Mumbai Police face scrutiny over inconsistencies in investigation into Saif Ali Khan’s attacker.
New Delhi: Two weeks after the attack on actor Saif Ali Khan, the Mumbai Police have yet to confirm whether Mohammad Shariful Islam Shehzad acted alone in the crime or if accomplices were involved. Earlier this week, the police had requested the court to extend his police custody, stating that they believed he was working with accomplices.
This uncertainty, coupled with concerns raised by the public and independent forensic experts, has cast doubt on the investigation’s overall progress.
Shehzad’s Bangladesh-based family, legal representatives, and private forensic analysts, have suggested that the arrested individual is not the same person seen on CCTV footage from the crime scene.
Amidst concerns and questions shared by the media with the top brass of the Mumbai Police over the alleged gaps in the investigation, Mumbai Police sources informed the local media on Friday evening that Shehzad’s face matched the image captured on CCTV footage from Khan’s residence. According to the sources, without commenting officially, Shehzad, who had attacked Saif at his Satguru Sharan apartment in Bandra West (which he bought in 2012), underwent a facial recognition test as part of the standard procedure. The results were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Kalina, Santacruz, which confirmed the match.
The report indicated that the accused’s face is the same as that of the suspect captured on security cameras from the crime scene.
Mumbai Police sources briefed selected reporters that the Bandra Police had submitted a series of images to FSL for forensic analysis, including photographs taken from multiple angles that were not released to the media, as well as a photograph of Shehzad taken after his arrest.
Notably, the police also provided images from over two dozen CCTV cameras to assist with the facial recognition test, though no comment was shared on whether CCTV footage from Khan’s building, where the intruder was initially seen, was part of the examination.
Significantly, in its application to extend police custody on January 29, which was eventually denied by the court, the Mumbai Police stated that the 30-year-old accused was suspected of having conducted reconnaissance of the crime scene before committing the crime and had prepared for it. The police also suggested that it was highly likely Shehzad had accomplices in the crime. At the time of the incident, according to documents and reports, ten people were present inside the house- Saif Ali Khan, his wife Kareena Kapoor Khan, their sons- Ibrahim and Jeh, the two nannies-Eliama , Junu, and four other helpers- Ramesh, Hari, Ramu, and Paswan.
Despite the presence of at least six adult male and three adult females, Shehzad was able to enter the house, spend a considerable amount of time, injure the actor, and then escape.
Officials from Zone- 9 of Mumbai Police, under which the crime took place, have yet to respond to reports that the accused’s fingerprints were not found at the crime scene. Additionally, there have been reports of inconsistencies in the statements made by those present in the house during the incident, raising questions about the reliability of the testimonies. Furthermore, the fact that the police have not yet ruled out the possibility of accomplices in the crime has raised further questions about the direction of the investigation.
The Sunday Guardian sent a detailed questionnaire to concerned offices of the Mumbai Police, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-9, under whose jurisdiction the crime took place. No response was received by the stated deadline.
On January 28, during a press conference, Additional Commissioner of Police (West Region) Paramjit Dahiya claimed that the police had done an “excellent, proof-based detection” in the case.
“The Mumbai Police have ample and strong evidence against the accused person, including documentary, physical, and technical evidence. As for ascertaining the identity of the accused as part of evidence collection before the filing of the chargesheet, the police have an option of face recognition, and we will explore it. During the investigation of the case, the police did not find any other associate with him (the accused). We have sent the samples of fingerprints to the Crime Investigation Department (CID). As of today, we have not received any official report about his fingerprints,” he said.
Dahiya’s statement about finding no associate in the crime contradicts what the police had claimed in their remand application.
One of the contentions of Sandeep Dashrath Sherkhane, the lawyer of Shehzad, regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the Mumbai Police’s investigation, is about the weapon used in the attack. Initially, it was mentioned that a ‘hexablade’ was used in the crime, but the police have instead recovered a knife as evidence. Secondly, the police have no solid evidence linking the arrested individual to the attack apart from CCTV footage that was obtained from a camera installed on the 6th floor. Even in this footage, questions have been raised as the image reportedly does not match the suspect. More crucially, the police have not yet submitted the fingerprint report.
No response was shared by Sherkhane when reached for a comment on Saturday morning regarding the Mumbai Police claims about the facial recognition test confirming Shehzad’s presence at the crime scene.
Court documents accessed by The Sunday Guardian show that after being arrested on January 19, roughly 85 hours after committing the crime, Shehzad was sent to four days of police custody till January 23, and then again for five days till January 28, during which the Mumbai Police recovered the shoes worn by the suspect, the tools and weapons used in the crime, and details regarding where they were purchased.
The police also took statements from the ‘concerned witnesses’, recovered additional CCTV footage related to the crime, and conducted correspondence to obtain government CCTV footage related to the crime.
The police recovered clothes worn by the accused during the crime, along with a “gamcha” and bag, which were sent to the chemical laboratory for analysis. the facial recognition of the accused was conducted with the assistance of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and a team was sent to Kolkata for further investigation related to this crime, with statements from relevant individuals being recorded.
On January 29, the police demanded two more days of custody. However, the court of K.C. Rajput, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at the Bandra Court in Mumbai, denied this request and sent Shehzad to 14 days of judicial custody, stating that the police has not presented any fresh grounds that could warrant his custody.
In its application for extending police custody, the Mumbai Police had stated that the accused is suspected to have conducted reconnaissance of the crime scene before committing the crime and had prepared for it. Therefore, it was highly likely that the accused had accomplices. The police also claimed that the accused had not provided complete information about the individual who helped him enter India or assisted him in carrying out financial transactions in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the accused had given incomplete information about his financial dealings and failed to provide details about his bank accounts.
The police told the court that additional CCTV footage from the crime scene and other locations still needed to be obtained. They also quoted Saif Ali Khan’s ‘social status’ and the fact that the arrested accused is a Bangladeshi national, which, they said, warrants further in-depth investigation into the accused.
Apart from these grounds, the police stated that the accused had been operating in India under the false name of Vijay Das and had been evasive when questioned about the fake documents he created for his stay in India and the individuals who helped him create these documents.
The Bandra Police claimed that the accused’s police custody was needed to determine if he had any Bangladeshi friends or relatives residing in India and to search for individuals who helped him enter India from Bangladesh. None of these grounds were accepted by the court, which denied the police request for custody.