This analysis was done to determine if there was poisoning or not.
Mumbai: Peter Mukerjea’s lawyer has raised questions over the reliability of AIIM professor Dr Sudhir Kumar Gupta’s testimony. According to him, Dr Gupta did not conduct any test and hence, could not produce measurements of the skull that was recovered from Pen.
Advocate Shrikant Shivde, on behalf of Peter Mukerjea, cross-examined Dr Gupta and tried to show that his testimony was not credible. Dr Gupta had submitted a report confirming that the skull recovered from the site was that of Sheena Bora.
During cross-examination, Dr Gupta said that while carrying out superimposition of the skull – recovered from an abandoned place in Pen – his department took measurements without noting them down and hence, the same could not be produced before the court.
However, advocate Shivde claimed that Dr Gupta had no expertise and had prepared his report blindly relying on other reports as directed by the CBI to suit their case. Advocate Shivde further claimed that the witness had not conducted any test on the skull and hence was unable to produce its measurements.
The witness, too, accepted that as per documents produced before the court, the bone, hair, skin and tooth were preserved for the toxicology analysis but the report was still awaited. This analysis was done to determine if there was poisoning or not.
According to the prosecution, prime accused Indrani Mukerjea, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and her former driver, who has turned approver, strangulated Sheena Bora in a car at Bandra in 2012. However, the defence lawyer thoroughly examined the witness to ascertain whether traces of poison were found in the body parts or not.