Indrani Takes U-turn, Says Not Accusing Peter of Killing Sheena
Indrani earlier said Peter might have caused her daughter’s disappearance out of “greed and ill-will”
advertisement
Sheena Bora murder case prime accused Indrani Mukerjea, on 29 November, told a special CBI court that she wasn't levelling any allegations against her husband and co-accused Peter Mukerjea, days after she said he may have played a role in her daughter's disappearance.
Her lawyer, Sudeep Pasbola told CBI judge J C Jagdale: “We are not making any accusations against Peter. Some words are inadvertently written as there is emotional stress.”
A few days ago, Indrani Mukerjea had demanded call data records of her husband, alleging that he may have played a role in the disappearance of Sheena, her daughter from an earlier relationship, and now framed her. The judge told PTI: “The contents of the application are speaking other language”.
Pasbola said he wanted to dispel any notion that the application had been filed with mala fide intentions, malice or ulterior motives. Accused persons make such applications from time to time, the lawyer added.
“All fingers are pointed at Indrani and it was said she acted with other accused persons, to show the connection (between the accused)... the CDR is called,” Sudeep Pasbola said.
He added that the Court should see if the material is relevant. If the CDR of Sanjeev Khanna, the third accused in the case could be produced before Court, why not this, he asked.
The defence lawyer sought to refute the CBI's contention that Indrani Mukerjea made the application to divert the concentration of (accused-turned-approver) Shyamvar Rai.
“Rai’s concentration should not get diverted unless Rai has not come out with complete truth,” Sudeep Pasbola said.
The judge, at this point, said, “You are saying no accusations, but we are conducting a criminal trial and we have to decide the criminal liability.
Pasbola said he himself doesn't support the accusations. The court should take into consideration the essence of the application and exclude allegations, he said.
This is to know the full truth of her disappearance, since Peter Mukerjea has maintained that he had no knowledge about her disappearance, he added. He also asked the court to not consider the words used in the application.
CBI lawyers Bharat Badami and Kavita Patil said the court may not pass any order on Indrani Mukerjea's allegations at this stage, but the request for CDR may be decided on merit.
The judge asked the defence lawyer if an accused can seek to bring any evidence, which may be against a co-accused, on record. Pasbola said there is no bar to such a plea as long as the evidence is meant for getting justice.
The court is likely to pass an order on Indrani Mukerjea's application on 5 December.
On 15 November, Indrani Mukerjea filed a plea, in person, saying her husband and former media baron Peter Mukerjea might have caused her daughter's disappearance out of "greed and ill-will".
Indrani also alleged that Peter and others might have manipulated the circumstances to frame her for the crime.
She sought the CDR of Peter Mukerjea for the period between January 2012 and December 2012, and from January 2015 to December 2015.
The alleged murder of Sheena Bora came to light in August 2015 after Shyamvar Rai, Mukerjeas' former driver, spilled the beans when arrested in another case.
(Breathe In, Breathe Out: Are you finding it tough to breathe polluted air? Join hands with FIT in partnership with #MyRightToBreathe to find a solution to pollution. Send in your suggestions to fit@thequint.com or WhatsApp @ +919999008335)