Kirit's widow, Jyotsnaben, is not satisfied with the statements of the accused and the police inquiry so far. ``The police must go deep into the matter and not rely simply on the statements of the accused persons'', she said.

In his first deposition to the police, the accused -- who took the victim to hospital -- said the deceased had committed suicide by shooting himself. However, he subsequently changed his statement and admitted to firing the revolver on Kirit from close range, though only to show him how a revolver was used and without the intention to kill.

Brajesh's second statement has been backed by company peon Mahendra Shah, the lone witness to the incident, in his statement to police. According to Shah, company proprietor Ramesh Patel had left gone out of the room leaving his revolver behind, and called out to Brajesh from he ground floor to bring it to him. Shah said Brajesh located the revolver, at which point Kirit, who was in the room, asked Brajesh to demonstrate how a revolver was fired. Before firing, Shah said, Brajesh checked the bullet chamber and ensured that it was empty, but Kirit was injured in the second round.

The police have accepted the statements of Brajesh and Shah. Inspector Dinesh Mishra, investigating the case, believes that the man might have initially been `misguided' into telling that the deceased committed suicide. On the basis of this, and taking Shah's version into account, the police defined it to be a ``murder without intention'' and booked a case under Section 304, 177 (giving false information to misguide the police) and 201 (destroying or concealing evidence -- he is alleged to have washed the bloodstains at the site of the incident), IPC. Ramesh Patel has been booked under Section 114 (abetment to crime) as the revolver used in the offence belonged to him.

When asked, Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) Mohan Jha said the police had looked into all angles and concluded that it was not a case of deliberate murder. ``There is no shadow of doubt in it'', Jha said. However, several questions remain unanswered: Why was Brajesh asked to bring the revolver when he was not the retainer? Why was the family informed of the incident at 8 p.m. when the incident had taken place at 4.30 p.m.? Will Shah's statements be taken on face value when his employer has also been implicated in the case?