The recent developments in the Sheena Bora murder case have introduced significant complications for the prosecution, as key pieces of evidence, purportedly Sheena Bora’s remains, have gone missing. The defence lawyer representing Indrani Mukerjea, Ranjeet Sangle, has capitalized on this development, describing it as a major blunder by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He emphasized that such lapses could severely undermine the prosecution’s case, likening it to a crater-sized hole.
Sangle raised suspicions about the authenticity of the evidence, suggesting that none of the CBI officers had physically seen the purported remains, which were supposedly kept sealed. He hinted at the possibility of fraud or negligence within the investigative process. The chain of custody of these critical articles, he argued, would need to be meticulously established to determine how and from whom the CBI received them.
From a legal standpoint, Sangle indicated that the defense would leverage this situation to their advantage in court, exploiting any legal opportunities or advantages it presents. He questioned why the CBI had not diligently deposited these crucial pieces of evidence in court, as required by the process.
Moreover, Sangle reiterated Indrani Mukerjea’s innocence, asserting that from the outset, the defence has maintained that there was no body or skeleton to substantiate the murder allegations against her. He criticized the initial investigation for what he claimed was a wrongful implication and prolonged incarceration of his client.
In the ongoing court proceedings, the prosecution reportedly informed the CBI court about the untraceable nature of the bones that were supposed to be Sheena Bora’s remains. This revelation came during the testimony of Dr. Zeba Khan, a forensic expert from JJ Hospital, whose examination initially confirmed the bones as human remains crucial to the prosecution’s narrative.
Despite the bones’ apparent disappearance, the prosecution sought to proceed with Dr. Khan’s testimony, indicating readiness to move forward without the physical evidence. This turn of events underscores the challenges faced by the prosecution in substantiating their case against Indrani Mukerjea.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for June 27, where further developments are expected as both sides navigate the complexities introduced by the missing evidence.
