Justice Sirpurkar’s Supreme Court-appointed commission to investigate the alleged encounter murder of four defendants in the December 6, 2019, gang-rape and murder case of Veterinarian Doctor Disha, in its report “Undercover cover” submitted to Apex Court, said the allegations that the defendant snatched pistols from police officers and fired at them was “contrived” and “unbelievable”.
He said there was no physical evidence from police to indicate that the deceased suspects – Mohammed Arif and Ch. Chennakeshavulu – who allegedly snatched two pistols from police were familiar with the handling of firearms. “On the instructions of the commission, the former ACP from Shadnagar Division brought a gun to the commission premises during the hearing and demonstrated the operation of it. The process is complicated enough that someone unfamiliar with the use of firearms would not be able to use the gun easily and more importantly the use of firearms would not be possible under the circumstances in which the deceased would have used them “, we read in the report.
It can be recalled that on the night of 27-28 November 2019, a 27-year-old veterinary doctor was allegedly taken away by the suspects, who raped her near Shamshabad and then took her to Chattanpally near Shadnagar in the district of Rangareddy, 50 km from town, in a truck and burned her to death on an underpass on NH-44. The suspects were arrested on November 29, 2019 and taken into custody. In the early hours of December 6, the four defendants were taken to Chattanpally to collect evidence and reconstruct the crime scene. After reaching Chattanpally, they allegedly snatched the guns after throwing dirt at the officers and escaped from the clutches. A few minutes later, they died in an exchange of fire.
They also mentioned the specifications and operation of the guns, the position of the safety switch and even the statement of a ballistics expert who said “it is not possible for an untrained person to identify the ‘safety switch’ and then fire the weapon”. It is also inconceivable that within a short period of time, as police claim, the deceased suspects snatched the weapons, cocked the gun and used it to shoot, it reads.
“For all these reasons, it must be considered that the deceased suspects could not have fired these pistols and in fact did not fire the pistols.”
Also, once they escape and start running, it would be highly unlikely that they would shoot the police group while running. “They would run away or start shooting at the police group. As stated above, it is not possible that the deceased suspects used the firearms. Even if they could use firearms, their goal would only be to escape. They will not stand up and get into a firefight with the police. Therefore, it must be considered that the deceased suspects could not have fired and fled simultaneously,” the report read.
He further stated that a version was researched to be projected that Jollu Naveen and Jollu Shiva may have died from the indiscriminate shots of Arif and Chennakeshavulu. “This version is rendered untenable. Forensic reports show the wounds were caused by ‘high velocity copper jacketed bullets’ and ballistics expert evidence shows the 9MM pistol bullets allegedly torn from the deceased suspects are not ‘high-velocity bullets’ whereas the bullets from AK-47s and two SLRs wielded by the police party are ‘high-velocity’ bullets,” committee members said in their 383-page report.
He said that all the suspects died from the wounds caused by the bullets fired by the police group and it cannot be believed that they (the suspects) opened fire on the police group. After examining all the elements in the file, the members conclude that the four accused did not commit any offense such as seizing the weapons, trying to escape from police custody, assaulting and shooting the group of police officers. . He even stated that they suspected that they had been shot deliberately with the intention of causing their death and with the knowledge that the shots would invariably result in their death.