MUMBAI: Vijay Palande, accused of being a serial killer and an undertrial in one of the murder cases registered against him in 2012, has approached a Mumbai sessions court seeking to summon police commissioner Deven Bharti, senior forensic experts and two journalists as defence witnesses, contending that crucial aspects of the investigation and forensic handling in the case need to be tested during trial.
Palande is accused in multiple murders that came to light in 2012, including the killing of Delhi-based businessman Arun Tikku at his Oshiwara residence. His arrest in that case had led investigators to link him to two other murder cases, one of which involved an unidentified victim.
Palande, currently in judicial custody, has filed the application under section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits an accused to seek summons for witnesses or documents in support of his defence.
In his plea before additional sessions judge Rupali Jaysing Pawar, Palande has asked the court to issue summons to CP Deven Bharti, along with several senior officials from the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories (DFSL) and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The proposed witnesses include GP More, assistant director, DFSL Santacruz; CH Kamat and S S Prabhavale, both former directors of DFSL; and Dr P Paul Ramesh, assistant director and scientist at CFSL, Kolkata.
He has also sought to examine the then senior police inspector of Oshiwara police station and the then police inspector (administration) who were in office between April 14 and April 17, 2012, besides naming two journalists in his application.
In the two-page plea signed by him, Palande has claimed that he has been “falsely arraigned” in the case and urged the court to “kindly issue summons to call upon the aforesaid persons as defence witnesses in the present case under section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”, along with any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Supporting the application, advocate Prashant Pandey, who represents co-accused Jagdish Kailash Shejav, also known as Dhananjay Shinde, alleged that crucial aspects of the investigation needed to be tested during the defence stage. “These are important witnesses to be examined to bring out how falsely both the accused have been implicated,” Pandey said.
He further alleged that Palande was assured he would be freed if he consented to brain-mapping and lie detector tests and the results were negative. “However, Deven Bharti later took a different stand and an affidavit was filed through the crime branch claiming that a cupboard containing important papers had gone missing,” Pandey claimed.
Section 233(3) of the CrPC allows an accused to compel the attendance of defence witnesses unless the court finds the request to be vexatious, intended to delay proceedings or otherwise irrelevant. The unusually wide sweep of Palande’s witness list, ranging from the city’s top police officer to forensic chiefs and media personnel, suggests that the defence intends to challenge the investigation, forensic conclusions and possibly the handling and reportage of the case.
The prosecution has been directed to file its response to the application by February 12. The court will then decide whether the witnesses sought are necessary for a just adjudication of the case or whether the plea falls foul of the statutory limits governing defence evidence.