Mumbai, March 27 A court here on Friday acquitted five Haryana police personnel, including a then sub-inspector, and two others who were accused of the alleged fake encounter of gangster Sandeep Gadoli at a hotel in Mumbai in 2016, after the prosecution failed to prove murder and other charges against them.
The defense had argued that the shooting was not a premeditated execution, but an act in self-defense, as the gangster had opened fire at the police team, which had gone to the hotel to arrest him.
Additional sessions judge Prashant Kale acquitted the accused, as none of the charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act could be proven.
Gadoli was killed in an alleged shootout by the Gurugram police at a hotel in Andheri East on February 7, 2016. The "notorious" gangster was carrying a reward of Rs 1 lakh on his head and was wanted in more than 40 FIRs registered since 1999.
Police arrested eight persons, including five policemen, Gadoli's "girlfriend", late Divya Pahuja, her mother and rival gang leader Virendra Gujjar, in connection with the killing.
The accused cops included Pradyuman Yadav (then sub-inspector), Vikram Singh, Jitendra Yadav, Deepak Kakran and Paramjeet Ahlawat.
According to the police, Gadoli had been lured into a trap with the help of Pahuja and killed in a fake encounter. The case against Pahuja was later dropped following her murder at a hotel in Haryana in 2024, when she was out on bail in the Gadoli case.
The prosecution alleged that Gujjar, who had a long-standing enmity with Gadoli, had orchestrated the encounter at the hotel in Mumbai.
He, along with the accused cops, conspired to kill Gadoli, it said and claimed that the accused cops shot him at a hotel in Andheri East using illegal firearms, and gave false evidence to save themselves.
The accused were booked under sections 302(murder), 182 (giving false information), 193 (false evidence), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant provisions of the Arms Act.
The prosecution presented the testimony of 43 witnesses and extensive technical evidence (CCTV, call records, and ballistics) to prove the accused acted in a coordinated conspiracy to commit murder.
The defence, in its final arguments, labelled the fake encounter theory as "utterly false and malicious".
Advocates Vilas Naik and Vignesh Iyer, appearing for Pradyuman Yadav and Vikram Singh, submitted that it was done under pressure from the Gadoli family, especially the deceased gangster's brothers and sister, who also have serious cases of extortion and murder, etc.
They argued that based on credible information, Singh, along with his team members, had gone to arrest the dreaded gangster at the hotel, and on reaching the room, where the victim was staying under the name of 'Rishabh Singh', the cops asked him to surrender.
Gadoli, however, fired at the policemen and tried to snatch Singh's firearm, and on sensing danger, the cops shot at him.
They claimed that the gangster sustained bullet injuries and was rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival.
The defence also pointed out that Yadav and Ahlawat sustained injuries to the foot and forehead, respectively.
"Such injuries never occur in a fake encounter," the defence argued, noting that police typically self-inflict minor wounds to limbs, not fatal areas like the head.
They submitted that the gangster was killed in a "genuine encounter necessitated by the circumstances".
Dismissing the prosecution's argument about "pre-planned conspiracy", the defence claimed that the Haryana police team had tried to seek help from the local police, but could not get aid because of the paucity of time and circumstances.
Advocate Prakash Shetty, appearing for Ahlawat, stated that by the time his client entered the hotel room, the scuffle had already broken out, and he was injured.
Despite being armed, Ahlawat did not use his weapon, he added.
The defence also contended that the prosecution had relied on selective CCTV footage and noted that there were 50 discrepancies between the original chargesheet and the evidence presented in court.
After hearing all the sides, the court found that no charges against the accused could be proved and hence acquitted them.
The reasoned order was not made available.