Thursday, Oct 01, 2020 | Last Update : 12:48 AM IST

189th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra1351153104994735751 Andhra Pradesh6811616123005745 Tamil Nadu5863975307089383 Karnataka5824584697508641 Uttar Pradesh3908753312705652 Delhi2730982407035272 West Bengal2505802198444837 Odisha212609177585866 Telangana1872111564311107 Kerala179923121264698 Bihar178882164537888 Assam169985139977655 Gujarat1332191132403417 Rajasthan1288591077181441 Haryana1237821059901307 Madhya Pradesh117588932382207 Punjab107096840253134 Chhatisgarh9856566860777 Jharkhand7770964515661 Jammu and Kashmir69832495571105 Uttarakhand4533233642555 Goa3107125071386 Puducherry2548919781494 Tripura2412717464262 Himachal Pradesh136799526152 Chandigarh112128677145 Manipur9791760263 Arunachal Pradesh8649623014 Nagaland5768469311 Meghalaya5158334343 Sikkim2707199431 Mizoram178612880
  Metros   Mumbai  21 Jan 2020  Defence questions credibility of AIIM prof’s testimony

Defence questions credibility of AIIM prof’s testimony

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Jan 21, 2020, 2:19 am IST
Updated : Jan 21, 2020, 2:19 am IST

This analysis was done to determine if there was poisoning or not.

Sheena Bora
 Sheena Bora

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.

Tags: sheena bora