|
Jan. 22: A week and two arrests later, police investigations into the murder of a 78-year-old woman in Santiniketan have left more questions unanswered than answered.
On January 14, the body of Bhowanipore resident Renu Sarkar was found on her bed in her first-floor apartment in Santiniketan’s Simanta Pally. The lock of the collapsible gate leading to the apartment had been broken but the wooden door beyond it was open. The police had said Sarkar, whose husband died in September last year, had been smothered to death with a pillow.
The caretaker, Ujjwal Tapadar, was initially detained for questioning but arrested the next day. The police claimed he had confessed to the killing. The motive, they said, was that Tapadar was trying to persuade her to sell a part of the land on which her house stood so that some real estate developers could build a lodge there.
The police even managed to produce his “confession” in court to drive home the point that he was the killer. The police said the crime was carried out by the caretaker with the help of some associates. Tapadar is now in jail and is likely to disown his “confession”, made in police custody.
However, four days later (on January 18), the police arrested Mangal Sahani, who has cases of theft against him. The police claimed that during interrogation, Mangal had “confessed” that he gone to steal at Sarkar’s apartment.
According to Mangal’s “confessional statement”, Sarkar had woken up and he had “had no choice but to hit her on her head with an iron rod and run”.
The police said that on Friday, they found an iron rod near Sarkar’s house.
Gangeshwar Singh, the inspector-general of police (western range), told The Telegraph yesterday: “Mangal has told us that he killed Sarkar during a theft attempt in her house. So now we have a picture of how and why the killing was carried out.”
Asked about Tapadar’s role, Singh said: “He may or may not have been involved in the murder. We are no longer sure. We are investigating.”
But the manner in which the investigation is being carried out and the persons arrested have thrown up a number of questions on the police’s mode of operation.
First, how is it that two people who do not know each other have “confessed” to the same crime, that too as serious as murder? Did they make their “confessions” under duress in police custody? Such instances are not unheard of and invariably the accused, once they are no longer in police custody, deny their “confessions” in court.
Second, why are the police suddenly “unsure” of Tapadar’s role in the murder after extracting a confession from him? Assistant public prosecutor Firoz Pal had said in court the day Tapadar was produced: “He and his associates murdered Sarkar. He has disclosed the names of his associates.” Mangal’s name was not on the list of Tapadar’s associates. The police have even said the two did not know each other.
Third, the police had said land and real estate were the motives for the murder. How is it that they changed tack so soon and claimed that a bungled robbery led to the killing? The police are no longer pursuing the real estate angle.
Fourth, if real estate was the reason for the murder, the local promoters would have first approached Sarkar with a proposal and, surely, she would have mentioned this to her son and daughter. But the children have said Sarkar had not spoken to them on the issue.
Fifth, if Mangal had entered Sarkar’s apartment with the intent of theft, how is it that nothing was stolen? The ornaments that Sarkar was wearing were intact. He could easily have removed them after striking her with an iron rod. After all, a person with several cases of theft against him would not have got frightened so easily, especially since the elderly lady was the only occupant of her portion of the house.
Sixth, why did the post-mortem not find any mark of grievous injury on Sarkar’s head if she had been struck with an iron rod? The report says she had a broken nose, which could be the result of smothering.
Seventh, cigarette and bidi butts had been found on the floor of the room, suggesting that more than one person was present at the time of the murder and the assailants had spent some time there. But Mangal’s account of the events, as claimed by the police, does not match the evidence.
Sources in the force suggested that the Bolpur police might have been a bit “eager” to make the arrests to “impress” their bosses and so might have acted “in haste”. Other than the “confessions”, the police don’t have any other important evidence.
“We’ll have to see what shape the case takes in court,” an official said. “Let us hope the police can gather enough evidence to back their contention.”
|
)
