Mumbai News: Special MCOCA Court Acquits Gangster Arun Gawli, 6 Others In 2008 Builder Extortion Case

Mumbai: The special MCOCA court on Wednesday acquitted gangster Arun Gawali, his brother Vijay Ahir and five other accused in connection with an extortion case registered in 2008 on the complaint of a builder. Gawali however, is presently undergoing life imprisonment in connection with the murder of Shiv Sena Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar murder case.

The special judge BD Shelke while acquitting Gawali and others found that the testimony of the builder, the complainant, was not trustworthy as there were several discrepancies and contradictions in his narrative. The court found his allegations were not supported by the other witnesses or also by approvers – the accused turned witnesses in the case.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant, a builder, had taken up an SRA project in March 2005 at Dadar namely Ramshyam Cooperative Housing Society. In October 2005, he received a phone call on his landline at his office and the caller identified himself as Raju. He asked the phone operator to pass the message to the complainant to visit Dagdi Chawl, the place where Gawali lived. The complainant had alleged that his office had received calls several times and during one of the calls Raju threatened to kill him if he failed to visit Dagdi Chawl.

Upon further inquiry, the complainant claimed that he realised that the caller was from gangster Arun Gawali's gang. In November 2005 again, the complainant claimed that his office received calls from Raju asking him to visit Dagdi Chawl. After the call, the complainant claimed that he had gone to Dagdi Chawl and also waited outside on the footpath but nobody came. Hence he left.

He further claimed that after 23 days again Raju called and asked him to meet him. He claimed that when he went there, he was taken inside, where he met Gawali's brother Vijay Ahir. Ahir said that the builders around had been giving them Rs 50 lakhs to continue his construction work. However, he asked him to pay Rs 25 lakhs.

After negotiations, the complainant claimed that Ahir asked him for Rs 10 lakhs immediately. The complainant claimed that Informant was scared, therefore he agreed to pay Rs.7 lakhs in installments and after completion of building for sale, he agreed to pay remaining amount as per his demands.

The complainant claimed that in December 2005, Gawali's man collected Rs 3 lakhs from his office, and till March 2006, they collected a total Rs 7 lakhs from him.

The complainant had claimed that in November-December 2006 he started redevelopment work of huts in Ranusheth SRA Co-operative Gruhnirman Society, Khedgalli, and for this again he started receiving calls demanding money from Dagadi Chawl. In March 2008, when they threatened to kill him if he failed to pay, the complainant approached the police and lodged the case.

The court found several discrepancies in the narrative given by the complainant. The court noted that the complainant had failed to identify Gawali's brother Vijay Ahir, who according to him had demanded Rs 25 lakhs from him.

"If really, PW-21 (complainant) was met to accused no.2 (Ahir) and there was negotiations about extortion money between them, it is impossible in normal course that PW-21 has forgotten the description of such person who has made demand of extortion money face to face sitting in a room," the court said noting that the complainant in fact in his testimony said that 'I do not remember about who had demanded me Rs 25 lakhs during our said talk at Dagadi Chawl.'

Besides, the builder had claimed that he was forced to give donations for the festival of Navratri but, "He categorically testified that, as per his own wish he gave such donations. He also testified that he gave such a donation to Sudhir Ghorpade as per his own religious faith," the court has said in the judgment.

Besides, the court said that the complainant was already in touch with senior police officials before the case was registered and also, he was thus aware that his phone was already under observation.

"In these set of facts and circumstances it is highly impossible that after receipt of phone calls for demand of extortion money from the approver (accused turned witness) in present case he kept mum as a silent spectator and followed the directions of accused nos.1 (Gawali) and 2 (Ahir) and paid extortion money. This conduct of PW-21 (complainant) is not natural. It speaks volume," the court observed questioning the prosecution case.

news