views
BHUBANESWAR: Even as Crime Branch (CB) takes over the investigation into the shocking murder of Umerkote MLA Jagabandhu Majhi, mystery shrouds identity and antecedent of the killers. While the initial investigation pointed the needle of suspicion at Maoists, there were too many theories to negate it. So far, no outfit of the CPI (Maoist) has claimed responsibility. Nor did any Maoist campaign material was found from the site though those, who gunned down Majhi, reportedly raised slogans of ‘Maovadi Zindabad’. “It will be premature to jump to a conclusion now. The CB will examine all angles including role of Naxalites,” DGP MM Praharaj said. However, police officers, who have expertise in LWE affairs, said it is unlikely that the Maoists could carry out such an operation in full public glare in a tribal area. While action teams do carry out high-profile killings, they are executed with automatic weapons and several bullets pumped into the victim. There are a couple of such instances in Bihar and Jharkhand in the past. “However, in this case, they came with a .9 mm pistol and then used the pistol of the PSO,” said an analyst. The killers were apparently not aware that the PSO Pintu Patro was carrying a gun. When he was shot point-blank from behind and dropped to the ground, the pistol was exposed. “The modus operandi appeared to be of contract killers. There are possibilities that the Maoists may even have been given the ‘supari’ too,” sources said. Although the first account of the murder put the killers’ number at three, it is becoming clear that at least eight persons had come to the place in bikes. Police suspect that they all came from neighbouring Chhattisgarh. If the Maoists’ role is taken off radar, the big question is who was after the MLA’s life? Majhi, who had been espousing the cause of tribals, was a target of the rival faction for a long time. There had been more than two occasions when he survived bids on life. During his political career, Majhi had made enemies from the Bangla settlers since he had been opposing them over land and forest issues.
Comments
0 comment