Mumbai: Victims demand transparency in Bangur Nagar assault case

An incident unfolded on January 22 where two individuals Dinesh and Chandrashekar Panchkale were attacked and brutally beaten by a mob during a cricket match at Bangur Nagar The victims claim the police are protecting the assailants by providing inaccurate information Despite identifying the attackers their names were omitted from the FIRDinesh sustained severe injuries including skull fractures while Chandrashekar suffered an arm fracture Posthospitalisation Dineshs family is anxious about his health noting memory loss and hearing problems Concerns have arisen due to alleged inconsistencies in the case informationFIR raises questionsldquoOn Monday I attended court and was surprised that section 307 was not mentioned in the FIR raising questions about whether the police are intentionally shielding the accused Even my lawyer questioned the absence of an FIR under my name The polices motives in protecting the accused remain unclear but as far as Im aware those the police claim are on the run are still present in the settlement and not evading authoritiesrdquo said Panchkale one of the victimsldquoWe provided the police with the attackers names but they filed an FIR against an unidentified person Despite about 50 people involved only five were initially caught with the sixth accused arrested later My brother suffered severe head fractures in the assault by the mobrdquo added PanchkalePolice refute allegations ldquoDont you trust the police We have added section 307 in the FIR but it will not be seen in the FIR copy as the section was added later and during such cases a letter from the police is sent to the court and the final sections will be seen in the charge sheetrdquo ACP Renuka Bagade saidWhen this reporter disclosed that during a bail application hearing in Dindoshi court it was found out that section 307 was not added the ACP asked the reporter to contact the senior PI about the samePramod Tawade senior PI Bangur Nagar Police station said ldquoI hastily reviewed the FIR sections mistakenly associating Section 307 with the wrong FIR as it shared similarities with another case Subsequently I realised my error acknowledging that I had provided inaccurate information without crosschecking the FIR numbersrdquoWhy 307 was not includedldquoThe criteria for inclusion of Section 307 were not met as the quarrel had started over a person standing on the pitch of another cricket match The matter escalated but there was no original intention of murder The punishment for sections 307 and 326 are similar and hence there will be no injustice in the matterrdquo said the senior PICops clarify human errorldquoThere was a typing mistake from our end the person typing the FIR mentioned only one individual instead of 3 unidentified individuals In terms of why a second FIR wasnrsquot filed it is because one incident validates only a single FIR The other victim becomes the witness to the crime in no case a second FIR is registered for the same incidentrdquo added the senior PIStatus of the caseldquoWe had arrested six individuals in total out of which two are released on bail while the other four are still in judicial custody We are also constantly trying to track other five individuals in the same case and have declared them to be wanted We are positive that these 5 individuals will be arrested soonrdquo said the senior PIJan 22Date when the assault happened