Khar murder case: Mumbai Police arrest drug supplier, probe on

Diya Padalkar

Even as the Khar police wait for forensic reports to confirm who all had consumed drugs at the New Year's Eve party in Khar, where a 19-year-old student was murdered, they arrested a drug supplier after receiving information that the guests had taken ganja. The cops have registered a fresh FIR under the NDPS Act.

The accused, Shree Jogdhankar. File pics

After the cops got to know that accused Shree Jogdhankar had consumed marijuana before attending the party, they started to dig deeper. "We received credible information that some guests in the party consumed drugs. One supplier has been arrested in an NDPS case and we suspect that he may have some links with the drug angle in the case, which is being investigated," said a senior officer.

The police have already collected blood and urine samples of the 12 students who were present at the party, including that of the deceased and accused arrested in the murder case. "We are waiting for the forensic reports to confirm who all consumed drugs that night. Further action against them will be taken based on the reports," the officer added. The officer further said, "We are not sure whether drugs were consumed at the party or the guests had already taken it before arriving. The entire chain of events will be established soon."

Meanwhile, on Thursday evening accused Shree was discharged from hospital and taken to Khar police station. Both he and Diya Padalkar were questioned together but they were putting the blame on each other. The cops are all set to recreate the crime scene on Saturday afternoon along with forensic experts to find out the exact sequence of events, which led to the 19-year-old's death.

The victim's family lawyer on Friday raised several questions on the public prosecutor's silence at the hearing on Thursday while the court extended the custody of both the accused. Advocate Trivankumar Karnani in a Twitter statement said, "I am shocked and surprised to witness the silence of the public prosecutor in court, which almost led to a travesty of justice. Despite briefing the public prosecutor before the hearing on the facts, circumstances, point of law and grounds for further police custody, a strong case was not put up before the honourable magistrate." The statement further states, "By virtue of Supreme Court judgments in a criminal prosecution, private counsels of victims can only assist the prosecution until and unless the public prosecutor fails to put up a case to secure the ends of justice. In this matter we started making submissions due to the incompetency and inefficiency of the public prosecutor. It was only after we intervened on behalf of the victim's mother and started making submissions, since the public prosecutor failed to do so, was the police custody extended."

Karnani in a statement also demanded that the public prosecutor be changed. "We demand a change of the public prosecutor at the present pre-trial stage itself and appointment of a special public prosecutor, whom we can assist and work towards speedy justice," Karnani added.