The Special NIA Court has struck down the contentions made by the defence advocate representing Sudhakar Dhardiwedi, who had claimed that ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar—the investigating officer in the case—was instructed to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat but refused to do so as he found no evidence of Bhagwat’s involvement in the case. The court clarified that Mujawar had made such statements not before this court, but before the Magistrate’s Court in Solapur.
Mujawar's Statements Not Admissible as Evidence
According to the defence, Mujawar was allegedly directed to arrest Mr. Mohan Bhagwat (RSS Chief) and take him into custody. However, he reportedly refused to carry out what he believed to be an illegal order, as he found no role of Bhagwat in the alleged offence. As a result, the ATS allegedly implicated Mujawar in a false case that was filed before the Learned Magistrate at Solapur.
No Witness Examination Conducted by NIA Court
While considering this contention, the court stated that before addressing the point raised by Dhardiwedi’s advocate, it was necessary to examine the evidence on record concerning ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar. ACP Mohan Kulkarni, a witness in the case, denied during cross-examination the suggestion that Mujawar was sent to detain a senior RSS office bearer. However, he admitted that Mujawar was sent to trace absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange.
“Kulkarni also denied the suggestion that Mujawar had publicly declared that the ATS had shot dead two persons. Hence, his name was not included in the list of witnesses filed along with the chargesheet,” the court noted.
“Mujawar was called to the NIA office, where he was questioned about his statements to the media and news agencies concerning the deaths of Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Thus, based on the available evidence, it can be concluded that he was a member of the ATS team and was investigating this case under instructions from his superior officers. An inquiry was indeed conducted regarding his public statements about the deaths of Kalsangra and Dange. However, his name does not appear on the list of witnesses, and he has not been examined before this court either by the prosecution or the defence,” the court concluded.
No Merit in Defence Plea, Rules Court
“It is necessary to mention that the application filed by the applicant (Mehboob Mujawar) was for an expeditious trial before the Magistrate of Solapur, which was considered by the concerned court. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC cannot be construed as evidence, as it was not recorded before this court. Furthermore, in support of those documents, he was not examined as a witness before this court. Merely placing some documents on record is not sufficient. They must be proved through cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness. Moreover, those documents reflect his defence before the particular court and not before this court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by accused Dhardiwedi,” the court observed in its order copy.
