Indrani Mukerjea claims 'being framed' in Sheena Bora murder case

Agencies
November 16, 2017

New Delhi, Nov 16: The murder of 24-year-old Sheena Bora took a new and murkier turn on Wednesday as Indrani Mukerjea, the prime accused and Sheena's mother, told the special CBI court that her husband Peter Mukerjea might have framed her and sought his call data record.

Though she did not directly accuse Peter — a former media baron — of killing Sheena, Indrani said he and their former driver Shyamwar Rai could be behind her abduction, disposing the body and destroying evidence.

This latest development further complicates the case which came to light in August 2015 when the driver Rai, arrested in an arms case, spilled the beans. Mumbai Police arrested Rai, Indrani and her former husband Sanjeev Khanna at the time. Peter Mukerjea was also arrested later. It is alleged that Indrani killed Sheena because she disapproved of her relationship with Peter's son Rahul.

Here's a look at the various versions of Sheena Bora's murder that have emerged during the course of the investigation and trial:

Indrani Mukerjea's version

In her application to the CBI court on Wednesday, Indrani alleged that her husband Peter and others, may have framed her and influenced witnesses and situations that led to her arrest.

"I have strong reasons to believe that Peter, with the assistance of other persons, including (accused turned approver) Shyamwar Rai may have conspired and abducted my daughter Sheena in 2012 and made her untraceable and subsequently destroyed evidence," she said in an application.

Indrani said she believes that Peter and others may have manipulated the situation to frame her and influence witnesses, circumstances and information that led to her arrest "for the heinous crime that they may have committed, aided and abetted".

"I am convinced that if we are able to obtain the call data record of Peter, we will be in a better position to ascertain if Peter and other persons were involved in the disappearance of my daughter Sheena and there will be more clarity if Peter and other persons have a role in framing me," she said in the application.

Driver Shyamwar Rai's version

In October 2017, Rai told the CBI court that Indrani was sitting on Sheena's lap when the murder took place and that he helped muffle her screams. Rai was initially the accused before turning approver for the prosecution and alleged Indrani planned the murder with her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna.

He said though Sheena had bitten his thumb when he covered her mouth with his hand (when she was killed), he didn't take any treatment for it afterwards. After she bit him, Rai said, he took off his hand, but he doesn't know if anybody else tried to cover Sheena's mouth then. Sheena did not make any noise after he had removed his hand, he told the court.

"When I was asked to close Sheena's mouth I did not tell her (Indrani) that I will not do so as my job is that of a driver," Rai told the special CBI judge JC Jagdale.

Earlier in July 2017, Rai claimed that Indrani had informed him that she wanted to kill her daughter Sheena and step-son Mikhail.

Rai said that Indrani told him about her plans to murder her two children via a Skype call and asked for his help. He further added that Indrani wanted to kill both of them as they were maligning her image in the society.

Sheena also threatened to expose the truth that Indrani was their mother and not their sister as the latter had claimed.

CNN-News 18 quoted Rai as saying,"She (Indrani) then asked me to open the garage and the bag carrying Sheena's body. Khanna and I took the bag out and kept it in the back. Madam then asked me to switch off my mobile phone. We then left on the Pen road. She asked me stop at a petrol pump on the road. I stopped the car and got petrol in a can."

Rai further admitted to he helped Indrani get rid of the body in a forest in Raigad: "I along with Indrani and her husband Sanjeev Khanna, left to dispose of Sheena’s body and burnt it in a forest in Gagode village of Raigad district on 24 April, 2012.”

Peter Mukerjea's version

Founder of INX Media, Peter claimed that he was never against Sheena and Rahul's, his son from an earlier marriage, relationship.

Peter earlier said, when Indrani was arrested in August 2015, that he had no knowledge of Sheena being Indrani's daughter. "I’m still holding out a little hope that this is all some big mistake,’ said Peter in his initial statements and that he was ‘dumbstruck by the level of criminality…" according to DNA.

He also claimed to know about the affair between Sheena Bora and his son Rahul Mukherjea and had no qualms about it as both were consenting adults. When initially interrogated by the police, Peter had said that he had no information about the killing and had no direct or indirect connection with it. He also said that he was in Europe in 2012. He added that his wife and driver did not mention anything about the killing. He further added that his son Rahul had told him about the incident but he did not believe him.

He also claimed that he didn't have a clue that Indrani was in touch with her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna, and that Indrani had shown him e-mails from Sheena which were from the US at the time.

CBI's version

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case in September 2015. In its 1,000 page chargesheet, the agency said that Peter was aware of the murder and in constant touch with Indrani prior to, during and after the killing from London.

Both Peter and Indrani were against Sheena and Rahul's relationship and were "equal participants" in the conspiracy to murder her, according to the Hindustan Times. After disposing Sheena's body, Indrani reportedly spoke to Peter for 924 seconds.

The CBI had arrested Indrani, Sanjeev, Rai and Peter in connection with Sheena Bora's murder.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 26,2024

evm.jpg

The Supreme Court of India on Friday, April 26, rejected pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and said “blindly distrusting” any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta delivered two concurring verdicts. It dismissed all the pleas in the matter, including those seeking to go back to ballot papers in elections.

An EVM comprises three units – the ballot unit, the control unit and the VVPAT. All three are embedded with microcontrollers with a burnt memory from the manufacturer. Currently, VVPATs are used in five booths per assembly constituency.

EVM VVPAT case: Supreme Court issues two directives

1.    Justice Khanna directed the Election Commission of India to seal and store units used to load symbols for 45 days after the symbols have been loaded to electronic voting machines in strong rooms.

2.    The Supreme Court also allowed engineers of the EVM manufacturers to verify the microcontroller of the machines after the declaration of the results at the request of candidates who stood second and third. The top court said the request for the verification of the microcontroller can be made within seven days of the declaration of the results after payment of fees.

Option for candidates to seek verification of EVM programmes

•    Candidates who secure second and third position in the results can request for the verification of burnt memory semicontroller in 5% of the EVMs per assembly segment in a Parliamentary constituency. The written request to be made within seven days of the declaration of the results.

•    *On receiving such a written request, the EVMs shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the manufacturer of the EVMs.

•    Candidates should identify the EVMs to be checked by a serial number of the polling booth.

•    Candidates and their representatives can be present at the time of the verification.

•    After verification, the district electoral officer should notify the authenticity of the burnt memory.

•    Expenses for the verification process, as notified by the ECI, should be borne by the candidate making the request.
What did the Supreme Court say?

•    "If EVM is found tampered during verification, fees paid by the candidates will be refunded," the bench said.

•    "While maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial in evaluating systems or institutions, blindly distrusting any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism...," Justice Datta said.

Who filed the petitions?

NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners, had sought to reverse the poll panel's 2017 decision to replace the transparent glass on VVPAT machines with an opaque glass through which a voter can see the slip only when the light is on for seven seconds.

The petitioners have also sought the court's direction to revert to the old system of ballot papers.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 26,2024

Palakkad: Three voters from Palakkad, Malappuram and Alappuzha, and a polling agent in Kozhikode died in seperate incidents in Kerala on Friday.

A man collapsed and died after casting his vote at Vani Vilasini in Chunangad, Ottapalam here on Friday. The deceased Chandran (68) hailed from Modernkattil  in Chunangad. Though rushed to the Ottapalam taluk hopsital, he was declared dead on arrival. Palakkad had recorded a high temperature of 40 degree Celsius on Thursday.

A Madrassa teacher, who came home after voting, collapsed and died. The deceased Alikkannakkal Tharakkal Siddhique (63) was the first voter at the polling station in Vallikkanjiram School at Niramaruthur Grama Panchayat in Tirur.

Kakkazham Veiliparambu Somarajan (82), who voted and returned home from the Kakkazham SN VT High School in Alappuzha also collapsed and died. He was a voter from booth 138.

In another instance, a polling agent died after collapsing at a booth in Kuttichira, Kozhikode on Friday. Maliyekkal Anees (66), a retired KSEB engineer from Haluwa Bazaar, was LDF's polling agent at the 16th booth in Kuttichira Government Vocational Higher Secondary School. He collapsed while doing his duty in the polling booth by 8.30 am. Though rushed to the Government General Hospital, he died by 9.15am. He is survived by wife Adakkani Veettil Zereena, childrens  Fayis Ahammed, Fadhil Ahammed, Akhil Ahammed and Bilal Ahammed.

A man also died in bike accident en route to polling booth in Malappuram on Friday. The deceased is Saidu Haji (75) of Neduvan. The bike rammed a lorry near BM School in Parappanangadi.

Polling began at 7am in all 20 Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala on Friday. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 25,2024

modirahul.jpg

The Election Commission of India on Thursday announced that it had taken cognisance of violations to the Model Code of Conduct by both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

While Modi has indulged in a diatribe against Muslims, without naming them, using terms like 'infiltrators' and 'those with more children', Rahul has been accused of making a false claim about 'rise in poverty'.

Both the BJP and INC have raised allegations of causing hatred and divisions based on caste, religion, language, and community, ANI reported.

While the EC had initially refused to comment on Modi's speeches, sources had told PTI that the commission was 'looking into' the remarks made by the BJP leader.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.