Pune Court Acquits Accused In Murder Case Of Two Engineering Students Found Dead In Lonavla Forest

Pune, 31st July 2024: Principal District and Sessions Judge Mahendra Mahajan on Tuesday acquitted Salim Shaikh (27), an eatery owner, in the 2017 robbery-cum-murder case involving two engineering students in Lonavla. Shaikh was acquitted due to inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and a lack of scientific evidence. His minor accomplice is still undergoing trial by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).

The judge criticized the investigation by the Pune Rural police for not employing scientific methods, such as DNA analysis, to collect evidence. The two students, a 22-year-old Sarthak Wakchaure, a final-year mechanical engineering student, and a 21-year-old Shruti Dumbre, who was in final-year computer engineering at the same institute in Lonavala, were found murdered, with their clothes stripped off, in a forest area near Tiger Point, between INS Shivaji naval training centre and the Air Force Station, on April 2, 2017. Their mobile phones and a gold chain were also reported stolen.

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam stated, “We will be appealing the decision in the Bombay High Court. This double murder case is built on strong circumstantial evidence, with testimony from 29 witnesses supporting the prosecution’s argument.”

Judge Mahajan pointed out several flaws in the prosecution’s case. The court did not accept the extrajudicial confession of a witness as it was recorded two months after the incident. Additionally, the recovery of the victims’ phones from a septic tank in good condition was dismissed because a forensic expert had reported to the police that the phones were damaged.

Furthermore, the court questioned the recovery of a gold chain belonging to the male student from a publicly accessible, abandoned bungalow. The police remand report indicated the chain was found intact, while it was actually broken into two pieces.

Defence lawyer Afroz Shaikh argued, “The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence but failed to establish a solid chain of events to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We highlighted discrepancies in the forensic evidence, such as the lack of scientific methods used to collect hair samples and the omission of crucial tests by the forensic expert.”