Exclusive | Palghar: 2 freed after 9 years in jail, as court slams botched investigation

Abhijeet Mishra; Ravi Dangur, the acquitted youth; advocate Darshana Tripathy, Dangur’s lawyer. Pics/Hanif Patel

Two youths, after spending almost nine years in Thane jail in connection with a murder case, walked free as a Vasai court acquitted them due to a severe lack of evidence and motive. Their relatives thanked the court for the acquittal but said that their youth was destroyed as they were "falsely implicated" in the case.

A 21-year-old milk businessman, Subhashchand Gupta, was found dead at a house in Nalasopara on March 17, 2016. His body was stuffed in a gunny bag, with a nylon rope found nearby. His elder brother Chandrashekhar Gupta registered an FIR at the Tulinj police station against four people, including two juveniles. Subsequently, two suspects - Ravi Dangur and Abhijeet Mishra - were arrested.

The prime suspect, Shiva Bhaiya, remained at large until last year when the Mira Bhayandar Vasai Virar (MBVV) police arrested him in Uttar Pradesh. The remaining two suspects were juveniles and were not arrested but handled according to juvenile law.

‘Botched investigation'

Complainant Chandrashekhar Gupta told mid-day that two officers had investigated the case before the charge sheet was filed. "Initially, inspector Kiran Kabadi investigated the case, and later senior inspector Prakash Virajdar took over and filed the charge sheet in Vasai court.

However, they failed to retrieve call data records, CCTV footage, or other incriminating evidence to convict the killers of my brother," Chandrashekhar said. "Despite two inspector-level officers working on the case, they couldn't even establish the motive behind the murder. Now, with the killers set free due to this botched investigation, we are worried for our safety," he added.

"My brother was killed just a month after his wedding. His widow is still devastated, and she refuses to remarry. The killers destroyed two lives, yet they have been acquitted. All thanks to the Tulinj police officers," he said. "My brother deserves justice, and I won't let the matter rest. I will challenge the verdict in the high court to seek justice," vowed Chandrashekhar.

Emotional moment at court

After the judge acquitted Dangur and Mishra on Monday, their parents' broke into tears at the Vasai court. They were seen touching the feet of the advocates and hugging each other with joy. Shyamveer Dangur, Ravi Dangur's father, said, "This case caused us tremendous mental stress.

We waited 8.7 long years to see my son set free. He was arrested in 2016, and during that time, my daughter got married, but my son was denied bail. We had lost all hope, but my advocate Darshana Tripathy fought well for him. I am thankful to the court."

Premnath Mishra, Abhijit Mishra's father, said, "I am a small-time farmer from Uttar Pradesh. My son was falsely implicated by the police and the complainant. They destroyed his youth - he's now nearly 28 years old. I'll take him back to our native place in Jaunpur as I fear for his safety in Nalasopara."

Advocates speak

"Finally, we succeeded in securing justice for our client, who was innocent. There needs to be a system in place to prevent innocent people from being wrongfully imprisoned," said advocate Darshana Tripathy, Dangur's lawyer.

Advocate Siddhesh Naik, Mishra's lawyer, said, "Despite the investigating officer's coercive tactics and reliance on false panchnama and witnesses, justice prevailed. The acquittal highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting individuals from wrongful prosecution."

10 mistakes made by the Tulinj police that led to acquittal: Advocate, complainant

1. Failure to retrieve call data records of the accused.
2. Incomplete crime scene investigation and failure to retrieve fingerprints.
3. No CCTV footage was secured for digital evidence.
4. Regular panch witnesses were used instead of locals, despite the crime occurring in a densely populated area.
5. Failure to establish the motive behind the murder.
6. Police failed to prove the "last seen" theory.
7. Other potential angles in the case were not explored.
8. No proof of the seized items was submitted in court.
9. No background check of the deceased and complainant was conducted.
10. No identification parade was conducted.