Senior advocate Damodar Dhond on Tuesday stated that the acquittal of Panaji MLA Babush Monserrate in the case was based on glaring contradictions in the victim’s statements and the lack of consistent supporting evidence.
Addressing the media, Dhond said the complainant had given as many as six different statements and versions of events, with several of them contradicting each other, including statements recorded before the same judge. He explained that the prosecution’s case largely rested on medical evidence and the victim’s testimony, both of which failed to conclusively establish the allegations.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
“The victim kept changing her stand. One statement contradicted another before the same judge, which seriously affected the credibility of the prosecution case,” Dhond said.
He further pointed out that in her final statement, the complainant admitted that the case was false. “This was a crucial factor that weighed with the court. When the complainant herself states that the case is false, the court cannot ignore such a development,” he added.
Dhond maintained that the court, after examining the evidence and contradictions, arrived at a reasoned and lawful decision to acquit Monserrate. He reiterated that the verdict reaffirmed the importance of credible testimony and consistent evidence in criminal trials.
