Team Herald
MARGAO: The recovery of a hammer at the instance of Francis Pereira helped in framing charges against him in the desecration of the cross at Cotta, Chandor near the Kushawati bridge which is also called the ‘Tari Khuris’.
This was the only case in which charges have been framed against Pereira, as he had been discharged in a number of desecration cases.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Cyndiana Silva argued that the hammer found subsequent to the confession can be used as evidence and further argued that the relevance of the hammer may be proven at the time of the trial which she said had to go on and pleaded that the charges be frames against Francis.
Hence Judge Narayan Amonkar framed charges against Francis Pereira under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code for defiling a place of worship with intention to insult the religion of a class.
This cross was desecrated on the intervening night of June 6 and 7, 2017 a few days after the locals held a litany there. Police Sub Inspector Rohan Nageshkar who investigated the case recorded statements of six witnesses including the complainant Pascoal Dias.
Incidentally, Pascoal and all the witnesses live close to the cross and all of them in their statement said the cross is venerated by the locals for many years. Some of the witnesses also stated that the desecration was done by somebody from a different village only to hurt the religious sentiments of one community.
Rohan disclosed that he had attached the same recovery panchanama, attachment panchanama and disclosure statement as done by other officers in the other cases where Francis was discharged. The only difference in his investigation was the statement of six witnesses none of whom had also seen the desecration.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Cyndiana Silva also argued the matter differently and relied upon Article 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Agreeing with the defence argument that a confessional statement is not admissible as evidence, she argued that any material found subsequent to the confessional statement can be used as evidence.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act reads: “How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
