Interrogation Marks

Has the Delhi Police cracked the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case as some of its senior officers are claiming? Legal experts point out that unless there is material evidence to corroborate the reported 'revelations' made by suspended Haryana IGP R.K. Sharma during interrogation, the probe may not be complete. The official version is that the police has solved the case and that there is sufficient evidence to nail Sharma. But lawyers point out that there are far too many unanswered questions.

Last week, a confident Delhi Police—satisfied with Sharma's interrogation—decided not to press for the extension of his police remand before a city court. Subsequently, he was remanded to two weeks judicial custody at Delhi's Tihar jail. The police told the court that Sharma had confessed to the crime and that he had given vital leads which would support the chargesheet in the murder case.

This is the police side of the story. And it is this official version that has added to the confusion over the actual progress made in the case. In fact, the open-ended statements made by the Delhi Police and the unconfirmed, often contradictory media leaks made during and after Sharma's police custody leave enough room for various interpretations. It doesn't come as a surprise then that Sharma's counsel have described the police statements about his confession as "farcical".

They cite the example of the press conference called by the police on the same day that R.K. Sharma was remanded to judicial custody. The Delhi Police announced that the suspended IG had confessed to the crime, that Sharma had admitted to his role in the murder before an investigator during interrogation. However, the police remained silent on whether Sharma had signed a statement to this effect.

Legal experts point out that the police know best that confessions made during police remand have no legal sanctity. Observes Supreme Court lawyer Vrinda Grover: "The confession by an accused before a police officer has no evidence value. It cannot be read against the accused unless leading to the discovery of a fact or of material evidence." Sharma's counsel have already contested the police claim in court. Mohit Mathur, one of his lawyers, alleges that Sharma was coerced to sign certain statements and that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank sheets of paper during the police remand. "These are involuntary statements and are not admissible in court," he says.

Extracting confessions when a suspect is in police remand is no achievement. Criminal lawyers say that it is not uncommon that an accused confesses to a crime in police custody fearing third-degree interrogation or simply because he knows a confession will put an end to his ordeal in the lock-up. The confession can always be retracted or totally rejected before a court on grounds of having been made under duress.

Lawyers point out that the Delhi Police cannot be that naive to believe that they have been able to trap a top ips officer like Sharma with something as inconsequential as a confession in police custody. Says criminal lawyer I.U. Khan, "Whatever the Delhi Police is saying is good for influencing public opinion. It will appear that the police have accomplished something." Rights lawyer Nitya Ramakrishnan says that a certain degree of reticence is called for by the police and, in fact, even the media in the Shivani case. She is critical of the fact that "extra-legal nonsense" is being debated and discussed no end in the media.

Confession apart, there are other loose ends too. The police is yet to identify the motive behind Shivani's murder. In the recent past itself, they came up with two versions. In the sessions court, the Delhi Police maintained that Shivani was blackmailing Sharma by threatening to implicate him in a rape case.However, while contesting Sharma's anticipatory bail application in the high court, the police said that Shivani was threatening Sharma on the basis of some incriminating documents against him in her possession. This goes to show that nearly four years after the murder, the investigating authorities are still to zero in on the exact motive even though all the alleged conspirators are in custody.

Similarly, Sharma's role in the murder is still not conclusively clear. Earlier, Sharma was being projected as the mastermind who contracted the murder. Now the police say that Sharma during interrogation divulged "material information" regarding his involvement in the conspiracy. The police no longer describe him as the main conspirator. On similar lines, first it was maintained that more than one person went inside Shivani's flat and killed her. Now, the police say there was just one killer—Pradeep Sharma.

The Delhi Police also claims it has material evidence which will only be revealed in the chargesheet. But among the important evidence listed before the court as key to the investigations, some items are yet to be recovered. These include the camera that was stolen from Shivani's residence and her gold chain. The authorities have, however, managed to lay their hands on the cellphone of Sri Bhagwan and the two cars used in the execution of the murder.

Meanwhile, efforts are reportedly on to pressurise Sharma. The attachment of his property was one such tactic used while Sharma was absconding. The suspended IG's counsel have already moved the court for release of the property since he has surrendered. The police is also investigating into Sharma's financial deals. His role in real estate dealings in Gurgaon is also being probed.

As of now, Sharma's counsel have contested all the claims made by the police. The Delhi Police, in its own right, is not disclosing future strategy. So far, the contradictory media reports and even deliberate leaks have served its purpose. But hopefully, when the case comes up before the court, things will become clearer and the present air of confusion will dispel.