While investigating the death of Dhanbad Extra Court Judge Uttam Anand, the CBI is seeking prosecutions for two men who it claims hit him with an auto rickshaw while he was out for a morning walk in July this year.
The CBI, which filed an indictment in the Dhanbad court on October 20, argued that one of the two defendants, “Rahul Kumar Verma is a professional thief who continues to seek vulnerable targets,” that he and his alleged accomplice Lakhan Verma were “looking for a chance to get things done.” … But he is silent about the “plan”. It also does not indicate the motives of the crime.
The CBI – the evidence was taken after the indictment was filed – said the “willful” and “willful” battering ram caused “severe bodily injury” which was “enough” in the “normal” order to cause the death of ASJ.
“… After the theft of the auto rickshaw, both defendants drove in the direction of Baliyapur, where the license plate of the stolen auto rickshaw was removed from the back, and the number written on the front side was wiped to hide the identity of the auto rickshaw… Both continued to roam the car. isolated the territory for a while, and then they left, ”the CBI said.
In the morning, “when both defendants were in the rickshaw and heading towards Giridi via Randhir Verma Chowk, the car hit the deceased judge at 5.08.30. Rahul Kumar Verma is a professional thief who continues to look for vulnerable targets and also takes money in advance to steal items for his friends, ”the CBI said.
A.S.J. Anand was out for a morning walk shortly after 5 a.m. on July 28, when an auto-rickshaw – this was filmed by a video surveillance system that turned on an empty road – knocked him off his feet. He died from his injuries at about 9 am. Dhanbad police investigated and arrested two of the accused, residents of Dhanbad. The police later referred the case to the CBI, which re-registered the case.
The CBI reported that forensic crime scene profiling based on CCTV footage was carried out by experts from the Gandhinagar Forensic Science Administration.
“Judge Uttam Anand jogged casually, which meant he was not afraid of anyone. The auto-rickshaw driver was closely following Uttam Anand, indicating that the driver, along with another person, was chasing and looking for an opportunity to carry out the plan. After the collision, the driver did not slow down or stop the auto-rickshaw to see the victim’s physical condition, which is otherwise a normal reflex action by the driver after the impact. Therefore, it looks like the auto rickshaw driver is targeting Uttam Anand, ”the CBI said, citing experts.
“After hitting the rickshaw goes straight, and the cyclist is between them, the driver of the auto rickshaw moves the rickshaw slightly and overtakes the cyclist without hitting him. So it looks like the auto-rickshaw driver was in a good mental state in which he could drive his vehicle in terms of speed, alignment, brakes, etc. He was in a healthy state of mind in which he saved the cyclist from an accident. … So this incident seems to be planned and deliberate. It seems that this is not an accident, ”said the CBI.
Dr. Harish Pathak, professor and head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at KEM Hospital, Mumbai, and his team, according to the CBI, said: “… the injury to the left skull was likely caused by a yellow dent in the rim of the auto rickshaw. … And the same (individually or in the aggregate) is enough to cause death in the normal course of nature. The injury sustained on the right side of the skull was probably caused by hitting the ground after hitting the auto rickshaw at a speed of 23 km / h, and the same (single or collective) is enough to cause death in the normal way. nature.”
According to CBI, Dr. Patak and his team were of the opinion that the collision incident was not accidental, but deliberate.
The agency reported that the two defendants were subjected to forensic psychological assessments, forensic analysis of statements, polygraph test, multi-level voice analysis by CFSL Delhi experts after receiving permission from the court.
The responses of Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma, according to the CBI, were deemed “deceptive on most issues, indicating their active participation in the crime under investigation.”