PANAJI
Thirteen days on,Valpoi police are yet to achieve a breakthrough in the ongoing ‘preliminary inquiry’ into the allegations leveled against Poriem BJP candidate Vishwajit Krishnarao Rane of murdering Shanu Gaonkar, who was reported missing in 2006.
It appears that the police are conducting an investigation under the label of a ‘preliminary inquiry’ and questions are being raised as to why the police are attempting to make out a cognizable offence when the offence of murder made out in the allegations levelled against Rane is necessarily ‘cognizable’ as per legal definition of the term.
Legal experts, on condition of anonymity, have expressed the opinion that the police can register an FIR and after duly concluding the investigation, file either a chargesheet against the accused or a summary report if no evidence or material is found against the accused during the investigation.
Thereafter, the police can also consider filing a complaint against the complainant if the allegations are found to be false. Filing of a B-summary report against the complainant is a legal option.
Allegations in this matter had surfaced through a video recorded by an RTI activist on February 16, which was posted on the Facebook page of Goa Police.
In the video, Ardalkar claimed that Rane killed Gaonkar on the suspicion of his involvement in the murder of his brother Prithviraj Rane on December 28, 2005. Valpoi police chargesheet had named six persons in the murder of Prithviraj but Shanu was not included in the list.
To begin with, the video and Ardalkar’s statement make out the cognizable offence of murder. During the inquiry, though Ardalkar wavered on specifics of his involvement in the case, he has stood by his accusation that Rane murdered Gaonkar.
However, after questioning Rane for two hours on March 3, in addition to around 30 to 35 other persons, police continue to claim that a cognizable offence is yet to be made out against the BJP candidate.
The police team probing the matter has taken refuge under the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari case of 2013 whereby police can initiate a preliminary inquiry in a case where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution and in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for such delay.
But the apex court judgement clearly states, “The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.”
Legal experts further point out that the SC order also requires the preliminary inquiry to be made time bound and in any case, it should not exceed seven days and that the delays should be mentioned in police general diary.
When contacted, Valpoi Police inspector Deepak Pednekar stated, “This is a high-profile and sensitive case. Preliminary inquiry is being conducted under the missing person case which was registered back in 2006. New allegations which have surfaced are being verified and we are checking if a cognizable offence is made out. Upon conclusion of the probe, the findings will be presented before the superiors.”
The police are yet to lay their hands on any concrete forensic evidence including the weapon, a handgun and with the body of Shanu Gaonkar still undiscovered as can be expected in a decade-old case.
Rane’s former driver Satish alias Ajay Ardalkar alleged that he had disposed off the body of Shanu Gaonkar somewhere along the Ghat in 2006 after his employer Rane killed him by firing two shots at him outside a bar and restaurant in 2006.
The search for Gaonkar’s body went on for almost 10 days. “We combed through the slopes of Anmod ghat for 10 days and the search has stopped only on Thursday,” PI Pednekar said.
The spot where the alleged incident of shooting occurred has also been inspected and the owner of Stefin bar at Honda, where the alleged incident occurred, has been questioned.
Interestingly, this particular missing person case does not bear the tag of ‘presumed dead’ as the family members have not approached appropriate court for the necessary order on completion of seven years from the date of filing the missing plaint.
Such a court order under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would declare the missing person as presumed dead while shifting the burdenof proving that he is alive to the person who affirms it.
