Panjim: Two First Information Reports (FIR) in a same case, suspicion on the accused without legal proof and several loopholes in the investigation led to acquittal of four persons who were charged with abducting and killing a car driver. The High Court of Bombay at Goa acquitted Ravindra Jha, Srinivas Gauramkondu, Mohammad Imdar Ali and Bijoy Kolita by setting aside the conviction order of the District & Sessions Court, North Goa.
“The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances from which any conclusion of guilt could have been recorded against the accused persons. Most of the circumstances listed by the Sessions Judge did not apply to all the accused persons, simultaneously, or otherwise. There is hardly any evidence on record to establish the conspiracy,” the bench of Justices Prithviraj Chavan and M S Sonak observed while setting aside the lower court’s order passed in 2016 year.
As per the chargesheet, in 2009, the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy by hiring a Maruti Van GA-01-R-7954 driven by the victim Sudan Dabhalefrom Mapusa Bus Stand on July 17, 2009 on the pretext of transporting household goods/articles from Birlanagar to Mapusa.
The police further said they asked Sudan to drive to Cuelim inCansaulim at an isolated spot where he was murdered, robbed of his articles. The accused then dumped the body at the crime scene and escaped with the vehicle. The prosecution thereafter argued that the accused persons used the car to kidnap one Aiyaz, son of Azgar Ali, by replacing the registered number plate with a fake one. The local police had filed two FIRs in this case, which was countered by defense counsels Advocate Arun Bras De Sa, Salil Saudagar, S Pereira and Vivek Rodrigues.
“The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence as the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances in question. There are too many holes in the theory propounded by the prosecution and, therefore, the conviction should be set aside,” the defense submitted while also taking through the court to evidence which were ‘not at all appreciated by the Sessions Judge in proper legal perspective.’
The court then noted that there was really no justification to register two separate FIRs and to launch two separate prosecutions. “Such registration of two separate FIRs in respect of the same incidents or in respect of two or more parts of the same incidents has, undoubtedly, caused prejudice to the accused persons,” it said and set aside the conviction citing that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt.
