Police Station, Osmanpura Police on 20.6.2011. This letter mentions that Chintamani Sudame was taken to Pune by him on 14.6.2011 and was admitted in a hospital. The letter also gives the address of the said accused No.3 and emphasizes that the ‘flat at Amruta Apartment Aurangabad is locked and vacant’ and that ‘the Inspector should take a note of this in his record’ and ‘keep the flat in his vigilance’ till either the author of the letter, or Chintamani Sudame resumes staying in the said flat. From the tenor of the letter itself it is clear that, apprehension of somebody else making a claim with respect to the possession, or a right to occupy the said flat, was entertained by the accused no.3, at that stage also. When this aspect is considered in the light of the version given in the complaint, instead of making it unlikely that alleged incidents have taken place, it makes it more likely that the incidents as alleged in the complaint have taken place. Thus, the attempt of the learned counsel of the demolishing the positive version of the complainant on the basis of certain material said to be with the accused persons and by insisting that the Court should take such material into consideration at this stage itself (which is not permissible in law), fails.
