The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Mumbai Police why it had not taken into consideration crucial evidence in the Jiah Khan suicide case. "Investigation does not mean deleting material and placing only that material on record which is convenient for you. You should place everything on record," the division bench of Justices Naresh Patil and A.M. Thipsay rapped the state.
"The petitioners have raised issues about forensic aspects. Injury marks are not even mentioned in the post mortem report. Why is it not a part of the charge sheet? SMSes, CDRs are critical evidence even in homicide cases and suicide cases. Why has it not been brought on record?" the judges asked. The state will have to respond to the pointers on April 7, 2014.
The court was hearing Jiah Khan's mother Rabiya Khan's petition seeking fresh investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the actor's death. Ms. Khan has contended that her daughter was murdered.
"According to medical experts' report, the post mortem report should have mentioned a visible struggle mark in the form of blue contusion. There was a bruise on the arm which was of recent origin. Even that did not find a mention in the pm report. If she would have died of asphyxia, her eyes should have been open, pupils dilated and tongue outside. But it was not so," Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for Ms. Khan, told the court.
He said that there was enough medical evidence in the country to show that cases of strangulation were covered to look like hanging.
He said that, months after Jiah's death, the police had still not provided the video of the post mortem report to the deceased's mother. "There were blood stains in the house. There were external injuries on Jiah's body. Her lungs were collapsed. The post mortem was not done properly. It is necessary to see the videography of the post mortem," Mr. Jethmalani said.
He said that there were eight missed calls, several messages and a flurry of activity on her cell phone just before her death. He pleaded that all this material would have formed an important part of the evidence, but was never looked into.
The court then asked the prosecution to take instructions from the police about these aspects, and inform the court next week. It observed that the evidence pointed out by the petitioner was important and should have already been taken into consideration.