KARSTEN MIRANDA
karsten@herald-goa.com
MARGAO: In a detailed 350-page judgment, the South District and Sessions Court meticulously pieced together the circumstantial evidence that led to Vikat Bhagat’s conviction in the rape and murder of British-Irish tourist Danielle McLaughlin. Judge Kshama Joshi’s observations revealed a disturbing pattern of violence and attempts to conceal the crime.
The court strongly rejected the defense’s argument of consensual relations, making significant observations about consent that could have far-reaching implications in sexual assault cases. Judge Joshi emphasized that intoxication cannot be an excuse in cases of rape and that if a woman is intoxicated, she is not mentally capable of giving free and conscious consent. The court stated that “not every ‘yes’ is covered under valid consent,” highlighting that under Section 375 of the IPC, the definition of rape includes acts committed “against her will” and “without her consent.” Witness testimonies confirmed that McLaughlin was intoxicated, with the court concluding that her condition rendered any apparent
consent invalid.
Medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the violent nature of the crime. The post-mortem examination revealed 31 external injuries on McLaughlin’s body, with the court noting they were “caused by blunt force impact and were ante-mortem in nature.” The presence of injuries in the genital areas of both the victim and the accused, along with nail scratches, convinced the court there was “force used and resistance from the victim.”
The judgment meticulously detailed how the prosecution built its case through multiple strands of evidence. Three key witnesses—identified as PW10, PW12, and PW13—provided crucial testimony about seeing McLaughlin with Bhagat in an intoxicated state. The court found their testimonies particularly significant as they established the “last seen” theory, placing McLaughlin with Bhagat before her death.
The court painted a chilling picture of attempts to hide the crime. “The body was found in a nude condition without clothes, which shows the clothes were intentionally removed to prevent identification,” Judge Joshi observed. “The face of the victim was smashed to hide her identity.” The medical examination revealed more disturbing details, including “black brownish particles under surface and nail beds” and “dry blackish stains present around anus and genitals.”
A key aspect that sealed Bhagat’s fate was the recovery of evidence. The court noted how pieces of crucial evidence connected him to the crime scene—broken spectacles, with one piece at the scene and another in a bag recovered from him; a torn bra with pieces found both at the scene and in his possession; and glass pieces with blood stains. “There is no explanation as to how the black bag of the victim came in possession of the accused,” the court observed.
The judgment dismissed claims of evidence being planted, noting that the accused’s clothes, found hidden under coconuts in his home’s storeroom, “cannot be in the possession of police.” DNA evidence further strengthened the prosecution’s case, with the court rejecting arguments about potential contamination due to delays in examination. The court specifically noted that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad, which conducted the DNA tests, had proper preservation facilities, and all samples were received with seals intact.
The prosecution successfully established what the court called a “chain of circumstances” linking Bhagat to the crime. Public Prosecutor Korgaonkar effectively argued that if Bhagat truly had a friendly relationship with McLaughlin, as claimed, his actions were inexplicable. “A person having a relationship and who was supposed to get married would see to it that the girl in such a condition is taken and kept in a safe place,” the court agreed.
The court also addressed the question of motive, noting that while motive acquires great significance in circumstantial evidence cases, its absence alone cannot lead to acquittal. The judgment observed that the motive could be derived from circumstances—the accused’s actions suggested he committed the murder to prevent the victim from disclosing the sexual assault.
While the defense pleaded for leniency, citing Bhagat’s young age of 24 at the time and his eight years in custody during the trial, the court found the crime too serious for any leniency. Judge Joshi noted that leaving the body in the open and attempting to destroy evidence to hide the identity of a foreign national warranted deterrent punishment.
The judgment concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a combination of last-seen theory, forensic and medical evidence, and recovery of articles. The court ordered Bhagat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fines totalling Rs 60,000 for the combined offenses of murder, rape, and destruction of evidence, with all sentences to run concurrently.