In a major expose on the encounter of an Apple employee by an Uttar Pradesh cop, Republic TV conducted a sting operation on a couple of officers of the state police, who have stated on camera that the party at fault in this incident was Vivek Tiwari, the deceased, and not Prashant Chaudhary, the accused policeman.
DP Tiwari, SHO of Gomtinagar, could be seen putting a shocking defence of the accused in this case. From praising the policeman for being a 'responsible cop' to questioning the incidents which happened at the scene of the crime, he left no stones unturned to make sure that Vivek Tiwari could be shown as the real culprit in this case.
The investigation, which was conducted by Republic TV's reporter Piyush, saw DP Tiwari, SHO of Gomtinagar, defend the accused cop in this matter. Stating that Prashant was a normal and responsible policeman with a good history and zero complaints', he said,
"Someone said it was a mad policeman who shot him. He wasn't mental. He is mentally stable kind of person who used to come and go back from here after doing his duty. Never has there been any complaint against him in this police station. He never had a bad history. Under what circumstances did he have to open fire? Is anybody debating on this?"
One of the most shocking revelation which came out of this investigation was the fact that the cop in video questioned Vivek and his friend for being present at the location at 2 in the morning.
"Is it our mistake that at 2 in the night a car is standing. A man and a woman are talking. Who they are? What's their profile? What are they doing? Rule says we have to knock and ask. If anything happened inside the car in the night, it we would have been our mistake. Who would take responsibility for that?" he added.
In a brazen act of support, DP Tiwari hinted that the cop in question, Prashant Chaudhary may well have shot at Vivek Tiwari as part of self defence.
"People assume that the cop should not have fired and that he should have opened fire when his hands or legs were broken or when the vehicle would have been driven over him. Should he open fire after he got injured? So how is it self-defence then? Self defence is then dependent on situational awareness. The cop was not injured anywhere. Now cop has to prove that if he removed the pistol, then he had to fire. His vehicle hits the car. The vehicle is dragging. The car would have run him over. His hands and legs would have been crushed. Then he should have opened fire? So this has to be decided by the person who opens fire. Circumstances decide the reason for opening fire," the SHO of Gomtinagar mentioned.
The final part of the stunning sting operation shows how the cop questions what happened at the scene of the crime. DP Tiwari, on a number of occasions, hinted that it wouldn't have been possible for Prashant Chaudhary to shoot the way it has been portrayed.
"They are saying that he shot the driver from the divider. The divider is there on either side of the road. If he climbed up the divider and took the shot, the angle of the shot should have been different. Why is nobody raising this point? Dividers were there on both sides. So where will he shoot? If he takes the shot, the scene of the crime will change. Direction of the bullet will change. The bullet was fired from the front. So how will he fire from on top of the divider? Which divider will fire from? What do we debate on? Someone said he climbed on the bonnet and fired. We are saying that you are journalists not doctors. The bullet must have hit some bone and ricochet. It could hit here and diverted from there. The bullet ricochet. You can become doctors and decide whether he fired from the bonnet or from the roof the car or the divider. How did he climb the divider?" the cop further added.