Thane Sessions Court Grants Partial Relief to Cops in Akshay Shinde Custodial Death Inquiry | File Photo
Mumbai: In a significant development, the Thane Sessions Court has granted partial relief to the policemen held accountable for the custodial death of Akshay Shinde, an accused in the Badlapur sexual assault case.
The court has kept in “abeyance” two crucial paragraphs — 80 and 81 — of the magistrate’s inquiry report, which had named the officers and questioned the legitimacy of the alleged encounter.
The magistrate’s report, submitted to the High Court on January 20, had found that the officers escorting Shinde from Taloja Prison to Kalyan were responsible for his death. The report specifically named Senior Police Inspector Sanjay Shinde of the Thane Crime Branch, Assistant Police Inspector Nilesh More, Head Constables Abhijeet More and Harish Tawade, and Police Constable Satish Khatal.
Challenging these findings, the policemen moved the sessions court through advocates Sayaji Nangre, Sameer Nangre, and Suraj Nangre. The court, on February 21, granted interim relief by putting the controversial paragraphs on hold until further orders.
Akshay Shinde had been arrested by the Badlapur police for allegedly sexually assaulting minor girls at a local school. While in judicial custody at Taloja Prison, he was taken into police custody on September 23 via a transfer warrant in connection with a second FIR, lodged by his wife. However, during transit, he sustained firearm injuries and later succumbed.
The police claimed that Shinde had snatched API Nilesh More’s service pistol, leading to a struggle during which both Shinde and More were injured. However, the magistrate’s report raised serious doubts about the alleged encounter.
The magistrate’s findings stated that the four policemen, despite being in a position to control the situation, failed to do so and that the use of force was “not justified.”
In their pleas, the officers argued that the magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction. They contended that under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the inquiry was limited to determining the “cause of death” and not to ascertain responsibility or question police actions.
Sayaji Nangre submitted that findings in paragraphs 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, and 82 of the report violated the principles of natural justice and should be expunged.
Paragraph 80 dealt with the forensics evidence and contradicted the policemen’s version. Whereas paragraph 81 questioned “whether the use of force was justified” and emphasised that the policemen were “in position that they can easily handle the situation”.
The magistrate had denied the officers’ earlier request for a copy of the report, citing confidentiality. The policemen then approached the high court which directed public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar to provide copies to the officers.
According to forensic evidence cited in the report on paragraph 80:
No gunshot residue was found on Shinde’s hands or clothing.
Shinde’s fingerprints were absent from the pistol he allegedly snatched.
A bullet wound sustained by API More on his thigh indicated that the shot was fired from a distance of more than three feet, contradicting claims of a close-range struggle.
The report pointed out multiple bullet holes and a dent in the police van, questioning the sequence of events.
