presented an impassioned argument that, even as the widow of the murdered Congress leader was being made “to run from pillar to post” in search of justice, the CBI was trying to protect those “against whom there is already plethora of evidence”. Shri Jethmalani also pointed out that the investigation had suffered due to “suppression of evidence” and gave the example of the eye-witness statement, recorded by the CBI on 25 May 2007, of one Rambhau Pawar, in which the latter has given a graphic account of the murder. According to Pawar (who was used by the police to identify Mali and Sonawane when they were arrested), he tried to intervene when the crime was being committed but as he approached the assailants, Mali shouted at him: “Yahan se bhag nahin to tera bhi yehi hal karege. Hamare bahut lambe haath hain. Hamare peechhe netaon ke haath hain. Bharosa nahi hai to jaan le ki hamare peechhe Ulhas Patil, G.N. Patil, Ramesh Chaudhary (a local Congress MLA) ke haath hain”. Pawar had written the whole incident in his personal diary which was subsequently seized by the CBI. This vital evidence was not included in the first chargesheet filed on 22 December 2005, nor did the CBI take cognizance of it to include the names of Lokhande, Narkhede, Dr. G.N. Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil in the second (supplementary) chargesheet it filed on 10 June 2008. In his detailed written submissions before the Court, Shri Jethmalani presented the following important pieces of evidence, showing the in
