The sessions court in Mumbai has acquitted four people arrested for a murder in Malwani, Malad, in 2013, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in the alleged assault of a suspected thief who later died in police custody.
The incident
Twelve years ago on March 5, three to four alleged thieves reportedly broke into SA Engineering, a commercial workshop inside Malwani’s Jurassic Park premises, by breaking the tin roof to commit theft.
Four people, including two owners, managed to nab one of the suspects, while the others fled. The accused immediately informed the Malwani Police about the incident, following which Sub-inspector VK More dispatched a team to the spot.
The detained suspected thief, later identified as Javed Hajrat Ali, was handed over to constables Ankush Bane and Ajit Jadhav and taken to the police station. Later, on the complaint of SA Engineering’s owners, Amarjeet Ramkishore Singh (56) and Vijay Singh (54), the police registered a case under sections 380 and 457, along with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 against Ali.
Around 10.30 am the next day, Ali reportedly complained of abdominal pain and was shifted to Bhagwati Hospital, where doctors declared him dead before admission. Initially, Malwani Police registered an accidental death case.
Post-mortem and investigation findings
However, Ali’s post-mortem revealed 83 injuries, including abrasions on elbows, chest, ribs, back, and thighs. Based on the inquest findings, Sub-inspector Bhagwan Khare concluded that the accused had assaulted Ali before handing him to the police.
The police then booked four accused: Singh, Vijay, and two other employees under Sections 342, 302, and 34 of IPC. All the four were arrested on March 19, 2013.
As the death occurred in police custody, the joint commissioner of police (crime branch), Mumbai, transferred the investigation to Detection Crime Branch (DCB), Crime Investigation Department (CID), Unit 11. Following this, Assistant Inspector Pradeep More re-recorded the statements of the police officers and other witnesses whom Inspector MP Pandharmise had earlier examined. He also recorded new statements from a couple of more witnesses and Pandharmise.
Defence’s argument
Defence lawyer Abdul Kalam highlighted serious contradictions in the prosecution’s case. He said More testified that Javed was brought to the police station around 6 am and had no injuries except a single abrasion on his left elbow. Javed remained in police custody from 6 am to 10.30 am, during which no complaint of assault was made. The post-mortem injuries did not align with the condition observed by police officers when he was produced before them.
Kalam argued that the injuries likely occurred after the police took custody and were not inflicted by the accused.
Court verdict
After examining 17 witnesses and reviewing all the material evidence, the sessions court held that the prosecution had failed to establish common intention or any direct assault by the four accused. The court noted significant inconsistencies between the medical findings and the police testimonies.
In its judgment on November 28, the court ruled that the prosecution had not successfully proved the charges under the relevant sections of IPC, 1860.
Consequently, the accused were entitled to an acquittal.
Case timeline
March 5, 2013: Alleged theft committed and FIR registered
May 28, 2013: Charge sheet filed in the case
August 30, 2015: Charges framed in the case
March 6, 2015: Evidence presented
October 15, 2025: Judgment reserved
November 28, 2025: Judgment delivered
Total witnesses examined: 17
