Sessions Court in Mumbai acquits four men in 2013 Malwani death case

The sessions court in Mumbai has acquitted four people arrested for a murder in Malwani Malad in 2013 ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in the alleged assault of a suspected thief who later died in police custodyThe incidentTwelve years ago on March 5 three to four alleged thieves reportedly broke into SA Engineering a commercial workshop inside Malwanirsquos Jurassic Park premises by breaking the tin roof to commit theftFour people including two owners managed to nab one of the suspects while the others fled The accused immediately informed the Malwani Police about the incident following which Subinspector VK More dispatched a team to the spotThe detained suspected thief later identified as Javed Hajrat Ali was handed over to constables Ankush Bane and Ajit Jadhav and taken to the police station Later on the complaint of SA Engineeringrsquos owners Amarjeet Ramkishore Singh 56 and Vijay Singh 54 the police registered a case under sections 380 and 457 along with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 against AliAround 1030 am the next day Ali reportedly complained of abdominal pain and was shifted to Bhagwati Hospital where doctors declared him dead before admission Initially Malwani Police registered an accidental death casePostmortem and investigation findingsHowever Alirsquos postmortem revealed 83 injuries including abrasions on elbows chest ribs back and thighs Based on the inquest findings Subinspector Bhagwan Khare concluded that the accused had assaulted Ali before handing him to the policeThe police then booked four accused Singh Vijay and two other employees under Sections 342 302 and 34 of IPC All the four were arrested on March 19 2013As the death occurred in police custody the joint commissioner of police crime branch Mumbai transferred the investigation to Detection Crime Branch DCB Crime Investigation Department CID Unit 11 Following this Assistant Inspector Pradeep More rerecorded the statements of the police officers and other witnesses whom Inspector MP Pandharmise had earlier examined He also recorded new statements from a couple of more witnesses and PandharmiseDefencersquos argumentAdvocate Kalam Shaikh highlighted serious contradictions in the prosecutionrsquos case He said More testified that Javed was brought to the police station around 6 am and had no injuries except a single abrasion on his left elbow Javed remained in police custody from 6 am to 1030 am during which no complaint of assault was made The postmortem injuries did not align with the condition observed by police officers when he was produced before themShaikh argued that the injuries likely occurred after the police took custody and were not inflicted by the accusedCourt verdictAfter examining 17 witnesses and reviewing all the material evidence the sessions court held that the prosecution had failed to establish common intention or any direct assault by the four accused The court noted significant inconsistencies between the medical findings and the police testimoniesIn its judgment on November 28 the court ruled that the prosecution had not successfully proved the charges under the relevant sections of IPC 1860Consequently the accused were entitled to an acquittalCase timelineMarch 5 2013 Alleged theft committed and FIR registeredMay 28 2013 Charge sheet filed in the caseAugust 30 2015 Charges framed in the caseMarch 6 2015 Evidence presentedOctober 15 2025 Judgment reservedNovember 28 2025 Judgment deliveredTotal witnesses examined 17