The CBI told a special court in Mumbai on Monday, that Indrani Mukerjea and her husband Peter were unhappy with Sheena’s relationship with Peter’s son Rahul. Indrani is the prime accused in the murder of her daughter Sheena Bora.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh made that argument to special CBI judge HS Mahajan while opposing Peter’s bail application.
Sheena, Indrani’s daughter from an earlier relationship, and Rahul, Peter’s son from his earlier marriage, were in a relationship.
Indrani had introduced Sheena in Mumbai’s social circles as her younger sister. (Read: Sheena Wanted to Stop Being Indrani’s ‘Sister’: Rahul Mukerjea)
Argument Against Peter
Before 23 April 2012, both Indrani and Peter were in England. When Indrani came to India on 23 April, she had immediately messaged Peter. Even after reaching the spot in Raigad district, where Sheena’s body was burnt and disposed of, she had called PeterAnil Singh, Additional Solicitor General
Singh also said even after taking Sheena’s body to Raigad, Indrani had a long conversation with Peter. Here’s the sequence of events according to Anil Singh.
- Around 2.30 am on the intervening night of 24 April 24-25 April 2012, Peter and Indrani spoke for around 15-20 minutes.
- On April 26, Peter came back to India and he, along with Indrani, went to Goa on 28 April. An attempt was made by both of them to access Sheena’s e-mail account.
- After Sheena’s disappearance, Peter’s servant told him that Rahul had come home asking about her. Peter told him, “Don’t worry, Indrani has separated Sheena from Rahul”. (Read: You’re Wasting Time Worrying About Sheena: Peter told Rahul)
- Sheena was a family member and Peter was in touch with her. But when she went missing, Peter did not make any effort to trace her.
- It was only after Indrani’s driver Shyam Rai was arrested, the case came to light.
- Peter is part of the conspiracy and if given bail, he might tamper with the evidence and influence witnesses.
- We have call records, e-mails, confessions, statements of witnesses to suggest Peter’s complicity.
- The CBI will file a chargesheet against Peter and produce evidence before the court.
The ASG said the charges against Peter was serious.
The Defence Argument
Peter’s lawyers Amit Desai and Kushal Mor told the court that the CBI was only able to infer that Peter had knowledge and he did not inform the police and misled his sontar.
- CBI is only saying that Peter had knowledge of the crime post 24 April.
- There was not even a prima facie case against Peter. The CBI does not have any material that transcends from knowledge, intention to agreement.
- Peter was not against the relationship between Rahul and Sheena Bora.
- There is no evidence showing that Peter had any role in planning. What the CBI is trying to show is that the phone call between Peter and Indrani took place in relation to the murder. The CBI does not have any transcript of that phone call.
- The case is that of knowledge and not of conspiracy, hence you cannot hold Peter.
- Even Vidhie, Indrani’s daughter with Khanna, had warned Sheena that their mother would do bad to her and not Peter.
- Indrani misled Peter and the only statement that Peter gave to police and media is that he trusted his wife.
In his bail application, Peter has said that CBI found no evidence to justify his arrest and even subjected him to psycho analysis and polygraph tests.
CBI has claimed that the motive had to do with financial transactions.
Peter was arrested on 19 November for his alleged role in the murder. He has been kept at the high-security Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, where Sanjeev Khanna and Shyamvar Rai are also lodged.
Also On The Quint
ED To Probe Money Laundering in the Sheena Bora Murder Case
Indrani-Sheena Saga Holds a Mirror to the Problem of Child Abuse
Sheena Bora Murder: A Reminder of the Pit We Have Fallen Into
(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.)