|
|
WHY IS POLICE INVESTIGATION DOUBTED ? |
|
1. An attempt has been made to dilute out the case right from the beginning as FIR was registered under section 459-460 (lurking house/trespass by night/grievous hurt) and NOT under section 302 (murder). From the perusal of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Madhu Sharma and Aditya Sharma and the injured Vidhya Dhar Sharma and Vikas Sharma on the head, neck, face, and etc. it is apparent that the intention of the culprits was to commit murder rather than robbery as portrayed by the police. The presentation of the case as robbery is intended to mislead the investigations and to hide the actual motive of 'murder'.
The first person witness to the scene of the crime is not even mentioned in the FIR with the police. The servant, Shiv Dutt, was not fully interrogated by the police despite the fact that his services were terminated earlier for his inappropriate behavior. The post mortem reports do not accurately pinpoint the actual time of death. 2. Because of public outcry, police arrested five persons, from a single spot in sector 4, Urban Estate, Karnal, who apparently committed the crime, just four days after the incidence but: a. the thumb impressions of the accused in confessional statements have been smudged deliberately so that they can be acquitted later. b. the confessional statements with regard to commitment of the crime are in contradiction to the factual position existing at the scene of crime. c. no injury marks were found by the police on the person of suspects despite reasonable scuffle took place between the victims and the person who committed the crime. d. fingerprints lifted from the scene were not tallied with those of arrested persons and no judicial sanction was sought for this purpose. e. no forensic investigations related to 'hair' found in the fist of Master Aditya, who was killed during the fight, were made in relation to the people who claimed to have confessed the commitment of the crime. f. anyone arrested for the theft is normally detained in the police custody for more than 20 days but police presented the five suspects to the court within 24 hours without making proper case based on appropriate investigations; the suspects were remanded to judicial custody. g. the police failed to recover any stolen item from the suspects who claim to have confessed to have committed the crime, especially the jewelry worn by Madhu Sharma that were removed from the body by incision at the time of commitment of the crime. h. no dog squads were used to trace the entry and escape route of the criminals. 3. The police theory that 'bawaria gang' committed the crime is doubted because of the modus operndi: a. bawaria gang attacks houses in isolated areas but this house is located on a busy road and police post is only 200 yards away. b. bawaria gang enters the house from the back and NOT front of the house as happened in this case. c. bawaria gangs are known to immediately distribute the booty and disperse but police recovered no stolen item from the arrested suspects. d. One gang member, Rati Ram, earlier arrested by the Karnal police is involved in looting farm houses in the Delhi-Gurgaon area (The Hindustan Times, April 23, 1998). According to Navbharat Times (August 7, 1997), scuffle had occurred between Master Aditya and Rati Ram during the commitment of crime. 4. The arrested suspects who were released on bail have not been produced before the court.
|
