HC tells prosecutionto come prepared Yogita Thakre case

NAGPUR: "Six months have elapsed and what are your findings," asked Justice A P Lavande of Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court displeased by
apparent lack of progress in Yogita Thakre death case. Justices Lavande and P V Varale were hearing the petition about the case and seemed unhappy with replies of the government pleader Nitin Sambre. They finally adjourned the proceedings for Friday urging Sambre to come prepared with the required details along with senior police official who may have adequate knowledge about the investigation so far. Sambre had to face a barrage of queries from the bench.

"Is it suicidal, accidental or homicidal?" asked Justice Lavande during the argument on supposed unnatural death of seven-year-old Yogita, whose body was found in a car parked inside the premises of the state BJP president Nitin Gadkari in May. "What is the cause of the death? Investigation has to go in that direction," Lavande continued. Sambre, who had a tough time before the bench, would often face the next one before he could furnish specific replies to the previous query. Justice Lavande categorically wanted to know whether a medical expert's views were taken to ascertain the cause of death. The court also pointed out that it is crucial to ascertain the cause of death to rule out whether the victim died there or her body was planted inside the car.

Yogita, youngest daughter of Vimal and Ashok, was found dead under mysterious circumstances. There were injuries on her body and abrasion marks with clotted blood on the genitals. Kotwali police, which had initially registered the matter as accidental death, later added the sections of 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (murder and destruction of evidence). The prosecution, however, soon switched back to accidental death theory and has been saying it was negligence and accidental suffocation that caused it.

The bench, which seemed to be keen on detailed replies on the certain issues like fitness of the car's lock, specifically asked Sambre whether owner of the car was asked about the 'malfunction of the lock' and also noted the delay of 22 days since the incident on behalf of the investigating agency to record his statement.

Some of Sambre's replies attracted remarks like 'It cannot be digested' by the bench. The court, while pulling up the prosecution, asked who was the investigating agency and under whose supervision the probe was being conducted. Interestingly, court also observed that it was quite unusual for a driver to have left the car unattended when its locks were not dependable. Justice Varale observed at this point how could a girl get inside at the first instance when the locks were malfunctioning. The government pleader, however, contended that he had required documents from the Regional Transport Office to support his argument.

Senior inspector R A Taide, in-charge of Kotwali police station, was present at the court. His predecessor R M Katole, now posted at Malegaon, had registered the case.