Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife.
Appearing before the court in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Shaikh alleged fake encounter case, Shahnawazuddin, the younger brother of Sohrabuddin, requested that his testimony be recorded expeditiously. He claimed that he was under pressure and had a threat to his life.
In an application filed before the court, Shahnawazuddin also said he was aware that he was “under constant surveillance by powerful politicians involved in the case”.
Shahnawazuddin, 47, claimed that he was a ‘primary witness’ in the case as Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati had spoken to him about the alleged murder conspiracy. Prajapati had also expressed fear for his life, months before his death in an alleged staged encounter in December 2006.
Shahnawazuddin claimed that around September-October in 2006, Prajapati had also given him four blank sheets signed by him and had directed him to “somehow use them” to save his life. Through his advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shahnawazud-din submitted before the court that the CBI had not cited him as a witness so far, nor had the blank sheets been brought before the court.
“The applicant (Shahnawazuddin) is forced to approach the court as the information provided by him seems to have not been placed on record. The applicant is seeking an opportunity to assist the course of justice by deposing the … facts before the court,” the application stated.
Ramakrishnan submitted to the court that the CBI did not seem to have the intention to summon Shahnawazuddin and that he sought to be called suo motu by the court under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“This applicant also prays that this learned court may be pleased to record his testimony expeditiously as the applicant is under a lot of pressure, life threat and he is aware that he is under constant surveillance by powerful politicians involved in the case in hand and are very competent to extend severe damage to the applicant,” the application stated.
The CBI has so far examined 80 prosecution witnesses and is yet to submit the final list of witnesses it wants to examine.
Meanwhile, the 80th prosecution witness, a Rajasthan police officer, deposed before the court on Thursday. He told the court that he had forwarded a complaint sent to the NHRC by Prajapati to another police official for further inquiry in 2006. However, he said that since he was transferred from the post within 25-30 days, he was not aware of the action taken in the matter.