The CBI claims that Prajapati along with Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi were abducted by a team of Gujarat police on November 23 and later he was shown arrested by the Rajasthan police.
DENYING THEIR statement made before the CBI in 2011 in connection to the Sohrabuddin Shaikh alleged fake encounter case, two prosecution witnesses on Tuesday told the court that Tulsiram Prajapati — Sohrabuddin’s associate, who was allegedly killed in 2006 — had stayed at their home in Bhilwara for “10 to 12 days” before he was arrested by the Udaipur police in Rajasthan on November 29, 2005.
The CBI has claimed that Prajapati was abducted along with Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi from a luxury bus on November 23, 2005 by policemen from Gujarat while they were on way to Sangli from Hyderabad. Sohrabuddin was killed in a staged encounter on November 26, 2005 in Gujarat, subsequent to which, Kausarbi was also killed. Prajapati, a witness to the abduction, was killed on December 26, 2006, also in a staged encounter, the agency had alleged.
The witnesses on Tuesday contradicted the CBI’s case that the three were abducted at the same time from the bus by alleging that Prajapati was then at their home. The CBI had maintained that Prajapati was present in the bus on November 23 before his arrest six days later.
Special Public Prosecutor B P Raju, however, did not declare the two witnesses hostile.
On Tuesday, a father-son duo from Rajasthan, deposed as prosecution witnesses 68 and 69. The father told the court that he had built a house in Bhilwara in Rajasthan in 2004, where he lived along with his wife and two sons. In 2005, he was transferred to Udaipur and while he relocated, he visited his family every few weeks in Bhilwara.
He added that in March 2005, one room in their house was let out to a man claiming to be Samir Prajapati, who started a vegetable business there. “In November 2005… it was the end of the month, I received a call in Udaipur from my wife. She said that Samir has been arrested and that his real na-me was Tulsiram. The police told her that he was wanted for murder,” the witness told the court.
The son, who was present at the time of Prajapati’s arrest in Bhilwara in 2005, told the court that towards the end of November 2005, Prajapati was residing at their home.
Defense advocate Wahab Khan asked the witness, “Was Prajapati at home for over 15 days?” The witness promptly replied in the positive. The witness added that Prajapati was home for over 15 days before his arrest in 2005.
During cross-examination, the witness told the court that in 2005, at the time of Prajapati’s arrest, he was in Class X and that it would be correct to say that he did not know what was happening since he was only 15 at the time. He recalled that Prajapati used to bring him ‘namkeen’ from Madhya Pradesh, but those were only occasional visits and that he would usually be at home.
Both the witnesses told the court that apart from Udaipur police’s inquiry at the time of Prajapati’s arrest in 2005, no probe was conducted then. The father said: “In 2006, I read in the papers that Prajapati had run away from police custody. I immediately called my wife and son in Bhilwara and told them to ensure that the windows and doors are shut, as he could return. However, I read in the papers the next day that he was killed in an encounter by the police.”
He added that they were subsequently called for inquiry by the Gujarat CID and the CBI. The witness also identified accused Ramanbhai Patel, who was present in court, as the CID officer who had taken his statement. Patel, who was investigating the alleged fake encounter case earlier, was made an accused in the case by the CBI on the ground that he had allegedly intentionally not filed a chargesheet on time and pressurised witnesses.
In their statements recorded by the CBI in 2011, the two witnesses had claimed that Patel had told them to lie before a magistrate. They had said that the fact was that Tulsiram was not available at their house in Bhilwara for 15-20 days prior to his arrest by the Udaipur police and had only returned one or two days earlier. They had alleged that Patel had called them to Gandhinagar to say that they would have to change their statement or they would be in trouble, due to which they lied about Prajapati being at home for over 15 days before his arrest. On Tuesday, both witnesses did not refer to this part of their statements.
So far, the CBI has not been able to establish the bus journey of Sohrabuddin, Prajapati and Kausarbi, as most prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, including their fellow co-passengers as well as the bus driver and cleaner. So far, 48 witnesses have turned hostile.