Evidence Assignment

Nipasha Mahanta
213140
SHEENA BORA MURDER CASE
Facts:
Indrani Bora was born in Guwahati. She later shifted to Kolkata and was in live-in
relationship with Siddhartha Das. They did not marry each other because she was a minor.
She gave birth to Sheena and Mikhail. She moved back to Guwahati with her children. She
later in 1990 left her children to their grandparents. She again moved to Kolkata. In Kolkata
she met Sanjeev Khanna and got married. She later married Peter Mukherjea and separated
with her former husband. Her children came to the wedding but she introduced them as their
siblings.
Indrani and Sanjeev Khanna are arrested for the murder charges. Peter Mukherjea had a son
named Rahul Mukherjea, he and Sheena got close this worried Indrani. Both of them were
not in good terms. On April 24 2012, Indrani calls Sheena to meet near Bandras RD National
College. Rahul (Sheenas boyfriend) drops her at the place and subsequently Indrani and
Sanjeev Khanna picks her up. Shyam Rai was driving the car. Indrani and Sanjeev are said to
have strangulated her while she was drugged. Firstly they planned on going to Pen but they
cancel it after noticing police check posts. They return to Peters Worli house and park the car
in the garage along with Sheenas corpse. Later at the night, they load the body in a red
suitcase. The next morning on April 25, along with the driver, they move to Pen near Gagode
Budruk village. They drag the body 50 metres off the highway and set it on fire. All three of
them then return to Peters house and Khanna goes back to Kolkata in the evening.
Queries made by Rahul to Indrani about Sheena, she says that Sheena moved to US because
she did not wanted to be with him anymore. Obvious doubts led him to call her brother,
Mikhail. Mikhail finds her passport. After this they go police to report for missing case.
Police says that Sheena is not a kid and asks them to have patience. Her brother goes back
when Indrani assures her well being.
Rahul boyfriend keeps calling on her phone but no answers from the either side. Later a text
has been send to him that she do not wish to be with him and had moved to US. Again, he
goes to police and asks to report for missing person. Police says it can be recorded only after
an inquiry has been done. Police goes to Worli, they are told that Rahul was stalking her. Due
to this no report was filed.
On May 23, in Gagode Budrul villagers discover the burnt suitcase. The body was far beyond
recognition. The body was decomposed; the only sign that hinted that it was a womans body
was long hair. Police came to that place and discovered the body and wait for few days to
claim the body because the area was prone for body dumping. After waiting for days, they
finally dispose of the body.
Anonymous call to Police Station at Khar, after 3 years that an autorickshaw driver has
murdered a girl from a big business family and had dumped the body in Raigad.
Shyam Rai works as a autorickshaw driver when Indrani and Peter left the country and works
as driver when they are in town. Shyam was put under surveillance. When Indrani returned,

she was also under surveillance. On August 21, 2015, Shyam Rai is arrested for possession of
illegal arms. During interrogation he speaks about the murder of Sheena. Police then arrested
Indrani on August 25 and Khanna was arrested on August 26 from Kolkata.
Application of Indian Evidence Act

1. DNA Testing under S 26 of the Indian Evidence Act: The recent results of the DNA test
proved that Indrani Mukherjee was in fact the mother of Sheena If the DNA from the skeletal
remains does not match that of any of Sheena's immediate family members, it will not be a
fatal blow to the murder charge. There are plenty of Supreme Court rulings clarifying that a
murder charge is sustainable even in cases where the police were unable to recover the body
of the murdered person. In the event of a mismatch of DNA evidence, the Indrani's defence
can surely cite that factor in their favour as Sheena's physical remains were reportedly
recovered at Rai's instance. But then, the court may also take into account the probability of
deterioration of the DNA evidence due to the burning and burial of the body parts. On the
other hand, if the DNA test confirms that those remains are of Sheena, there is little that the
defence will be able to do to counter such a formidable scientific evidence. DNA extracted
from the bone recovered after Shyam Rai told to the Police the site where they disposed off
the body under section 26 of EA states How much of information received from accused
may be proved.Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer,
so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. DNA matches 100% with Indrani in this
murder case. So it beyond clear that the body was of Sheena Bora, the daughter of Indrani.

2. Special Knowledge under S 106, Indian Evidence Act: The recovery of Sheenas
passport stance against Indrani. Because it is known that Indrani had special knowledge of
Sheena having left the country. Section 106 of EA applies which says if the person alone has
knowledge of something then the burden of proof falls on him. Since Indrani claims that
Sheena left the country three years ago on a forged passport rather than her genuine one,
Indrani will at the least have to explain why her daughter would have done such a curious
thing.
3. Last seen together theory: Indrani has to explain why she didnt file a missing person
report and also that how she fooled Mikhail and Rahul when they inquired about Sheena.
Indrani also bears the onus of explaining her failure to report Sheena's disappearance to the
police and her reported attempts to fob off any inquiries about Sheena's whereabouts over the
last three years from Rahul Mukerjea or Mikhail Bora. Also because the last seen principle
is weighs on her because Rahul saw her last with Sheena.
4. No eye-witness scenario: Call data records (CDR) can prove and compensate the no eye
witness scenario by tracking down the locations they travelled on the day when Sheena was
murdered through cell towers.

5. Diary of Sheena Bora under S 32 of Indian Evidence Act: Diary of Sheena Bora which
has her handwriting showing the turbulent relationship between Indrani and Sheena Bora.
Sheena Bora hated her mother. Section 32 of EA applies here. It states as Statements, written
or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who
has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an
amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts.
6. Admissibility of electronic records as evidence under S 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act:
Phone calls and emails exchanged between Indrani and Sanjeev Bora. Section 65 B of EA
applies. Admissibility of electronic records as evidence in the Court.
7. Circumstancial Evidence: Since there are no eye witnesses to this case, it relies on
circumstantial evidence.

Application of CrPC

1. Statement of Driver under S 161 CrPC: The statement of Indrani Mukherjea's driver
Shyam Rai has spilled the beans on the murder mystery of her daughter Sheena Bora.
Nailing Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna, the driver has given the account
of the cold-blooded murder. The statement was made by Indrani's driver under
Section 161 of the CrPC, which says that any police officer may examine orally any
person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The
police officer may also reduce into writing any statement made to him.
2. Driver as Approver and Application of Pardon (S 164 & S 306 CrPC): Police can
turn the accused Shyam Rai to an approver in the absence of no eye witness and get
his testimony against the other accused persons before the Magistrate under section
164 of CrPC. And then have to apply for pardon under Section 306 CrPC to the
Magistrate.

APPLICATION OF IPC
Proving Means Rea- By all accounts, the police have not so far cracked the motive behind
Sheena's murder allegedly by her own mother. If this gap in the narrative is not filled in a
plausible manner by the time the chargesheet is filed, it will not necessarily lead to acquittals.
For, in criminal law, it is more important to establish the criminal intent (mens rea) of the
accused persons to commit the crime, rather than figuring out the motive behind the crime. In

any event, there is a good chance that the ongoing probe into bank accounts and financial
transactions of the persons concerned may shed light on the motive.
1. Section 328 of IPC Causing hurt by poison with intent to commit an offence. Sheena
Bora was drugged when Indrani and Sanjeev Khanna strangulated her.
2. Section 364 IPC for kidnapping.
3. Section 302 IPC for murder.
4. Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.
5. Section 120-B IPC for conspiracy. Indrani and Sanjeev Khanna had conspired through
phone calls and emails to murder Sheena Bora.