The victim, Ramesh, 42, (name changed to protect identity), was a resident of Devgaon in Murbad taluka and worked in the housekeeping department of a private company. His decomposed body was recovered on June 28, following which police registered a case of murder and destruction of evidence.

Kalyan: Nearly a month after the decomposed body of an unidentified man was found dumped in a forested area near Mamnoli village on the Kalyan-Ahilyanagar road, the Kalyan Taluka police, with the assistance of the Thane Rural Local Crime Branch, arrested two of his office colleagues for allegedly murdering him.The victim, Ramesh, 42, (name changed to protect identity), was a resident of Devgaon in Murbad taluka and worked in the housekeeping department of a private company. His decomposed body was recovered on June 28, following which police registered a case of murder and destruction of evidence.Considering the gravity of the offence, Thane Rural Superintendent of Police Vinaykumar Rathod and Additional SP Anmol Mittal supervised the investigation. Six teams, led by SDPO Anil Lad, Local Crime Branch PI Dadasaheb Edke and Kalyan Taluka PI Mukesh Dhage, were formed to crack the case.Police said that although the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition, investigators recovered the victim’s company identity card, which helped establish his identity. They subsequently analysed CCTV footage, technical evidence and other leads from the crime scene and the victim’s workplace.The investigation led police to two of the victim’s colleagues — Rajesh, 24, (name changed), who worked as a supervisor in the same company, and Prathmesh, 28, (name changed), both residents of Murbad.According to the police, Ramesh was homosexual and had allegedly been repeatedly pressuring Rajesh to enter into a physical relationship despite his refusal. Investigators claimed Rajesh was disturbed by the victim’s alleged behaviour and, along with Prathmesh, conspired to kill him.Police alleged that the accused lured Ramesh to a secluded forest area on the pretext of a sexual encounter. Once there, Rajesh allegedly struck him on the head with an iron rod before slitting his throat, while Prathmesh allegedly assisted in the murder.Investigators further alleged that the duo robbed the victim of his gold ornaments before dumping the body in the forest in an attempt to destroy evidence.Both accused were arrested and produced before a local court, which remanded them to police custody till July 24. Further investigation is underway.

A day after students in Delhi were lathi-charged after the CJP protest devolved into chaos and 24 hours after Mumbai police detained a number of protesters

MUMBAI: A day after students in Delhi were lathi-charged after the CJP protest devolved into chaos and 24 hours after Mumbai police detained a number of protesters, hundreds of students and activists turned up in the city again on Tuesday to defend what many described as their “democratic right to protest”.Tuesday’s protest marked the third day of agitation in Mumbai, and like on the previous days, it was mainly centered around Shivaji Park, though a demonstration was held by local residents in Chembur’s Siddharth Colony as well. The number of FIRs filed against the protesters over three days for unlawful assembly and carrying out their stir without police permission went up to eight, with 800-900 people, mostly students, booked.The protest on Tuesday was supposed to be held at Azad Maidan from 4 pm onwards, with permission granted by Mumbai police. But one of the protesters, Oamkaar Sadarangani, told TOI they found out in the morning that police had rescinded permission.Despite the confusion, a large group gathered at Shivaji Park. “The idea to gather at Shivaji Park was spread entirely by word of mouth. There was no official announcement, but most of us instinctively went there,” said Shreya Singh, a postgraduate literature student from Mumbai University. She said youngsters were “afraid” because police had detained people the day before. “But seeing the crowds come in, we were inspired to continue,’’ she added.Another protestor said there were also announcements on social media platforms that a group of protesters would walk from Nariman Point towards Azad Maidan; however, that plan too was cancelled. Police put up barricades in the area as a precaution.According to Singh, before she arrived in Dadar with her group of friends, two police vans had carried off several protesters. “But that did not stop people. There was heavy police bandobast at Shivaji Park, but we entered a little late from the park’s left side entrance,” she said.According to protesters, the surge in the crowd at Shivaji Park deterred the police from taking any more detainees. “At one point, the police realised they were outnumbered and announced we would be allowed to remain at Shivaji Park until 6 pm and no action would be taken against us. We adhered to what the police said and remained respectful and non-violent. And at 6 pm sharp, everyone began to disperse,” said another protester.Sadarangani said a big group of women was taken to Worli police station, but Shiv Sena (UBT) activists reached immediately and argued with the police to be let in and allow lawyers to be let in as well to talk to the detainees. “Soon after, all the women were released. The police kept saying that they had received orders from officials,” he added.Meanwhile, the gathering of CJP-supporting young protesters in Shivaji Park and elsewhere evoked a groundswell of support on social media.One Siddhant Malvankar said on X, “Peaceful protest is a fundamental constitutional right. Citizens don’t need permission to protest against the government. Btw, what action does Mumbai Police take against illegal vendors encroaching on footpaths and roads, and how many complaints have been filed against them?”A hot debate erupted online. Nick alias Nekzaad offered “full support (to) Mumbai Police.” “Whichever side you’re on, if you do not have official permission & break the law, you should be penalized. Some of us have to go to work, earn our livelihoods & pay taxes. India’s financial capital has no time for rubbish. Have a problem? Go vote,” he posted. To which Surendra Deonalli replied, “In no other country, democracy, does anyone need permission to protest. The constitution allows it, as long as no harm or destruction is caused.”Some social media users also criticised Mumbai police’s move to ban gatherings, assemblies and demonstrations till Aug 6. Kabita Sharma wrote, “Banning protests is okay only if there’s real risk of violence, but using it routinely 2 avoid accountability is wrong. Take swift action on leaks & reforms – not just bans. Protests r democratic feedback; suppress them & discontent will grow. Solve problems, don’t silence voices.”DrakeN said, “Paper leaks turn every exam into a lottery, fix accountability.”

Mumbai: A special court on Tuesday allowed the CBI to summon and examine an additional prosecution witness in the Sheena Bora murder trial, which it as it its fag end with the 149th witness — CBI’s investigating officer K K Singh — deposing.The prosecution sought permission to examine Narayan Pathak, an employee of Worli’s Hotel Hill Top, after Vernon Fernandes, the hotel’s general manager, could not be examined as a witness as he had passed away. The prosecution said Fernandes had handed over documents related to accused Sanjeev Khanna’s stay at Hotel Hill Top on the relevant dates of the alleged offence and had been cited as a prosecution witness.The court allowed Pathak to depose for the limited purpose of identifying the signatures of Fernandes on hotel documents. The order said, “…though prosecution had more lapses, the documents in question are necessary for just decision of the case. Thus, the evidence for the proposed witness goes to the root of the case and it is indispensable.”The court also held that no prejudice would be caused to the defence because the accused would get an opportunity to cross-examine Pathak. At the same time, the court reminded the prosecution that the trial has been pending since 2015 and is being conducted on a day-to-day basis in view of time-bound directions.The defence opposed the application, arguing that the CBI had moved it after an unexplained delay of about three years and seven months. It also contended that other hotel witnesses and investigating officers had already been examined, and that the prosecution was attempting to fill gaps in evidence at an advanced stage of trial. The defence further argued that Pathak was not cited in the chargesheet and that Pathak’s statement had not been recorded during investigation.The court noted that Fernandes’s death had been reported earlier along with a death certificate, making his examination impossible. The CBI submitted that Pathak had worked with Fernandes and was acquainted with the latter’s handwriting and signatures. The prosecution also clarified that no fresh documentary evidence would be introduced through Pathak and that the examination would be confined to identifying and proving documents bearing Fernandes’s signatures.The court recorded that Hotel Hill Top documents were material because they directly related to the prosecution’s case that Khanna stayed at the hotel on April 24 and April 25, 2012. The court said, “Therefore, the documents in question are directly relating to the accused’s stay in the hotel. Therefore, the documents are material. Thus, these documents are necessary to unearth the truth.”The judge also observed that the investigating officer could prove seizure and chain of custody of the documents, but could not identify Fernandes’s signatures. The court said, “Moreover, the person who had worked with deceased…Vernon Fernandes may be in a better position to identify the signatures of the deceased on those documents. Thus, it can be just and proper to say that the evidence of the proposed witness is not merely helpful, but it is ‘essential’.”The court also directed that the examination of investigating officer Singh should not be postponed merely because the application was allowed and that he should be examined first on priority basis.The CBI’s case is that Indrani Mukerjea, along with her former husbands Khanna and Peter Mukerjea — who in 2015 was still married to her — and their driver Shyamvar Rai hatched a plan to abduct and murder her daughter Sheena Bora and attempt to murder her son Mekhail Bora. The CBI claimed that on April 24, 2012, Indrani, Khanna, and Rai abducted Sheena in a car, administered sedatives, strangled her, and disposed of her body in a forest in Pen in Raigad district. The alleged crime came to light in August 2015. Rai turned approver and deposed as a prosecution witness.

The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded Dravita Singh Rs 4.2 lakh compensation for injuries sustained in a 2018 robbery.

MUMBAI: Eight years after Kalyan resident Dravita Singh lost part of her limbs in a horrific instance of ‘fatka robbery’, the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) has allowed her claim partly and asked Central Railway to pay her Rs 4.2 lakh, plus interest, as compensation. While welcoming RCT’s order, Singh’s father, Hemant Kumar, pointed out that the trial before the sessions court, however, was yet to start.On Feb 7, 2018, Singh, then 23, had fallen off a moving local train between Sandhurst Road and Masjid stations after being hit by a stick-wielding robber. Her three fingers, a toe and a portion of her right foot were crushed after another train hit her. She underwent multiple surgeries and skin grafts before she could walk again.Singh, through her lawyer C K Sable, filed a claim before the RCT in July 2018. She stepped into the witness box and filed an affidavit, recounting the sequence of events and how she suffered injuries. She also stated that she had a valid return-journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger.

The incident

The Railways’ counsel opposed her claim by producing the divisional railway manager’s report, which concluded that the incident had occurred when Singh was speaking on her phone while standing on the footboard of the train, which is an offence.The Railways’ counsel also argued that police had not found any ticket in her possession. The counsel argued that as per the motorman and train manager’s statements, Singh was knocked down by an oncoming train while running on the tracks, which amounts to trespassing and is an offence.The RCT, however, observed that “falling off a train and running behind the thief to recover a mobile and, in that process, if the applicant (Singh) sustained injuries, even if she had been infringing railway lines and was hit by a train coming from the opposite direction, it cannot be called trespassing. It is an ‘untoward incident’ defined under the Railway Act”. The RCT also observed that Singh was a bonafide passenger based on her affidavit.Singh was awarded Rs 4.2 lakh as compensation, plus 9% interest, from the date of the incident to the date of the order. Of the amount, Singh was permitted to withdraw Rs 40,000 through her savings account and the rest was to be invested in an annuity deposit scheme in a nationalised bank.Refusing to be bogged down by the traumatic incident, Singh ran the Mumbai Marathon and appeared for her graduation exam with her leg in bandages within a year. Currently, she works with a housing finance company and is simultaneously pursuing an MBA.“We were expecting the trial to be fast-tracked in the sessions court, but eight years have passed and it has not even started. Police have not been in touch with us about the status of the case,” lamented her father.Of the three accused booked in the case, one was a juvenile, while another is out on bail.The 2018 incident* Dravita Singh, then 23, fell off a running local train between Sandhurst Road and Masjid stations after a stick-wielding robber hit her to rob her phone on February 7, 2018. She saw another train approaching and tried to roll away from the tracks, but three fingers of her left hand, her toe and a portion of her right foot were crushed by that train. She also suffered a head injury and had to undergo multiple surgeries and skin grafts* CSMT Government Railway Police registered a case of attempt to commit murder and robbery under the Indian Penal Code* Police booked three persons: a 17-year-old boy who had struck Singh; Ajay Pal, who was present when the robbery occurred and helped sell Singh’s stolen phone; and Rukhsar Barbiya, a homemaker from Masjid who purchased the handset. Barbiya is out on bail* Trial yet to start

Despite the confusion, a large group gathered at Shivaji Park, Dadar

Mumbai: The protest in the city on Tuesday over the NEET paper leak was supposed to be held at Azad Maidan from 4 pm onwards, with permission granted by Mumbai police. But one of the protesters, Oamkaar Sadarangani, told TOI they found out in the morning that police had rescinded permission.Despite the confusion, a large group gathered at Shivaji Park. “The idea to gather there was spread entirely by word of mouth. There was no official announcement, but most of us instinctively went there,” said Shreya Singh, a postgraduate literature student from Mumbai University. She said youngsters were “afraid” because police had detained people the day before. “But seeing the crowds come in, we were inspired to continue,’’ she added.Another protester said there were also announcements on social media that a group of protesters would walk from Nariman Point towards Azad Maidan; however, that plan too was cancelled. Police put up barricades in the area as a precaution.According to Singh, before she arrived in Dadar with her group of friends, two police vans had carried off several protesters. “But that did not stop people. There was heavy police bandobast at Shivaji Park, but we entered a little late from the park’s left side entrance,” she said.According to protesters, the surge in the crowd at Shivaji Park deterred the police from taking any more detainees. “At one point, the police realised they were outnumbered and announced we would be allowed to remain at Shivaji Park until 6 pm and no action would be taken against us. We adhered to what the police said and remained respectful and non-violent. And at 6 pm sharp, everyone began to disperse,” said another protester.Sadarangani said a big group of women was taken to Worli police station, but Shiv Sena (UBT) activists reached immediately and argued with the police to be let in and allow lawyers to be let in as well to talk to the detainees. “Soon after, all the women were released. The police kept saying that they had received orders from officials,” he added.Meanwhile, the gathering of CJP-supporting young protesters in Shivaji Park and elsewhere evoked a groundswell of support on social media.One Siddhant Malvankar said on X, “Peaceful protest is a fundamental constitutional right. Citizens don’t need permission to protest against the government. Btw, what action does Mumbai Police take against illegal vendors encroaching on footpaths and roads, and how many complaints have been filed against them?”A debate erupted online. Nick alias Nekzaad offered “full support (to) Mumbai Police.” “Whichever side you’re on, if you do not have official permission & break the law, you should be penalized. Some of us have to go to work, earn our livelihoods & pay taxes. India’s financial capital has no time for rubbish. Have a problem? Go vote,” he posted. To which Surendra Deonalli replied, “In no other country, democracy, does anyone need permission to protest.”