Enough proof to show Taware's involvement in blood test manipulation in Porsche case: Prosecution to court
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Taware is facing the charge of influencing suspended casualty medical officer Dr Shrihari Halnor and suspended mortuary staffer Atul Ghatkamble to swap the blood samples of the teenager involved in the accident on May 19, 2024, and his two friends.
Opposing Taware's discharge plea, special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued that the doctor claimed he was on leave on the day of the incident, but an examination of his call detail records showed that he was in touch with the suspended employees and influenced them to manipulate the blood alcohol tests of the three at the behest of their parents.
Hiray submitted that witnesses gave statements and recorded confessional statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before a magisterial court and these showed that Taware played a key role in the conspiracy.
On the claims made by Taware that his arrest was illegal, the prosecution said that the chargesheet, remand reports, and case diary showed that he was communicated the reasons behind his arrest in writing and that his signature was also obtained on the arrest memo.
The investigating officer, at the time of arresting the doctor, complied with the mandatory provisions of CrPC, he said.
Judge K P Kshirsagar posted the hearing on June 10 when Taware's lawyer will argue the matter.
Taware was also arrested in the kidney swab transplant case on May 28, the prosecutor told the court, adding that the state health department and Sassoon hospital received complaints against him.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘How far prosecutors can work under uncertainty': HC seeks rethink on SPP's 'unceremonious' removal
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised concerns over 'unceremonious' removals of public prosecutors from the cases and questioned how far they can function 'under the hanging sword of uncertainty.' The court also questioned how the prosecutors can 'venture to act independently' and 'show courage' in future due to such a situation. In doing so, the court asked the state government to reconsider the removal of erstwhile Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat from the trial related to suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi in 2019, allegedly due to harassment by her seniors. A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing a plea by Payel's mother Abeda Tadvi, who challenged the March 7, 2025, notification issued by state law and judiciary department that removed Gharat as SPP and appointed Mahesh Mule as special public prosecutor. Payal's three seniors at TN Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital are named as accused in the case. Gharat as SPP filed an application before the sessions court to add the then head of department (HOD) of gynaecology at the Hospital Dr Yi Ching Ling as accused for overlooking Tadvi's harassment and ragging complaint, which the trial court allowed on February 28. On Wednesday, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state government, submitted that it was empowered to take such a decision under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Gharat's removal was due to 'miscommunication and some loss of faith between the client and the lawyer' and the decision was taken 'without any prejudice,' he added. 'Have you (state) ever thought of prejudice to the lawyer with 40 years experience? Your affidavit (giving justification for removal) is so distasteful and disrespectful for him…Did you issue a letter to him? Though you may have power of removal, it should be exercised judiciously…. The Public Prosecutor is not a clerk that he should update progress to (state) are a client, you should go to him….do not reduce them to the value of peon or clerk,' Justice Ghuge orally remarked. After Venegaonkar sought to file a short reply stating that the state did not have any doubt about Gharat's credibility, Justice Ghuge responded, 'Let him continue (as SPP). That is the only reward he will get that the faith is reposed in him….this (reply) would be lip service…' Venegaonkar claimed that Gharat had exercised his own powers as SPP under CrPC to file application to add accused, to which the judges said that too might have been based on some consultation with the government On court's query, Additional Public Prosecutor S V Gavand said that as per Gharat, he would continue as SPP if permission was granted by the court and can also address HC if required. 'Look at his magnanimity and element of devotion. Despite the insulting affidavit, he says alright, if I am given this task, I will still do it… The lawyer should be appreciated and should not be victimised…Many prosecutors like him have been removed is the time the HC shows what are the consequences. What happens if tomorrow prosecutors decide that we will not appear for government because you don't treat us well? The SPP decided to add the accused out of his own wisdom and his client does not know?' the bench questioned. The court further said the 'most important angle' and a question before it was 'how far can prosecutors work under a hanging sword of uncertainty' and 'who will venture to act independently' and 'show courage' in future and instead become 'supine'. The HC also remarked there was a 'close proximity' between the dates of order passed to add accused and removal of SPP. 'It appears someone did not like the HOD being added as accused. You (state) may deny it, but this is the inference,' it said and granted time to reconsider the decision till the next hearing on August 26.
Mint
10 hours ago
- Mint
Rahul Gandhi tells Pune court of life threat, cites Savarkar lineage of complainant
Rahul Gandhi, on Monday told a Pune court that he faces threat to life in view of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case against him. The Congress leader and Lok Sabha Opposition leader also sought 'preventive protection' by State, reported Bar and Bench. He urged the court, which is hearing the defamation case, to acknowledge what he has described as 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case. The defamation case was filed by Satyaki Savarkar after Rahul Gandhi, in a March 2023 speech in London, cited Savarkar's writings in which Savarkar and others purportedly assaulted a Muslim man and described it as 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar has denied that any such account exists in Savarkar's published works, arguing the remarks were false, misleading, and defamatory. He has sought Gandhi's conviction under Section 500 IPC and compensation under Section 357 CrPC. The Court will next hear the matter on September 10. (This is a developing story. Keep checking for more updates)
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Probe should be judicially examined': HC upholds summoning of 6 cleared by SIT in Tarn Taran murder trial
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday refused to quash a Tarn Taran trial court's order summoning six more people to face trial in a 2020 petrol pump murder case, holding that Special Investigation Team (SIT) findings are not binding on courts. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, dismissing a revision petition by five of those summoned, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2014 Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, which defined the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 'The truthfulness of the plea of alibi raised by the petitioners can be verified on the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties,' the court said, adding: 'There is no gainsaying that the findings arrived at by the SIT are not binding on the court and every investigation has to be judicially examined.' The case stems from an October 11, 2020, shooting at the Raj Kumar Brothers petrol pump on Khemkaran Road in Bhikhiwind. According to the FIR, complainant Dinesh Kumar was at the pump with his brother-in-law Mandeep Kumar alias Monu, who died in the attack, Paramjit Kumar and an employee when a group of armed men arrived. Kumar named seven accused, including Satwinder Singh alias Pasi, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Charanjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Surjit Singh alias Vicky, along with 15–20 unidentified others. He alleged that Gopi fired the fatal shot, while others attacked and threatened them. The motive was linked to a civil dispute over a passage adjoining the pump. An SIT formed on November 17, 2020, later gave three accused, namely Charanjit, Surjit, and Jasbir Singh Pasi, a clean chit based on CCTV footage and call records. Over subsequent reports, Harbhajan, Kulbir Singh Pasi and Gurnam Singh Pasi were also declared innocent. Initially, only Gopi and Satwinder faced trial. During the trial, complainant Dinesh Kumar, testifying as a witness, repeated his allegations against all the accused. This led to a fresh application under Section 319 CrPC, which allows a court to summon others for trial if evidence emerges against them. On June 7, 2024, the trial court summoned all six earlier let off by the SIT. The petitioners argued that the SIT's scientific evidence, including CCTV and call data, proved their alibi, and said the trial court had ignored the discretionary and exceptional nature of Section 319 powers. They also cited a cross-case filed by Charanjit Singh against the complainant's side. Quoting Hardeep Singh, Justice Bhardwaj underlined that Section 319 CrPC confers 'discretionary and extraordinary power… to be exercised sparingly… only where strong and cogent evidence occurs… and not in a casual and cavalier manner.' The judge also cited the Supreme Court's view that the evidence required under Section 319 'is more than prima facie… but short of satisfaction that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction' and that 'there is no scope… to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.' Referring to earlier precedents, including Joginder Singh (1979) and Anju Chaudhary (2013), the court noted that even those named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted can be summoned if warranted. Finding 'no infirmity' in the Tarn Taran court's order, Justice Bhardwaj dismissed the petition without commenting on the merits.
