Suspicion can't take place of proof, says court on cousin's 'role'

Rebecca Samervel| TNN | Oct 13, 2017, 01:01 IST




MUMBAI: In its 111-page order acquitting Himanshu Ranka of kidnapping and murdering his paternal cousin, principal judge S B Agrawal reasoned his friendship with convict Vijesh Sanghvi was of no consequence unless it was brought on record that the friendship resulted in commission of the crime.

The court said strong suspicion or conjecture cannot be allowed to take the place of legal proof. The court pointed out that though call data records (CDRs) showed the duo was in touch on the day of the crime, there are no details on what was said. The court stated that Himanshu had submitted he was seeking help from Sanghvi after the child was kidnapped as the latter's father had good connections with cops.

It further held most calls were made by Sanghvi to Hiamanshu. The court observed this was possibly done by Sanghvi with the intention to know the situation without disclosing to Himanshu what he was up to. A key piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution was that two days after the incident, the victim's mother Chandrika Ranka told cops it had struck her that the voice on the phone on the day of kidnapping belonged to Himanshu. The call, the prosecution had said, was made to ensure Adit had left the house.

During a previous call, Sanghvi, while impersonating the victim's father's friend, had told him his father had sent some keys and he needed to come to a paan shop nearby to collect it. But referring to the second call, allegedly made by Himanshu, the court said by the time Chandrika made this claim to the cops on May 15, 2013, two days after the murder, he was already arrested in the case.