arrest former media tycoons Indrani her husband Peter Mukherjea and Sanjeev Khanna. This unique development took place on Friday when Rai was being cross-examined by Indrani’s counsel Sudeep Pasbola. He had confronted Rai with his preliminary statements and soon the prosecution raised an objection. The prosecutors informed the special court that these statements are not a part of the Sheena Bora case and are rather related to the Arms Act case registered against Rai, separately.
Moreover, Rai gave a really interesting answer to a question wherein he was asked as to which places did he went to dispose the gun that was given to him by Indrani. In an answer that resulted into laughter in the courtroom, Rai said, “maine mann me socha tha” (I had only desired to dispose the gun). This again comes contrary to his original statements, wherein he had stated that he had made two failed attempts to dispose the gun and was arrested on the third attempt near Khar Danda.
Surprisingly, Rai who recollected minute details of the day when Sheena was killed, could not remember or spell the location where he was arrested. In his statements, he had stated that he was arrested at Khar Danda, however, in the courtroom, he said that he was arrested at Carter Road, which is nearly 20 minutes away the earlier location. Further, Rai who was deposing against his former boss Indrani, gave vague answers to several questions that were posed by Pasbola. He failed to give proper answers to questions like how he was arrested, from where did the police come and where he was at the time of his arrest.
Meanwhile, an application was moved by Indrani seeking the call data records of Rai to ascertain his location at the time of his arrest. Another plea was moved by Khanna who has been twice denied his own call data records. Khanna’s advocate Shreyansh Mithare said, “I have moved a plea urging the court to issue summons to my client’s service provider so that they can come in the court and deny that they do not have any archive of his CDR.” The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 18.