RPF Constable Trial: Witness Heard 'Yeh 2008 Ka Badla Hai' Statement
Witness: RPF man said 'yeh 2008 ka badla hai'

Shocking Testimony in RPF Constable Murder Trial

A crucial eyewitness has provided chilling testimony in the ongoing trial of dismissed Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable Chetansinh Chaudhary, stating that he heard the accused utter the phrase "yeh 2008 ka badla hai" (this is revenge for 2008) during the horrific onboard shooting incident.

Eyewitness Account of the Train Shooting

The witness, a 32-year-old man, recounted his experience to a Mumbai court. He stated that he was returning to Mumbai from his native place and had boarded the S6 coach of the Jaipur-Mumbai train on July 30, 2023. After having dinner and falling asleep around 12:30 AM, he was abruptly awakened by a loud noise at approximately 5:30 AM on July 31, 2023.

Upon waking, he saw a terrifying scene: a bearded man lying in a pool of blood, with an RPF personnel standing nearby holding a rifle. Frightened, the witness quickly gathered his luggage and moved to the other end of the coach. It was at this moment that he allegedly heard the RPF constable make the statement about seeking revenge for 2008.

The Alleged Crimes and Investigation

Chetansinh Chaudhary is facing trial for the murder of four individuals:

  • His senior colleague, Assistant Sub-Inspector Tikaram Meena
  • Three Muslim passengers: Asghar Ali Abbas, Abdul Kader Bhanpurwala, and Syed Saifuddin

The Government Railway Police (GRP) investigation alleges that after shooting his senior, Chaudhary specifically identified and shot the three passengers. The incident concluded when a passenger pulled the train's emergency chain, forcing it to stop, allowing Chaudhary to flee before being apprehended by other police personnel.

The reference to 2008 is believed to pertain to the November 26, 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, carried out by ten Pakistani terrorists. During cross-examination by Chaudhary's lawyer, Jaywant Singh, the witness firmly denied that his deposition was false. Notably, the witness was not required to undergo a formal identification procedure for Chaudhary, who appeared before the court via video-conference.