Lost Password?

  1. Satya was reportedly drowned in the Western Jamuna Canal behind DCE at about 16:30 on 05/04/06 while in the company of two of his college mates Akshat and Tapan. The whole story was spread by these two. That the two were lying and the whole story was cooked up is evident from the following discrepancies in their statements.
    1. When we went to the site of the reported incident in the evening of that fateful day both Akshat and Tapan, with variations in details, told us that Satya suddenly slipped into water and drowned while three of them were near the shore of the Canal. Their accounts of how Satya drowned in the canal were not only unconvincing but also discrepant with the fact that all of Satya's clothing except the underwear were in Akshat's car. They gave conflicting accounts about how they reached the canal and whether they consumed alcohol/marijuana. Tapan said that he and Satya went to the canal in his car and Akshat joined them by climbing the boundary wall from inside DCE. But Akshat said that all three of them reached the canal by climbing the boundary wall from inside DCE. Tapan said that they had consumed two bottles of beer before coming to the canal and smoked 2-3 joints of marijuana on the bank of the canal. But Akshat said that they did not consume alcohol or marijuana.
    2. Later, on the same night, after being interrogated separately at the PP they gave written statements in which they gave the same conflicting accounts except that both said Satya drowned in the canal while trying to swim.
    3.  Still later they changed their statements again. Their statements in the Police file shown to us by the PP I/C on 08/04/06 were essentially identical. In these, both said that all three of them reached the canal by climbing the boundary wall of DCE from inside the college, they consumed beer before reaching the canal and marijuana on the bank of the canal. As per these Akshat met Tapan and Satya at canteen, went out with them to buy beer, consume beer/marijuana with them and was with them till the reported tragedy took place.This is discrepant with the fact that as per Call Detail received from the Police there was an outgoing call to Akshat from Satya's mobile phone at 16:04, 26 minutes before the reported tragedy and clearly shows that Akshat was lying.
    4. On 22/04/06 [six days after Satya's dead body was recovered] Tapan visited us and made his last statement which was found to be conflicting with the earlier statements with regard to several details such as where he met Satya, where he had lunch with Satya, where they drank beer and where they smoked marijuana. Earlier Tapan had said that he met Satya at the college, he had lunch with Satya at canteen in the college, they consumed beer before reaching the canal and marijuana on the bank of the canal. But in this Tapan said that he met Satya at the nearby flat where Akshat lived, he had lunch with Satya at a place near that flat, they consumed both beer and marijuana inside his car at a place near Madhuvan Chowk from where they went to the canal. What for did they go to near Madhuban Chowk? If they went to the canal from there why would they get inside DCE and scale the boundary wall instead of going straight to the canal? Later on when a common friend of Satya and Tapan questioned Tapan about going to near Madhuban Chowk, Tapan irritatingly denied.
  2. The reported incident of drowning is prima facie ruled out in view of the following:
    1. Satya did not know swimming, Akshat and Tapan knew that, and all of them knew that the canal is dangerous. Satya had taken a bath with shampoo just before leaving for college and could not have been eager to take bath in the dirty water of the canal. There were no towels etc left behind to indicate either that he really went for a bath with his friends. He was very very shy about removing his trousers. He lived near the canal for four years but never went into water. He has been at home in Gurgaon for nearly a year and on that day went to college for some specific purpose and was to return home early to attend a gathering of friends in Gurgaon same evening.
    2. The two banks of the canal are used as roads by the local people with frequent movement of pedestrians, cyclists and automobiles particularly near the place and time of the reported incident. Yet, no one else other than the duo had seen him drowning although the commotion made by ‘Akshat running along the shore of the canal’ [as stated by the duo] should have been noticed by some from a distance.
    3. Satya's dead body was found after eleven days floating near the same place where he was reportedly drowned. If the drowning story is correct the dead body must have been there under water before that. But it is clearly evident from the following that it was not so.
      1. The reported incident happened in the presence of two college mates just behind the college campus within working hours when the college was open and when three hours of daylight was still left as it was summer time. The whole lot of people from the campus should have rushed to the spot. Only a modest effort on their part which they should have made would have been enough to trace the dead body if it was really there. For, the canal there is narrow and shallow and it does not require a big swimmer to trace a submerged object as big as a dead body in the nearby area of the Canal.
      2. According to the Police, intensive search was made in the canal using private divers for two days, Fire Brigade for many days and Indian Navy divers for days. These highly professional efforts were definitely more than enough to trace the dead body if it was really there.
  3. As per the statements of Akshat and Tapan in the Police file, shown to us on 08/04/06, both aged under 25 admitted consuming beer and marijuana along with Satya on the day of the reported incident, knowing very well that these were punishable by law. It appears that they wanted to get away from questions involving rationality or inhibition in their behaviour and suggest that the incident took place under the influence of drugs. But they were far from intoxicated as observed after the incident, in fact they were pretty steady and coherent.
  4.  As per Call Detail for Satya's moblle phone, there was an outgoing call to Mohini [college mate] at 16:02. According to Mohini, Satya called her from inside the college and his voice was normal. Two minutes later and only 26 minutes before the reported incident, there was an outgoing call from Satya's mobile phone to Akshat at 16:04 which shows that Akshat was not with him at that time. There was not enough time for the trio to unite, do whatever they said they did and the tragedy to take place as reported. If Mohini is lying [why should she?] it would mean that something had happened to Satya already before 16:02. The reasoning in this para alone based solely on irrefutable facts proves beyond doubt that the whole story of the reported incident was cooked up.
  5. PM report does not rule out injuries. Our observation of the dead body indicates that the deceased possibly experienced some violent act before his death [see 4 para 1(d)].
  6. Lastly, there was no sign of sadness in the face or behaviour of Akshat and Tapan. They seemed to be worried only about themselves and not at all for the loss of their friend.
  7.  Once the drowning story has been seen to be cooked up, it is evident that Satya was killed. For, if anything else had happened Tapan, since he knew us, would have informed us.