Gandhi murder
Phadnis had sought an inquiry on the grounds that evidence pointing at the involvement of foreign agency, Force 136, had been overlooked.
Phadnis also alleged there was a larger conspiracy to kill Gandhi. He further wanted the investigation to clear the name of right wing ideologue Vinayak Damodar ‘Veer’ Savarkar, who he claimed, was unfairly named in the report of the JL Kapur Commission set up to investigate the assassination. Sharan said that a perusal of the records of the case established that no foreign agency was involved in the killing. He said the petitioner’s claim that the British influenced the investigation and the trial have not been substantiated in any manner and are mere “surmises.” “There is no documentary evidence in contemporary literature to prove that, there even existed such a secret service by the name of ‘Force 136’ and that, it was mandated to carry out the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. Thus, any reliance upon such theories would be unwarranted,” Sharan said in the report. The lawyer said no evidentiary value can be given to the petitioner’s submission that the assassin Nathuram Godse was apprehended by a Central Intelligence Agency agent , Herbert Reiner at the place of the killing. Phadnis had also claimed that someone other than Godse had shot Gandhi.
Sharan dismissed this and all other contentions in the petition. He said there was no evidence to establish that a mysterious person other than Nathuram Godse had shot at Gandhi. He thrashed the theory that it was a “fourth” bullet fired by a mysterious person that took Gandhi’s life.
In the report, Sharan cited the inquest report prepared by the then additional civil surgeon of Irwin Hospital that showed that only three bullets had been fired. Even the witnesses who recorded their statement during trial suggested only three shots were fired by the sole assailant, Godse, he added. Phadnis said he had not seen Sharan’s report but had heard that he told the court there was no proof to back the claim made in the petition. “But it has to be kept in mind that evidence is of two types — evidence that helps investigation and another is prosecutable evidence. So I do not know what the amicus is pointing to.” On the role of Savarkar, Sharan said there was no definitive finding with respect to his role in the assassination. His acquittal by the trial court was never challenged before the High Court. On the Kapur Commission’s remarks against Sarvarkar, Sharan said that the leader of the Hindutva group was not alive at the time to defend himself before the panel.
While asking Sharan to assist in the case, the top court had raised apprehensions about whether it was “wise and legal” to reopen the case. It agreed to examine it despite questioning the maintainability of the petition. Phadnis, according to the website of Abhinav Bharat, has written several books (and also posits that 15 August 1947 was not the actual date of India’s independence) .