2013 builder murder case: High court stays trial

1 ASSAILANT FIRED AT SUNIL KUMAR LOHARIYA, WHILE THE OTHER STRUCK HIS NECK WITH A SHARP OBJECT

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday temporarily stayed trial in the 2013 murder case of builder Sunil Kumar Lohariya till March 5.

A division bench of acting chief justice BP Dharmadhikari and justice NR Borkar passed the order on a petition filed by Lohariya’s son Sandeep, seeking transfer of the trial to another judge on the apprehension that the current judge was biased in favour of the accused.

On February 16, 2013, Lohariya was assaulted by two assailants outside his office. While one of them fired at him, the other struck his neck with a sharp object. The builder later died in hospital. According to investigators, the murder was the fallout of enmity between builders. Fourteen people are being tried in the case.

Sandeep approached the HC after his plea for transfer of the trial was rejected by the principal sessions judge, Thane, on

January 25.

In his petition, he said the trial is being conducted by the current judge since the third week of August 2019 and since then, the judge has hurriedly recorded the testimony of 31 witnesses.

As an example, he has pointed out that CCTV footage of the assault was required to be shown to an eyewitness, to enable the witness identify the two accused. The screen and other requisite accessories, software and technician are available in the court to play the footage, but the request of the special public prosecutor to play it before the witness was rejected without any cogent reasons.

“It is clear from the procedure adopted for recording of evidence that the judge is biased in favour of the accused,” stated his petition.

The petition also pointed out that one witness mentioned that he was threatened by Suresh Bijlani, one of the accused, but the statement was not taken on record by the judge. Instead, the witness was told to inform the police about the threat. The petition listed another instance, when on December 10, 2019, another witness was not willing to disclose his address, as he was scared of the accused, but this fact was not taken on record by the trial court.