Court rejects discharge plea of man accused of murdering MBBS student

Mumbai, Sep 13 (PTI) A court here has rejected the discharge plea of a lifeguard arrested for murdering a medical student, stating that the possibility of the accused destroying evidence cannot be ruled out.

Additional sessions judge S D Tawshikar, in the order passed on September 10, rejected the plea of the accused, Mithu Singh, arrested in January last year for the murder of Sadiccha Sane, a third-year MBBS student.

Sane’s body has not yet been found.

Singh was arrested under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

According to police, Sane, a student of Sir JJ Hospital and Grant Medical College, proceeded to appear for her exams by train on November 29, 2021, and was last seen at Bandra Bandstand, where she met Singh, a lifeguard, and took a selfie with him.

Singh’s lawyer, Harshman Chavan, submitted that though the victim allegedly went missing on November 29, 2021, the initial FIR was registered on December 9, 2021 on the charges of kidnapping.

In January 2023, IPC sections 302 (murder) and 201(disappearance of evidence) came to be added, the lawyer said.

The accused was arrested on January 13, 2023 and has been behind bars, he said.

Chavan argued that there is nothing against Singh to suggest that he has either sexually abused the victim or murdered her.

Even the body has not been found, and therefore, the allegation of murder is without any basis, he said.

Special public prosecutor Ashwini Raikar contended that the accused, being a lifeguard, used his skills and knowledge to dispose of the woman’s body.

She submitted that the prosecution deserved a fair opportunity to prove the case, and hence, the accused is not entitled to discharge.

The court noted that there was specific material with the prosecution to show that the victim was seen with the applicant before she went missing.

The initial conduct of the accused was not beyond suspicion, it said.

It noted that Singh had smartly diverted the investigation by showing the calls he made to the victim the next day.

“The applicant has admittedly worked at the beach as a lifeguard, and therefore, he knows the depth of water and nature of the sea near the shore. The possibility of his causing the disappearance of the victim’s body and her belongings cannot be ruled out,” the court observed.

The prosecution’s “last seen” theory is duly supported by the oral and documentary evidence, the court said, adding that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.