Bhakre to HC: Haste & hurry to dispose Mahanand case
Guilherme Almeida
MARGAO, FEB 12: Even as the suspension of Judge Desmond D’Costa is snowballing into a major issue across the State, a report by the South Goa District and Sessions Judge Utkarsh V Bakre to the High court Registrar on the disposal of the Mahanand Naik’s murder case by the suspended judge has come under close scanner of the legal fraternity.
Though the exact reason behind Judge D’Costa’s suspension still remains unclear, Judge Bakre’s report or complaint to the High court Registrar General dated April 12, 2010 on the subject “irregularities/illegalities committed by Additional Sessions Judge Desmond D’Costa” has brought the South Goa district and Sessions Judge in the eye of a storm as his report states he had issued instructions to the suspended judge not to hurriedly dispose off his matters.
In the report, Judge Bakre has said though the Mahanand Naik case was a custody matter, ,however, there was no need to dispose it off in the manner, as was done by Judge D’Costa. “Accused Mahanand Naik was in judicial custody in many murder cases and hence disposal of the sessions case no 33/2009 would not have resulted in his liberty from custody”, Judge Bakre stated.
He further stated that Judge D’Costa, for reasons best known to himself, has with great haste and hurry, disposed off the serious murder and robbery case by doing these things on one and the same day, namely recording the depositions of two witnesses, Police Sub Inspector Shailesh Narvekar and Police Inspector Nolasco Raposo; recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of Criminal Penal Code; hearings of final argument and pronouncement of the judgment, acquitting the accused.
Judge Bakre further went on to state in his information/complaint that “what is very very material, but is ignored, is a material piece of evidence on record, which could have certainly led to the conviction of the accused, who is allegedly a serial killer.”
“Neither the jeweler Ulhas Rivonkar nor the Investigating Officer, Rajendra S Prabhudessai and Special Judicial Magistrate Maria Mascarenhas have been examined by Judge D’Costa; the consequence is that the confessional statement produced by the prosecution and the recovery panchanama at the instance of the accused have been kept out for reasons not known”, Judge Bakre further stated in his report.
The legal fraternity, does not agree. President of South Goa Advocates Association, advocate Anacleto Viegas said that Judge D’Costa ought to have been rewarded for disposing off the case within a short time. “Delays are the bane of Indian judicial system. Judge Desmond has done nothing wrong in disposing off the case expeditiously”, he added.
Says advocate J Antao, who represented accused Mahanand said “The case was taken up for hearing by Judge D’Costa since it was a custody matter and the Sessions Judge Bakre was on leave. Two prosecution witnesses were summoned to the court for examination that day. Since there were no other witnesses cited by the prosecution for examination, the judge disposed off the case. There was absolutely no evidence again the accused in the case”.
Viegas further contended “In a criminal trial, the judge only has an objective role to play. A judge cannot tell the prosecution to bring evidence”, he said, adding that Judge Desmond had disposed off the Mahanand Naik case because the prosecution had closed the case”.
Incidentally, Judge Bakre has denied that his information to the High court Registrar on the Mahanand case has anything to do with Judge D’Costa’s suspension. In fact, he told the South Goa advocates on Friday that as the principal judge of the District And Sessions Court, he is duty bound to submit reports on judges to the High Court every three months.
