Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: contract killers in Vishal Lalchand Soni vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 December, 2018Matching Fragments
4 It is the prosecution case that the accused committed murder of Priyanka (wife of accused no.3) on the 5 th day after their marriage. It is alleged that parents of accused no.3 had not approved marriage of their son with the deceased and thus, they hired accused no.2 who is contract killer. After causing her murder at the BDD chawl in the house of the accused nos.1,3 and 4, body was cut into three pieces and thrown at three different places. It is alleged that the present applicant was keeping watch by standing on the road outside the house where the incident has taken place. Incident had taken place in the evening on 4.5.2017. The neighbours whose statements were recorded on 17.5.2017 stated in their statements that they had seen one unknown person standing on the road and the accused no.2 was (contract killer) frequenting from the house of the deceased to the said person who was standing on the road. It 904-ABA-2064-2018.odt is alleged that after cutting the body into three pieces, same were removed in the Santro car owned by the applicant herein. 5 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence on record to show that person who was standing outside the house where the incident has taken place as alleged was not the present applicant because no test identification parade was held by the prosecution. He further submits that he was not present on the scene of offence. He further submits that accused no.2 who is his friend had asked for his car and, therefore, it appears car was used for commission of offence alleged.
6 I have gone through the charge-sheet. The learned APP brought to my notice the Call Detail Records of the applicant and the accused no.2-Contract Killer. These CDR report shows on the date of incident in the evening, both the applicants were within the tower location at Potdar Hospital, Worli which is near the place of the incident . This piece of evidence completely negates arguments of the 904-ABA-2064-2018.odt applicant's advocate.