A Mumbai sessions court has closed a chapter on a three-decade-old crime saga, acquitting two men in a 1993 diamond robbery and abduction case. The verdict came on Tuesday, a staggering 32 years after the incident, primarily due to the death of the main witness—the victim himself—and the prolonged absence of the accused.
A Case Lost to Time and Absence
The court cleared Harishbhai Bedia and Laxmikant Kapkar of all charges related to the robbery and abduction that occurred on October 4, 1993. Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan R Navander pronounced the acquittal, highlighting the total absence of direct evidence in the matter. The trial against the duo proceeded in their absence as they had remained absconding for decades.
The judge explicitly stated, "...there is absolutely no evidence to connect both the absconding accused with commission of the offence. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge."
The 1993 Incident: A Diamond Deal Gone Wrong
The case revolved around a diamond commission agent, Bhagwanprasad Singh. According to the prosecution, he was approached by Harishbhai, a former employee, who persuaded him to travel to Vile Parle to meet a potential client for a raw diamond deal. Singh carried 200 diamonds, then valued at Rs 70,000.
Upon reaching a hotel, Singh was allegedly restrained by several individuals, threatened with knives, and taken to a public telephone booth. There, he was forced to call his brother and demand a ransom of Rs 25,000 for his release. Later, near the Andheri railway yard, he was robbed at knifepoint of his cash, Rs 15,000, and the diamonds.
While a complaint was lodged and multiple arrests followed, Harishbhai and Laxmikant evaded capture. Their case was separated and kept in dormant files. Their trial only moved forward after their co-accused had already been acquitted in a separate trial back in 2004.
Why the Prosecution's Case Collapsed
The judgment detailed several critical failures that led to the acquittal:
The Death of the Sole Witness: The complainant, Bhagwanprasad Singh, died while the trial was pending. With his death, the court found there was absolutely no evidence on the alleged extortion incident.
No Independent Witnesses: The judge noted that despite the incident occurring in the daytime, the prosecution could not produce any independent witnesses to support its claims.
Inadmissible Evidence: The prosecution attempted to rely on the FIR and the recovery of stolen diamonds. However, the court rejected the FIR's contents as evidence. Crucially, the recovery of diamonds was based on the statement of a previously acquitted co-accused, Rafiq Shaikh. The judge ruled this confession inadmissible against the present accused, as they were not being tried jointly.
The judge explained, "The confessional statement of the co-accused, who is not tried jointly, cannot be considered in the different trial for other accused." Furthermore, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the recovered diamonds were the same ones stolen from Singh.
The Final Order on Evidence: The court ordered that the 156 pieces of diamonds, both polished and unpolished, which were material evidence, be returned to Singh's heirs based in Santacruz after the appeal period is over, following due legal procedure.
This case stands as a stark example of how delays in the legal process, the loss of key witnesses, and the inability to gather admissible evidence can ultimately determine the outcome, even for serious crimes alleged to have occurred decades ago.
