Even if the CFSL and investigation reports were to be believed, it at least proves that shooter was either Manu Sharma or some of his friends.
- If there were two cartridges, shot from two weapons, Were there one or two shooters?
- What was the interval between two shots?
- Is it likely that one shooter comes, fires one shot, goes un-noticed. Then the other fires another shot and he too goes un-noticed?
- If there were two persons firing two shots, doesn’t it prove that they were together and had a connection.
And if both shots were triggered by one person, why did he use two weapons?
- If this is to be believed, then the shooter was the person who stole Manu’s weapon and he was none else than his friend, having enmity with Manu Sharma
Then what was the shooter’s motive behind destroying the weapons? In that case, at least one of the weapons (Manu’s weapon) would have been seized.
But as per that theory, both the weapons are missing, then obviously, the weapon was destroyed by Manu himself
The needle of suspicion still points to Manu Sharma and his friends, then how could all accused be acquitted?
DreamsIndia does not have the detail of trial proceedings, and neither it intends to give a new twist to the case.
It is only argued that why these questions are not raised.
We wonder that these questions may have been argued during trial, then how could it lead to the verdict of acquittal of all accused?
While all these questions have a strong weight, irrespective of the questions: whether Manu had visited Tamarind Court or not, whether the weapons were seized are not. whether his vehicle was seized or not and where the vehicle was seized from.
But at least this could have been proved that the investigation reports were only fabricated to save Manu Sharma and his friends. Why it was said that they were framed by police?
While it was said the police story was concocted, why it was not said the the CFSL report could not be trusted? Why it was not considered that Manu’s story of missing weapon was concocted. Why it was not considered that the stories concocted in a murder case, were more likely to have been concocted to save the accused, rather than saying that the story was concocted to frame the accused?
There is very obvious that the police officers (including some seniors) were involved with the criminals.
Also that, how could just one or two ministers have such a level of influence over the police of the capital of India? There were, obviously more politicians involved in it.
