scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeReportWho killed Pradyuman? Connecting the dots of the deepening Ryan murder mystery

Who killed Pradyuman? Connecting the dots of the deepening Ryan murder mystery

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Two probe agencies, same witnesses, same evidence, wildly different conclusions: ThePrint tries to make sense of the Ryan International School murder.

Gurugram Police case file: 8 September 2017, 8 am

Bus conductor Ashok Kumar drops the kids off at the ground of Ryan International School, Bhondsi, and enters the washroom to relieve himself. Feeling an urge to masturbate, he sits on a commode with its seat down, without bothering to bolt the toilet door. At that moment, a class 2 student, Pradyuman, enters and spots Ashok in the act. On finding Pradyuman alone, Ashok tries to sodomise him. When he resists, Ashok pulls out from his pocket a knife he had bought for his use from Agra, and slits Pradyuman’s throat twice. The first time incising a 18×2 cm wound, extending from mid anterior neck to right ear, cutting through the superficial scalp tissue, just 6 cm below the chin, which instantly ruptures the subcutaneous tissue, strap muscles, trachea, food pipe. Ashok inflicts another cut, this time a 12×2 cm wound, seen 2 cm below injury number 1.

After killing Pradyuman, Ashok goes out and washes his hands and shirt at the water cooler to wipe off the blood. Meanwhile, a class 11 student goes inside the toilet and sees Pradyuman’s body. He immediately rushes out and informs the gardener. Following this, he returns to his class for an exam.

CBI case file: 8 September 2017, 8 am

Bus conductor Ashok Kumar drops the kids off at the ground of Ryan International School, Bhondsi, and enters the washroom to relieve himself. Meanwhile, a class 11 student meets Pradyuman in the school corridor. He asks Pradyuman to help him. Pradyuman agrees and accompanies him to the washroom. The juvenile holds Pradyuman from his shoulders, turns him around and slits his throat twice. The first time incising a 18×2 cm wound, extending from mid anterior neck to right ear, cutting through the superficial scalp tissue, just 6 cm below the chin, which instantly ruptures the subcutaneous tissue, strap muscles, trachea, food pipe. He inflicts another cut, this time a 12×2 cm wound, seen 2 cm below injury number 1.

Pradyuman falls on his knees, bleeding profusely and vomiting blood. He is unable to shout as his vocal cord is already ruptured. The juvenile then rushes out of the washroom and informs the gardener about Pradyuman vomiting blood. The gardener subsequently informs a teacher nearby. The teacher, after seeing Pradyuman’s body on the floor, comes out and asks Ashok, who is washing his hands at the water cooler, to help put Pradyuman in the car so that he can be taken to the hospital. When Ashok picks Pradyuman’s body, his shirt gets stained. The teacher asks Ashok to wash off the blood. Ashok washes off his shirt at the water cooler, while the teacher rushes Pradyuman to the hospital. Ashok joins other conductors in the parking area.’

One murder, two investigating agencies, two theories, both contradictory. The characters are the same, as are the witnesses, as is the evidence. The question, too, remains the same: who killed seven-year-old Pradyuman Thakur at Ryan International School in Gurugram? The only difference is the chain of events, and thus, the conclusion drawn by the two agencies.

While the Gurugram Police maintained they had enough evidence to prove Ashok guilty and even file the charge sheet in the case within seven days of his arrest, the CBI says it was the class 11 student who committed the murder.

A missing CCTV clip, and two knives

For the Gurugram Police, the key piece of evidence was a 7.5-minute-long piece of CCTV footage, which was accessed a few hours after the murder. It showed Ashok next to the water cooler washing hands. On the basis of this footage, the police picked him up for questioning, and later arrested him on the same day.

However, when the CBI went through the footage, it also accessed a seven-second clip, showing Pradyuman with the juvenile, something the Gurugram Police had ignored. The CBI concluded that the juvenile took Pradyuman to the bathroom and executed the murder, while Ashok was already out by then. After that, the juvenile is seen in the footage pacing around the corridor restlessly.

Sushil Tekriwal, Pradyuman’s father’s counsel, argued: “The CCTV footage clearly substantiates that the timing of the juvenile and Ashok going inside the washroom was different. Also, that Ashok stained his shirt while putting Pradyuman in the car.”

He adds: “It is also a fact that the juvenile is seen in a restless position, roaming around the crime scene, which is a strong indicator of his involvement in the murder.”

Second, it is still unclear whether the knife used in the crime was recovered from Ashok’s possession, or from the commode in the washroom. The Gurugram Police earlier said they had recovered the knife from Ashok, and that he had bought it from Agra a few days ago. They said Ashok had kept it in a toolbox in the bus, and took it to the washroom to clean it.

However, when the statements of witnesses were recorded, the bus driver denied having any knife in the toolbox. Also, the police were unable to substantiate from where in Agra Ashok bought the knife. The police later changed their stance, and said the knife was found inside the commode of the washroom. If that was true, which knife was recovered from Ashok’s possession? The CBI, until now, has not clarified where the weapon was recovered from.

The class 11 student, apprehended in connection with the Pradyuman murder case
The class 11 student, apprehended in connection with the Pradyuman murder case, being produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in Gurugram | PTI

Unclear motive

“The motive that the Gurugram Police concocted was baffling. There was no DNA, no semen, no blood report to establish that Pradyuman was sexually assaulted; it was immediately ruled out during the post-mortem and by forensics. Still, they maintained the same theory. As they were unable to establish the motive, it raised strong doubts about their investigation being credible,” Tekriwal said.

Later, as the CBI took over the case, it concluded that the juvenile allegedly killed Pradyuman as he wanted to get his exams postponed, a theory which was challenged by the juvenile’s counsel, Sandeep Aneja.

“He (juvenile) had taken an exam the previous day. On the day of the murder, too, he took an exam. Can a child who has committed a barbaric murder write an exam just after that?” Aneja asked.

Wavering witnesses

The gardener who said that he saw Ashok washing his blood-stained clothes and slippers at the water cooler became the Gurugram Police’s prime witness in the case. A teacher, along with two more students, also said that they saw Ashok near the washroom.

On the contrary, after the CBI took over the case and recorded statements of the same witnesses, their stance changed. The gardener told investigators that there was no blood on Ashok’s shirt when he was washing his hands at the water cooler. The teacher, too, seconded that, saying he stained his shirt while lifting Pradyuman to take him to the car.

The witnesses told the CBI that their statements were tweaked to suit the line of investigation by the Gurugram Police, just as Ashok was compelled to confess to a crime he may not have committed.

Also read: In photos: Pradyuman’s parents hold on to fleeting memories 

Gurugram Police’s defence

“Whenever an investigation into a crime is carried out, there are certain leads that the investigator works on. It may or may not reach its logical conclusion. It is not for the first time it has happened that a person who may earlier appear to be a suspect or is arrested, is discharged later,” Sandeep Khirwar, Gurugram Police Commissioner told ThePrint.

“In Pradyuman’s case, we were at a very initial stage of investigation, in which we had leads suggesting that it was Ashok who killed the child. We never concluded the investigation from our side. We made the arrest, which was an initial step, but the investigation was still on,” he added.

“I wonder why the media is making this case a Gurugram Police-versus-the-CBI when that’s not the case. In fact, we were the ones who suggested that the case be transferred to the CBI, since Pradyuman’s father was not satisfied with the investigation by the local police. We handed over the entire case file to the CBI.”

Two confessions, two retractions

Buddhi kharab ho gayi thi. Hosh nahin raha. Galti ho gayi.” (I had lost my mind. I had lost my wits. I made a mistake.)

This is the confession statement of Ashok recorded by the Gurugram Police. He, however, retracted soon after the probe was handed over to the CBI. During questioning, Ashok told the CBI that the theory was concocted by the Gurugram Polwice, and he was made to rehearse it several times before he could say it in proper sequence. He alleged he was beaten up mercilessly, not given food, and was not allowed to sleep until he confessed.

“After I lifted Pradyuman and put him in the car, his blood stained my shirt, so I went to wash it. I then went back where the buses are parked. After some time, the police came and started questioning everyone. They asked me a few questions as well and I answered but later they took me with them,” Ashok said.

“They told me that I have killed the boy and will have to confess it. They instructed me to tell the court that I slit the boy’s throat twice.”

Lying on a cot at his house in Ghamroj village, Ashok, who is now out on bail, recalled: “They suspended me upside down with a rope and thrashed me. They beat me up with canes and refused to give water. I had no option but to confess.”

Suffering from high fever and body ache, Ashok has had to be admitted to hospital.

Ashok Kumar after being released on bail
Accused bus conductor Ashok Kumar after being released on bail

Asked about the allegations of Ashok being beaten up in custody and made to confess under duress, police commissioner Khirwar said: “If that is true, then appropriate action will be taken against the ones responsible. The case is still to be charge sheeted and we should wait until it reaches it logical conclusion.”

The juvenile, too, recorded his confession before CBI investigators and his father. “I made a mistake. I killed the boy,” he told the CBI.

The confession was, however, countered by his father, who alleged that he was made to do so under duress. “When a 16-year-old is cornered by four men from the CBI and is thrashed, what can a child do if not confess?” the juvenile’s father told ThePrint.

“When I met him at the correction home, he cried and told me that he had not killed Pradyuman. He told me how terrified he was, and how he confessed under pressure.”

‘Evidence’ against the juvenile

Sources in the CBI said they zeroed in on the juvenile just three days after the probe was handed over to them on 14 September. They closely observed the CCTV footage, inspected the crime scene, and monitored the movement of students near the washroom. The investigators checked the academic record of the juvenile and spoke to teachers about him.

“We were told that he often picked fights at school, and had behavioural issues,” a CBI investigator said.

Dismissing the CBI’s claims, the juvenile’s counsel Aneja said the probe agency did not have any forensic evidence to prove its case. “There was no blood on the juvenile’s shoes or clothes. Is it possible to kill someone and not have even a drop of blood on you?” he asked.

However, Pradyuman’s counsel responded to this by saying: “Since the juvenile slit Pradyuman’s throat from behind, the spurt of blood was in the other direction, and did not spill on him. Pradyuman was wearing his bag, which extended two inches towards the right and left, covering his back. When the juvenile held him from behind, the bag was between them, which protected him,” Tekriwal said.

Sources in the CBI claimed that the juvenile reached 30 minutes late for his exam, and did not attempt a single question.

They also alleged that the juvenile had searched “how to remove fingerprints”, on Google.

Popular pianist, aspiring judge

“He has always secured grade A in conduct,” the juvenile’s father said, producing his report cards and certificates.

Popular for his music, the juvenile was a star pianist at school. Each time the Pintos (founders of the Ryan group of institutions) visited, he was asked to perform. “Even though he did not wish to stay back for rehearsals, his teachers insisted, as he was the only one who knew the piano that well. He won many competitions for the school,” the father said.

“I wonder how the CBI claims that he was weak in studies and undergoing some treatment. They are cooking up stories to justify the arrest.”

The father told ThePrint that he had never received any complaint of misconduct from the school, even in a recent parent-teacher meeting. “If my son carried a knife to school, or poison, then why did the teacher not make a note in his diary? Also, when my wife attended a recent parent-teacher meeting, why did no one mention this?”

Alleging that the CBI was ruining his son’s career, he said: “He wanted to be a judge. They have ruined his life now. I do not know if I will be able to prove his innocence, ever.”

What next?

Ashok was granted bail after no evidence was found against him in connection with the murder, so the Gurugram Police’s theory seems to have a big hole. Until now, the CBI has also based its arguments only on circumstantial evidence, and is yet to file a charge sheet.

“Although we have not found any incriminating evidence against Ashok, he has not yet been given a clean chit. Details of all evidence against the juvenile will be mentioned in the charge sheet when compiled. Reports from the forensics department are also awaited,” a CBI spokesperson said.

Will the CBI be able to prepare a watertight charge sheet or will gaps remain, leaving it to be yet another unsolved murder mystery? It’s anybody’s guess.

Photos by Nayanika Chatterjee

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

2 COMMENTS

  1. Why entire authority is Ignoring a Bath room picture showing a very big opening, wherein a culprit can easilty come in execute a crime and escape since bath room is in ground floor. as every one is aware all places now have camera fixed.
    In any murder case.. why authority is not making it as critical about dressing up of the crime scene…It happened both in Arushi Murder case as well as this case. The Police should begin its investigation by arresting all those who involved in dress-up scene…….as it is a common knowledge to any one that touching dressing up crime scene is equivalent to murder. Why no investigation has ever used sniffer dogs to track the culprit.

    • Yea you are right buddy probably smarter than the CBI you are u should join them.
      Fucking loser lol and wtf will the dog sniff?? Dimwit

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular