By IANS
Mumbai : It will only be after 20 years, in December 2027, that the full copy of Monday’s judgement convicting Pravin Mahajan of killing his elder brother Pramod Mahajan will see the light of the day.
The reason: there are several portions in sessions judge S.P. Davare’s judgement that are based on and mention points from Pravin’s ‘in-camera’ testimony in November.
According to the law, in-camera testimony cannot be brought into the public domain before 20 years.
The judge had ordered recording his testimony ‘in-camera’ after certain private details pertaining to the late Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader’s life were brought forth by Pravin.
With the judge rejecting outright the prosecution theory of financial disputes being the cause of the fratricide, an open question mark hangs over the motive behind Pramod’s killing – at least for another 20 years.
Pravin had admitted before the court that he visited Pramod’s house around 7.30 a.m. on that fateful morning of April 22, 2006.
At the time, Pramod was waiting in the flat’s verandah which has a magnificent bird-eye view of the city and the Arabian Sea. Then the duo went to talk in the living room; Pramod blissfully unaware of what was in store for him minutes later.
However, when Pravin started to make some more statements before the packed open court, public prosecutor Nitin Pradhan objected on the ground that the accused was making scandalous statements and requested the judge to record these ‘in-camera.’
Pradhan’s reasoning was that such statements by the accused would attract “public gaze” which would not help anyone, and these could be of a defamatory nature, slurring the image of the deceased who was in no position to retaliate or clarify.
Incidentally, in-camera implies a hearing which is held before the judge in the private chambers or when the public is excluded from the courtroom.
In-camera hearings are generally intended to protect victims and witnesses from undue public exposure, especially when the victims are women or minors.
However, the proceedings are still recorded by a court stenographer. The judge may then decide to seal this record if the material is extremely sensitive or likely to prejudice one or the other side in the matter.