What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The court subsequently remanded the accused to judicial custody while allowing the police further time for their investigation.
MUMBAI: A Mumbai court on Friday rejected the Railway Protection Force’s (RPF) plea for three scientific tests on constable Chetan Singh, who shot dead four men on board a train last week.
The GRP had sought the court’s permission to conduct narco test, brain mapping, and polygraph examinations on the accused constable. However, Chetan’s refusal to undergo these tests led to the court rejecting the police application.
The court subsequently remanded the accused to judicial custody while allowing the police further time for their investigation.
ALSO READ: Mumbai Train Firing | We want Chetan Singh to be hanged, not Hindu-Muslim flare-up: Ali’s Kin
Constable Chetan Singh, who stands accused of the killing of his duty in-charge ASI Tikaram Meena and three Muslim co-passengers, was presented in court after being under police custody until August 11.
The incident occurred on the Jaipur-Mumbai Superfast Express between Dahisar and Mira Road stations in Mumbai. Videos of the incident showed Chetan allegedly urging other passengers to record the events while praising PM Modi and UP CM Yogi Adityanath.
ALSO READ: High-level railway panel to probe Jaipur-Mumbai train shooting
In his defence, he told the police that he was not in a state of “consciousness” during the event. “I was not in my consciousness when the incident took place. After the incident, I called up my wife and said that something wrong has happened and now you will have to care for the children,” he said.
The police also recorded statements from Chetan’s mother and wife during their investigation.
The charges against constable Chetan have been expanded to include new sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections include Section 363 (Kidnapping, taking one deceased hostage and later killing him), Section 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and engaging in acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony), Section 341 (wrongful confinement), and Section 342 (wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement).
