July 18: The Maharashtra government has moved the Supreme Court against the May 16, 1997 order of designated TADA judge S K Shah acquitting 17 accused in the Suresh Dubey murder case.
The criminal appeal filed recently by the state government’s advocate D M Nargolkar states the “judge was biased in favour of the accused and prejudiced against the prosecution,” which is why “he failed to appreciate the evidence of the eyewitnesses and doubted the integrity of the police officers.”
Apart from the government, the complainant Omprakash Narsingh Dubey, brother of the deceased, has also moved the Supreme Court. The appellants have prayed for a non-bailable warrant against the respondents, including Vasai MLA Hitendra Thakur.
Dubey’s murder took place around 10.30 am at Nalasopara railway station on October 9, 1989. The chargesheet against 14 accused was forwarded to the judicial magistrate and later the sessions court. Meanwhile, eight accused, including the sitting MLA and brother of Bhai Thakur, moved the Bombay High Court and secured bail. Deputy Inspector General, Railways, S S Suradkar, investigated the papers in 1992. The Dubey family complained to him that underworld don Bhai Thakur and his associates, who are behind the murder, have managed the police machinery.
According to their complaint, the Thakurs had forcibly taken possession of their land. They also alleged the Thakurs had unleashed a reign of terror in the Vasai-Virar area. Thereafter, speedy arrests were made, including that of the main accused. Fresh statements of the Dubey family were recorded by invoking the TADA act. Four more police officers were made accused in the case, including Malharrao Kukdolkar. However, the TADA judge maintained that the “prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused.”
According to the aggrieved appellants, the TADA judge has “emphasised minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore come to wrong conclusions."
The judge has “wrongly discarded Dube family witnesses, terming them as interested witnesses. It should have been held that murder was committed by an unlawful assembly.”
The appeal states the “Tada judge has an unreasonable apprehension to suspect the genuineness of the reinvestigation and the probable tampering of evidence. The entire judgement is vitiated.”