Investigation leaves key questions unanswered

GURUGRAM: A week after an additional sessions judge’s wife was shot dead by his personal security officer (PSO), who also shot the judge’s son—now battling for his life—several questions key to the police probe in the case remain unanswered.

Within hours of the shooting, which took place in broad daylight at Arcadia market, Sector 49, the police arrested accused Mahipal Singh (32), who had been deputed with judge Krishan Kant since April 2017.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted to probe the matter, has said “the accused committed the crime in a fit of rage”, ruling out theories of harassment by the judge’s family, marital discord and religious motives.

On the day of the shooting, October 13, the police said the accused had claimed during questioning that he was “mentally disturbed”. The accused told the police that he was “possessed” by a spirit at the time he used his service revolver to shoot at Ritu Garg (38) and Dhruv (18).

The following day, the police released a statement that a medical examination confirmed that the accused was of stable mental health, and that reports of him being mentally unstable at the time of the incident were untrue. The accused was dismissed from service, and sent to judicial custody after four days of police remand.

While the SIT probe answered some questions, it also left many unanswered.

THE POLICE’S THEORY BEHIND THE MURDER

The police said the crime was not premeditated, and was “an act of rage” after the victims rebuked him for not being seen near the car. The victims had an argument with the PSO upon their return from the market.

The accused also had a tiff with the judge’s 18-year-old son over the car keys, before he took out his revolver and shot him. When his mother tried to intervene, the PSO shot her as well.

The police said that during questioning, the accused praised the judge. He had said he was treated well by the family and denied claims of him being harassed or asked to do menial chores by the Gargs.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Why was the PSO trying to drag the boy into the car after shooting him?

After the police watched videos, where Singh is seen trying to drag Dhruv into the car’s back seat, a police officer privy to the investigation said it seemed the accused was trying to destroy or remove evidence from the spot. Officials concurred with this theory, but said they had no concrete proof of the same.

The police said they are still investigating the matter, though the PSO has not given any statements about this. The police are, hence, unclear of the reason for the same. Was this act of his an attempt to destroy evidence? If he wanted to destroy evidence, why did he eventually leave the body there? Why didn’t he try to pick up Ritu’s body as well? Why did he not stop or threaten the people whom he saw making videos of the incident?

Why did the PSO call and inform the judge about the attack soon after the shooting?

Deputy commissioner of police (crime) Sumit Kuhar, on Wednesday, had said that it was unclear why the accused called the judge immediately after the shooting to inform him of what he had done.

According to the police, Singh said he informed the judge so he could rush to the spot and attend to his wife and son. But the accused’s family do not agree with this theory.

“Why would he call the judge immediately after the shooting? It is only when someone is taking revenge that the person informs that he’s done what he had challenged he would,” Dan Singh, the accused’s maternal uncle, said.

Why was the PSO in a market with the judge’s family instead of being with the judge?

The incident has raised several questions on the misuse of PSOs provided to senior officers.

In the video, Singh is seen driving the judge’s personal car and taking his family shopping at the time when the judge was in court.