Court orders Maharashtra Police and CBI for shoddy investigation

Mumbai: A special CBI court in Pune sentenced two men to life imprisonment for shooting rationalist and social worker Narendra Dabholkar 11 years ago. The gunmen – Sachin Prakashrao Andure and Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar – were convicted of murder and common intent under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the motive could not be proven.

In the absence of a motive, the three other defendants – the alleged mastermind Dr. Virendrasinh Sharadchandra Tawade, lawyer Sanjeev Punalekar and his assistant Vinay Bhave – acquitted. In a detailed 171-page verdict, special CBI judge Prabhakar P Jadhav acquitted the trio but categorically mentioned that the acquittal was not because they played no role but because of the investigating agency – first the Maharashtra Police and then The CBI failed to do its job. The court handed down the verdict on May 10 and the copy of the verdict was made available a day later on May 11.

The special court criticized the investigating agency and state authorities for procedural lapses in obtaining appropriate sanction orders for the prosecution of the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Because these sanctions were not imposed, the prosecution was unable to prove that Dabholkar’s killing was an act of terrorism, a crucial aspect not only in this case but also in the subsequent killings of other rationalists and activists.

No proof of motive

The prosecution had examined 20 witnesses in the case, including two eyewitnesses and two close associates of the Sanathan Sanstha, a right-wing extremist organization that is involved in many terrorist activities. However, the organization has yet to be classified as a terrorist group by the Interior Ministry. Those who testified in the case included Dabholkar’s son Hamid, a psychologist who examined the mental state of the accused, and activists from Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, an organization founded by Dabholkar.

69-year-old Dabholkar was shot dead by Andure and Kalaskar on the VR Shinde bridge in Pune on the morning of August 20, 2013. The two attackers had carried out a reconnaissance trip a few days before the murder and on the day of the murder. The incident occurred on a motorcycle. His murder was the first in a series of killings carried out in Maharashtra and Karnataka. After Dabholkar, left-wing thinker Govind Pansare, academic and activist MM Kalburgi and journalist Gauri Lankesh were shot dead.

Although Dabholkar was murdered in 2013, both Andure and Kalaskar were arrested only in 2018 when their role in Lankesh’s murder came to light. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had arrested the duo with the help of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Karnataka Police, which was probing Lankesh’s murder at her Bangalore home in 2017.

However, Andure and Kalaskar were only foot soldiers; Their masterminds, as the CBI court also pointed out, were someone else. The court observed, “The murder is committed as per a very well-prepared plan executed by accused Nos. 2 (Andure) and 3 (Kalaskar).” Considering the economic and social status of accused Nos. 2 and 3 They are not the masterminds of the crime. The mastermind of the crime is someone else. Both the Pune Police and the CBI have failed to trace these masterminds. They must be clear whether this is their failure or willful inaction due to the influence of someone in power.”

In the chargesheet, both the Pune police and the CBI had identified Tawade as the “mastermind”. Tawade was a practicing doctor until he gave up his practice in 2000 to devote himself fully to Sanathan Sanstha and its associated organization Hindu Janjagruti Samiti. He allegedly harbored a “personal enmity” against Dabholkar. The CBI chargesheet highlighted this aspect and also mentioned the “motive” for the murder. However, when it came to producing evidence against Tawade, they failed.

One of the witnesses, Sanjay Arun Sadvilkar, who was previously associated with Sanathan Sanstha and was a close associate of Tawade, alleged in his statement that Tawade got into an altercation with Dabholkar in 2004 when Dabholkar had visited Kolhapur for a public function. Dabholkar, an outspoken critic of the Hindu radical right, criticized these groups for spreading superstitious beliefs among the people. He was also the driving force behind the drafting of the anti-superstition law, which was only passed after his assassination in 2013.

Sadvilkar, who ran a silver shop, also said that a few days before Dabholkar’s murder, Tawade approached him and asked him to make a pistol. Sadvilkar claims that although he agreed to make it, Tawade apparently said that he could not possibly make the pistol without a reference. Sadvilkar, becoming increasingly suspicious of Tawade’s intentions, had apparently decided not to help him further. Sadvilkar claims that Tawade came to his shop in Kolhapur twice to express his displeasure. Only after Dabholkar’s murder, Sadvilkar says, did he find out what Tawade wanted from him.

Since Sadvilkar was not an eyewitness in the case and could not directly link Tawade to Dabholkar’s murder, his testimony did not prove useful. Sadvilkar is also a witness in the Pansare murder case.

“Destruction of evidence”

Punalekar, a practicing lawyer in Mumbai who has represented Hindu fundamentalists in many terror cases, including the Thane and Panvel bomb blasts in 2008, was accused of destroying evidence. His role is crucial as the convicts claim to have gone to him after Lankesh’s murder in 2017 when Punalekar had allegedly instructed them to “throw the pistol into a stream”. However, since there was no independent witness to prove the claim, Punalekar was also acquitted.

Punalekar’s assistant Vikram Bhave, who was it condemned for his role In the 2008 Thane auditorium bomb blast case, more serious charges were leveled in the Dabholkar case. Bhave had allegedly taken part in a reconnaissance along with Andure and Kalaskar. However, the investigating agency could not provide any evidence that he was with the people convicted in the case. Even basic CCTV footage, which should have been readily available considering that Dabholkar was killed on a busy road in Pune, was not collected as evidence by the police.

Justice Jadhav made an important observation about the poor investigation and the agency’s ultimate failure to clarify the case. He observed:

“There is evidence of a motive for the murder of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar vs. Accused No. 1 Dr. Virndrasinh Tawde. There is reasonable suspicion against accused No. 4. Sanjiv Punalekar and accused No. 5. Vikram Bhave showing their involvement in the present crime. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 by using reliable evidence to convert motive and suspicion into evidence proving their involvement in the crime.”

As already stated, the prosecution has not proved any of the accused to have committed the offense under Section 16 of the UAPA Act. Likewise, none of the defendants have been proven to have conspired.”

Although the judge failed to convict the three main figures in the case, he still made important comments. The judge states: “The present case is very serious and of national importance. Dr. Not only is Narendra Dabholkar being assassinated, but attempts are also being made to end his ideology.”

Judge Jadhav also took seriously the behavior of the defense lawyers in court. During the last hearing, advocate Prakash Salsingikar, representing the accused, had referred to artist MF Husain and his paintings of Hindu goddesses to justify the attack on Dabholkar. While questioning one of the witnesses, Salsingikar had asked, “Do you know why Taslima Nasrin lives in India?; Do you know for what reasons Salman Rashdi received threats?” These questions had no direct connection with Dabholkar’s case, but Salsingikar tried to imply through these questions that Dabholkar was “hated” for “insulting Hindu gods”. In this regard, Justice Jadhav observed:

“It is crystal clear not only from the statements of PW4 and PW8 but also from the suggestions made to them in cross-examination and from the arguments of the lawyers defending the accused that Sanatan Sanstha, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and allied Hindu Organizations harbored bitter hostility against them, the late Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. In the cross-examination itself, it is also admitted that the accused are associated with Sanatan Sanstha.”

He further pointed out:

“The accused defendants and defense attorneys did not just try to strengthen the defense. An attempt is made to tarnish the image of the deceased through unnecessary and irrelevant lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and even in the final hearing. At the same time, the defense’s approach was to blame the murder of the late Dr. To justify Narendra Dabholkar by calling him anti-Hindu.

…the approach in question is very strange and reprehensible. As already stated, this is not an exclusive act of accused Nos. 2 and 3, but in any case there is a preliminary draft of masterful minds. Unfortunately, the public prosecutor’s office was unable to expose these masterminds.”

“Lackadaisian approach”

The way the investigation in this case was conducted was questionable from the start. Dabholkar’s family had to file repeated petitions in the higher court pointing out the state’s negligence in such a crucial case. Eventually, the hearing in the case was monitored by the Bombay High Court. It was only in December 2022 that the Supreme Court finally stopped daily monitoring of the case, claiming it was satisfied with the way the proceedings were conducted.

Shortly after the verdict, Hamid told the media that the family would challenge the verdict in a higher court.

It was only after Lankesh’s murder and the work of the Karnataka Police that both the Maharashtra ATS and the CBI took action. Initially, the local police had arrested two different people – Manish Ramdas Nogori and Vikas Ramavtar Khandelwal – for their alleged role in the case. However, the police had failed to file the charge sheet on time. When the CBI finally took up the case, it also arrested three more people – Amol Arvind Kale, Amit Ramchandra Dighwekar and Rajesh Bangera. But when the CBI filed a final report on May 31, 2023, the central agency claimed that it was also not charged as it was unable to collect enough evidence against the three.