Nishka Srinivas Veluvali –
Published On: November 25, 2021 at 20:00 IST
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed its chargesheet in the death of Dhanbad Judge Uttam Anand.
The chargesheet is filed against 2 accused men namely Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma with the Section 302 (Murder), 201 (Dissapearence of evidence of an offence) and 34 (Criminal acts done by severel persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Central Agency asserted that the two Accused “Had been looking for a chance to execute the plan.”
Nevertheless, the Central Agency is yet to provide details of the motive of the thief Rahul Verma and accomplice Lakhan Verma.
The Accused were arrested on July 29, a day after Uttam Anand was rammed by a three – wheeler. CCTV footage of the incident showed that the vehicle suddenly steered towards 49 year old, Judge Uttam Anand who was walking on the street and ran over him. (SC asks CJ of Jharkhand HC to weekly monitor CBI probe in Judge Uttam Anand Death Case)
The Central Agency had filed the Chargesheet on October 20 in Dhanbad Court.
The Forensic Evidence by Dr. Harsh Pathak of KEM Hospital Mumbai , proves that Mr. Anand died due to skull injury which was caused due to the hit of yellow edge of the auto rickshaw.
After gaining permission from Court Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma were taken for forensic psychological assessment, polygraph test and layered voice analysis in Delhi laboratory.
The Investigation Agency claimed that the autorickshaw driver was in a good psychological state of mind when the incident took place as he was able to control the vehicle skilfully, as showed in the CCTV footage.
Furthermore, the Agency stated that Lakhan Verma and Rhul Verma had stolen the three – wheeler and they erased the registration number from both the number plates as the vehicle cannot be identified.
“Upon hitting the Judge the driver did not slow down the vehicle to check the condition of Mr.Anand, which proves that this hit was intentional and not accidental,” the Agency submitted to the Court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation stated that the responses of the two men were “Deceptive in most of the issues which indicates their active involvement in the crime under investigation.”