Referring to medical evidence, petitioner Pankaj Phadnis, a trustee of a charitable trust, Abhinav Bharat, has claimed that the forensic examination of the third bullet which hit Gandhi was not carried out and there was no post-mortem examination of the body despite the police asking for it.
There was a forensic examination of only two bullets, he said.
Phadnis, who submitted a statement before the court on March 7 and another on March 10, had questioned the "three-bullet theory" relied upon by various courts to hold the conviction of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, who were hanged. He had contended that there was a need to examine whether there was a fourth bullet, which was fired by someone other than Godse.
"No cognizance was taken in the investigation of the reports of four shots reported by The Dawn, Lok Satta, Times of India etc. Material eye witnesses such as Vincent Sheen and K C Roy who reported hearing four shots were not examined," he said, referring to two journalists.
In the written submission, filed before a bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao which on March 6 reserved its verdict saying that it would not go by "sentiments", Phadnis has contended that Godse and Apte were denied their Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court of India by being hanged 11 days before the Constitution of India came to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly.
Other accused were not arrested and no records about them are available in the public domain even today despite an order of the Chief Information Commissioner in February, 2017, he said, adding that these lacunae were creating doubts in the minds of the people.
Phadnis has also sought permission to approach the Commissioner of Mumbai Police to seek his help to get copies of all photographs and motion pictures pertaining to January 30 and 31, 1948, available with the Gandhi Film Foundation, Mumbai, which, he said, may show four wounds so that he could get their forensic examination done at his own cost.
The apex court said the plea seeking a retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen a matter which happened years ago.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
