Narendra Dabholkar murder case: Pune court orders framing of charges against 4 accused

Pune: A Pune court on Tuesday (September 7) ordered framing of charges against 4 accused in 2013 Narendra Dabholkar murder case under Sections 302, 120(b), 34 of IPC along with Section 16 of UAPA and Sections 3(25), 27(1), 27(3) of Arms Act and against one accused under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The court will hear next hearing on Sept 15.

Pune court orders framing of charges against 4 accused in 2013 Narendra Dabholkar murder case under Sections 302, 120(b), 34 of IPC along with Section 16 of UAPA & Sections 3(25), 27(1), 27(3) of Arms Act and against one accused under Section 201 of IPC. Next hearing on Sept 15.

— ANI (@ANI) September 7, 2021

Dabholkar, a well-known anti-superstition crusader, was shot dead in Pune on August 20, 2013.

The Central Bureau of Investigation three days ago argued that the five accused be tried under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for striking "terror among a section of people".

The arguments over framing of charges against the five accused - Dr Virendrasinh Tawde, Sharad Kalaskar, Sachin Andure, advocate Sanjeev Punalekar and Vikram Bhave - began before additional sessions judge (special court judge) S R Navandar here on Friday.

Special public prosecutor Prakash Suryawanshi, while arguing the case on behalf of the CBI, said that the accused have been charged under IPC sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 120 B read with 302 (murder), relevant sections of the Arms Act and section 16 (punishment for the terrorist act ) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Defense counsel Virendra Ichalkaranjikar, however, opposed the prosecution's demand to invoke section 16 of the UAPA.

"We oppose the pressing of section 16 of the UAPA as the prosecution has been stating since 2016 through their various documents that Dr Tawde used to despise Dabholkar and he had killed him as a fallout of that. So where does the question of terror arise?" he said.

After hearing arguments from both the sides, the court had posted the matter for hearing on September 7.

(With agency inputs)