Lethargic police paperwork and shoddy investigations were the key factors that led to the acquittal of the four accused in the kidnap-murder of 16-year-old Adnan Patrawala. Relying heavily on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution could not convince the court due to several discrepancies in its own records.
Ransom calls
Adnan’s father Aslam had claimed that he had received the ransom calls on his landline. The police didn’t acquire the call records of the landline, but submitted those of the cellphones used by Aslam, Adnan and his brother Abdul. “This crucial explanation would have helped investigators trace the calling phone,” argued the defence.
Recovery of Adnan’s body
While deposing, Aslam had said he was at the police station on August 20, 2007 from 5.10 pm to 10.15 pm. However, the investigating officer (IO) recovery panch gave evidence that the recovery panchnama had been conducted from 4.15 pm to 9.15 pm in Nerul, Navi Mumbai, and that Aslam was present throug-hout the panchnama. But he could not have been present at both the places at the same time, the defence said, alleging that the recovery on August 20, 2007 was therefore fabricated.
Aslam’s contradictions
Aslam said he received the last ransom call at 10.02 am. The FIR stated that Aslam went to the police and told them this at 10.15 am. Now, Aslam had said, during cross examination, that he contacted his friends and relatives after the call, and they came to his place. “This means that there was an interval of 13 minutes between the last phone call and the lodging of the FIR. Even assuming that the police station was close by, it would have taken (Aslam) at least five minutes to reach the police station, which means that the entire exercise of the relatives coming home and discussions with them must have taken place in five-seven minutes. This is improbable,” the defence said.
Identifying the accused
Aslam positively identified all the four accused in the dock, claiming that he knew them as friends of Adnan, but on the date of lodging of the FIR, he was not even aware of their names.
On the conspiracy
Dialyn Dias, who claims to have overheard the accused hatching the conspiracy to kidnap Adnan and to demand ransom. The defence argued that a conspiracy of such a serious offence couldn’t be believed to have been hatched in a public place. “Mr Dias said he was sitting approximately five feet away from the conspirators and he could hear their conversation. Others too then should have heard, but no one has come forward,” the defence argued. Moreover, the prosecution said the body was recovered using Nair’s account from Nerul. How-ver, in his statement, Mr Dias said he had found out that Adnan’s body was found in Vashi on August 19.
The defence argued that Mr Dias’ evidence establishes that the police was already aware of Adnan’s murder and his body was recovered on the night of August 19, 2007. “Recovery of the body was shown to be based on Nair’s account, but this was a story concocted by the prosecution,” the defence claimed.