![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, Dec 17, 2006 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other States |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Other States
-
Uttar Pradesh
Manas Dasgupta
AHMEDABAD: A ballistic missile expert and a forensic science expert have disagreed with the prosecution theory that the former Gujarat Minister of State for Home, Haren Pandya, was shot dead from point blank range at the Law Garden here from where his body was found on March 26, 2003. Appearing before the designated POTA court of Sonia Gokani as witnesses of the defence advocate, Nitya Ramakrishnan, the ballistic missile expert and former director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, J.K. Sinha, and the head of the Department of Forensic Sciences at the Osmania University, Hyderabad, M. Narayana Reddy, said it was impossible that the injury marks were sustained inside a car as presented by the prosecution. Prosecution said Pandya was shot dead while he was just about to get out of his self-driven car for a morning walk in the Law Garden locality. He was rolling up the side screen when the assailants opened fire with just about three inches of the glass-opening left. The case was investigated by the CBI, which produced the six accused, including Ashghar Ali, who was arrested from Hyderabad, claimed to be the "actual killer." Twelve others were included as accused for conspiring to murder the former Minister. The defence advocate argued that Pandya could have been killed at some other spot and his body put inside the car and left at the Law Garden. Had he been shot at the spot, the car would have been soaked in blood but the evidence produced by the prosecution did not prove it. Dr. Sinha said the injury marks mentioned in the post-mortem report were inconsistent with the incident report as all marks were found to be circular which was not possible when fire was opened from a gun held perpendicularly through the side screen window. He also examined the photographs of the body produced by the CBI and disagreed with the prosecution's claim that the photographs "matched" with the injury marks on the body. He told the court that the photographs did not show any bullet marks, let alone have matching marks.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2006, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|