New Delhi: An e-mail alleging that the skeletal remains of Sheena Bora were not missing as previously claimed by the Central Bureau of Investigation earlier, and a U-turn by the agency soon after about the location of the remains — the revelations at a Mumbai trial court Wednesday added new twists to the already controversial Sheena Bora murder case, raising doubts on the credibility of CBI’s probe.
In the morning session of the hearing, the trial court informed lawyers about an e-mail from the brother of a forensic expert who had examined the skeletal remains, and was a witness in the murder case, alleging that the expert was in cahoots with the accused, and had bought properties abroad.
The e-mail claimed that the “missing” skeletal remains were with the forensic expert, who was testifying as a witness in the case. It also mentioned an ongoing civil dispute between the forensic expert and her brother. This came months after the CBI had said in court in April that the first skeletal remains were “untraceable”. It had reiterated the claim in June.
However, hours after the court told the defence counsel about the e-mail, the prosecution asked for an afternoon session, seeking time for further instructions, according to Indrani Mukerjea’s lawyer Ranjeet Sangle.
“Two hours later, the CBI prosecutor informed us that the bones have been traced to the CBI malkhana in New Delhi. The court directed the agency to look into the matter and file a report. The next hearing in the case is on 30 July,” Sangle told ThePrint.
The defence lawyers for all the accused — Indrani and her former husbands, Peter Mukherjea and Sanjeev Khana — asked for action against the person who sent the e-mail accusing the forensic expert.
“How is it that the bones that had gone missing for three months were immediately found two hours after the e-mail was received?” Sangle remarked.
The disappearance of the skeletal remains had come to light on the day of recording of the forensic expert’s testimony from Mumbai’s JJ Hospital in April.
It was then that special public prosecutor C.J. Nandode had said that despite “diligent search, the articles referred (bones)” that were examined by the expert could not be traced.
According to the CBI, Indrani had conspired and killed Sheena Bora because she was furious over her relationship with Peter Mukherjea’s son Rahul Mukerjea. Indrani had introduced Sheena as her sister.
Sheena had reportedly been missing since April 2012, and Indrani was arrested three years later in 2015 over charges of killing her daughter, hours after the arrest of her driver. Her former husband Khanna was also arrested in Kolkata the next day. Peter was also later named as an accused by the CBI and arrested.
Also Read: ‘Unhappy’ father who killed & buried his newborn female twins, arrested. Wished for a male child
Not part of evidence
In 2012, the bones were recovered by the Pen Police and sent for forensic examination. Forensic experts had, however, said that the bones from 2012 did not match the samples, including teeth and hair, exhumed in 2015 from a village in Raigad.
Forensic experts at BYL Nair Charitable Hospital had also submitted a report expressing doubts that the samples might have got mixed up.
In 2019, a forensic expert had said in court that the study of the 2015 samples had revealed that the age of the deceased female was between 21 and 25 years.
That year, another prosecution witness, a forensic expert, had also said that the DNA from the samples of the femur bone and cervical vertebrae from 2015 matched the DNA profile of Indrani.
The following year, a Forensic Sciences professor from Banaras Hindu University had deposed before the court that “digital superimposition” had concluded that the skull recovered in 2015 was a “100 percent match” with Sheena Bora’s “smiling” photographs.
Indrani, however, has always maintained that the prosecution’s claim that the bones found in 2012 were Sheena’s is false and that her daughter is alive.
“The 2012 skeletal remains hadn’t matched with the 2015 remains that were exhumed. The forensic experts also opined that even the sex, the age, and the time and cause of death of the bones recovered in 2012 remained inconclusive,” Sangle, her lawyer, said.
Special prosecutor Nandode had told the court that the prosecution wanted to proceed without citing the bones on record. The prosecution has so far maintained that these articles — bones — are not part of evidence as they have not been referred to in the chargesheet.
The deposition of the forensic expert, who allegedly possessed the skeletal remains as alleged in the e-mail, was, however, recorded and completed after the court observed that the submission of the bones was not necessary since the prosecution had not relied on them.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: 18-yr-old arrested for stabbing a man in Delhi after his friend was crushed under a water tanker