Nimbalkar case: Contradictions, missing evidence led to all eight acquittals | Mumbai News

Jain had given two confessional statements, one after his arrest and one before the chargesheet was filed in 2009. In 2019, his testimony was recorded as a witness. The court said there were several contradictions, modifications and embellishments in each of these.

For instance, the confession said he was present in the car with the shooters on June 3, 2006, while he also claimed he was in his native village in Rajasthan on the day.

In a separate instance, he made no mention of meeting former minister accused Padamsinh Patil during the planning of the conspiracy in the first statement, but while deposing in court, he said he had met him at his bungalow in Malabar Hill. The court said Patil was not occupying any bungalow in the area at that time, but had a house in Colaba, also in South Mumbai. The court said it could not be possible that Jain made a mistake, despite being aware of the topography of the city.

The court said while Jain had claimed to have joined the other accused as he needed Rs 50,000 for medical assistance, he owned five flats around Mumbai, ran several businesses including jewellery shops and had owned 4.5 kg of gold in the form of capital.

Illegal custody and torture

The court also raised questions on how Jain was shown to be arrested 17 days after he was detained by the Mumbai Police crime branch. Jain had spoken about how he was tortured and denied food and medicines. He had also made allegations against then DCP Rakesh Maria. The cop had said in his deposition that he had written to the CBI in May 2009 about the involvement of Jain and co-accused Dinesh Tiwari in the murder, who were arrested in other unrelated cases after they made the revelation during interrogation.

Jain had claimed that co-accused Satish Mandade had met DCP Maria, while he was asked to wait outside only in his later statement. The court said the CBI had not seized the visitor’s register or asked the officer about it, even though it was relying on the approver’s statement as evidence.

The court added that there was no convincing evidence about the meeting and it was only introduced to create an impression of Maria’s prosperity with the main accused.

No CDR, other records collected

While CBI prosecutor Ejaz Khan said the approver’s testimony was corroborated, the court said that the agency had not collected Call Data Records, or locations of the accused.

The case was transferred to the CBI only three years later, but the court said that some evidence could be gathered despite the time lapse. The court agreed with the contention of defence lawyer Bhushan Mahadik that there was satisfactory evidence to explain contradictions made by Jain.