Could two contradicting statements by Indrani Mukerjea’s personal secretary unravel more gaps in the Sheena Bora murder investigation?
The Mumbai Police’s story that three pairs of shoes – two male and another female – used by the trio accused of Sheena Bora’s murder while dumping and burning her body in the forests of Raigad on25 April 2012, can be entirely fictitious.
This would suggest that the shoes, like the pistol and bullets planted on Indrani Mukerjea’s driver Shyamwar Rai, before he was taken into custody by a posse of policemen on 19 August (his formal date of arrest is two days later), were also used to incriminate Indrani, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna, and Rai.
The Mystery of Two Statements
In her statement to the CBI, made under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Indrani’s personal secretary Kajal Sharma said:
As per instruction of Indrani Mukerjea, I visited her flat 19 (in Marlow), located at Worli in afternoon of 24.4.2012 directly from my residence and met with her… She discussed with me about the accounts matter of her company. I stayed there (for the) next 1 ½ hours. In the meantime, she asked me to accompany her to Hotel Hilltop, which is located adjacent to the building of her said flat.
She further asked me that we would go without switching off AC. Accordingly she advanced towards the said hotel by bolting entrance door of said flat from outside. I also followed her. After reaching in the lobby of the said hotel, she asked me to wait in the lobby of the hotel and she went towards reception counter of the said hotel.
Thereafter, she came back from the said reception within 10 minutes and we both came out of the lobby. While we were coming back from the said hotel, on the way, she told me that she had gone for booking a room in favour of her guest namely Mr Khanna. Thereafter, I again came back to her flat. After a while, she asked me that you might go to your home. Accordingly, I left her aforesaid house just before 2 pm for my residence.
But the CBI’s case notes that before booking the hotel room for Khanna, Indrani purchased the shoes from a Bata store. The agency says in its chargesheet, “From Century Market she purchased 3 pairs of shoes including 2 pairs for male and one for female from Bata Shoes Shop. Thereafter she purchased ordinary sarees and came back to Marlow Apartments.”
The CBI doesn’t reveal what time Indrani went to the Bata store. But Bata showroom manager Ganesh Yashwant Ghadavale’s statement to Mumbai Police and the invoice (No. 24041210013 of 24.4.2012) reflects the time as 12:57 pm, when Indrani was with Kajal Sharma.
The Mumbai Police, while investigating the case, had made an attempt to have a Bata sales person identify Indrani in jail on 23 September 2015, but the witness failed to do so.
Surprisingly, in her statement before a magistrate, made under Section 164 of the CrPC (under oath), Kajal Sharma changed her narrative. She said: “On 24.04.2012 approximately about 11:30 am when I went at flat No. 19 except Indrani & I nobody was present…”
Who Made Kajal Change Her Statement?
Which of Kajal Sharma’s two statements should be believed? The one made to the police (which is not admissible as evidence in a court of law), or the one made under oath and admissible as evidence? At whose insistence did she change her statement? Strangely enough, in her statement made under Section 164 CrPC, Kajal does not mention what time she left Marlow. Let us not forget that Kajal is the person who forged Sheena’s signatures and other documents on the instructions of Indrani.
But this is not all. Indrani’s call data record (CDR) shows that she was at her Marlow residence since morning till Kajal arrived.
Mumbai Police’s decision to take along two witnesses from Mumbai to Kolkata to be present while making the seizure of the shoes is even more surprising. Ravindra Narayan Aagwane and Sandeep Ravindra Pandit were flown to Kolkata on 7 September 2015, when the so-called shoes and Sheena’s ear tops were recovered, allegedly after Khanna told his interrogators a day earlier where they were hidden.
Why did Mumbai Police not use local witnesses in Kolkata? The Mumbai Police officers used a Kolkata Police jeep, whose driver could have easily been an independent witness. Besides, why would an accused volunteer to lead the police to evidence that would incriminate him?
(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.)