Between themselves, two law enforcement agencies, the CBI and the Mumbai Police, have taken more than three months to investigate the Sheena Bora murder but neither has been able to establish the motive behind the sensational killing involving the girl’s mother.
After four arrests, the latest of Peter Mukerjea, who is now in judicial custody after being subjected to custodial interrogation by the CBI which charged him with suppressing information related to the murder besides conspiracy, the federal investigating agency is seemingly going around in circles, as did the Mumbai Police, on what motivated Indrani Mukerjea to kill her own daughter.
The only concrete step that the CBI has taken so far is filing a voluminous charge sheet against Indrani, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and driver Shyamwar Rai. The charge sheet annexures, mostly emails exchanged between the dramatis personae, do not shed any light on the probable motive, though they do point to some degree of intent, or malice aforethought, on Indrani’s part.
Probe Strains Credulity
It is a little hard to believe that the motive behind the murder is yet to be worked out. While playing safe, the CBI has retained the basic framework of the Mumbai Police’s investigation, although it did take the decisive step to arrest Peter whose custodial interrogation was vital to unravel the motive.
Selective leaks – emails that Indrani and Sheena, Vidhie and Sheena, Peter and Rahul Mukerjea exchanged – or fragments of other documents have been used by the media to “claim”, without strong basis, that the motive behind the murder was financial. Patchy reports of money the Mukerjeas’ siphoned off after the February 2009 NewsX deal have, inexplicably, sought to link a part of the money to Sheena’s murder. Unearthing whether the Mukerjeas indeed siphoned off a huge amount of money through illegal means is at best a parallel probe cannot not be conflated with the act of the murder.
There CBI has made a reference to an HSBC account supposedly in Sheena Bora’s name, but the agency has not made clear what amount of money was parked in that account and whether that money was the bone of contention between Sheena and Indrani. Also, the CBI has not produced any evidence so far that would establish that Indrani killed Sheena for the money deposited in the HSBC account.
The Financial Angle?
Assuming that a large amount of money was parked in Sheena’s name, it is commonsense that it would have been in Indrani’s interest to “keep her alive” and not murder her. It has been suggested that toward the latter of half of 2011, Sheena had begun blackmailing Indrani with threats of disclosing to Peter the real relationship between Indrani and she. But available evidence suggests that Peter was aware of the real relationship between Indrani and Sheena in 2010.
That Sheena sought to exploit the situation by demanding immovable property from Indrani is nowhere revealed in the emails. On the contrary, Sheena’s tone and tenor in the emails suggests she bemoaned Indrani’s disapproval of the relationship between herself and Rahul, Peter Mukerjea’s son from a previous marriage. The emails indicate that she wanted Indrani to leave her and Rahul alone.
Indrani Mukerjea’s Insecurity?
If Indrani was deeply insecure about the Sheena-Rahul relationship, which she might have perceived as a threat to her hold over the Mukerjeas’ massive wealth and assets, it was unfounded. Documents in possession of The Quint make it abundantly clear that it was Indrani, and not Peter, who possesses a bulk of the huge volume of money amassed through both legitimate and questionable means once NewsX channel “wound” up in February 2009.
So what is it that both the Mumbai Police and CBI are apprehensive of treading? The Quint has confirmed from at least two knowledgeable sources that “big names” were involved in the financial wheeling-dealings of the Mukerjeas’. Some of these “big names” also attended parties the Mukerjeas’ threw in Mumbai and abroad. Both the Mumbai Police and the CBI have assiduously avoided bringing on record these names.
‘Unpleasant Situations’
There have also been suggestions that a compelling personal motive pushed Indrani to take her daughter’s life. Did Indrani discover something about Sheena that would have embarrassed Peter? In a particular email to Peter, Indrani (it is not clear which date the emails were exchanged, but certainly after Sheena’s murder) makes clear that their marriage was all but over, mentioning about encountering “too many unpleasant surprises” and “unpleasant situations that you know I would disapprove of but left for me to find out…”
As the case stands today, the CBI does not have solid, water-tight evidence, or so it suggests, to secure conviction, and without nailing the motive, it will be a near-impossible task to take the case to its logical conclusion. Remember that when the case comes up for trial, the court will certainly go through the evidence to ascertain whether intent and motive, the two most crucial elements of a murder case, have been established.
The CBI still has time on its hands to file a supplementary charge sheet, following Peter Mukerjea’s arrest. But if it continues to shy away from or feet-drag on the precise motive or avoid bringing on record unpleasant details, the Sheena Bora case will go nowhere.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)