TEAM HERALD
MARGAO: The 2009 Raia dacoity might have ended in acquittal of notorious Michael Fernandes and his group, but not before the Sessions Court, South, bringing to the fore a host of glaring discrepancies in police investigations into the case.
Maina-Curtorim police had charged Michael and nine others in the dacoity that took place in the house of complainant Maria Fernandes on July 22, 2009. The police had alleged that the gang hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the dacoity, gained forceful entry with a fire arm and assaulted the mother-daughter duo before decamping with gold ornaments worth Rs 1.20 lakh.
The prosecution case, however, failed to convince Additional Sessions Judge, Vincent D’Silva, who answered in the negative that the accused had committed the dacoity. The judge also answered in the negative whether the accused had committed the dacoity by carrying a firearm or had hatched a conspiracy.
Judge D’Silva pointed out that the identification parade was conducted after a period of three months. “Though the delay in conducting the parade may not be a ground for disbelieving case of the prosecution, the evidence on record clearly indicated that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade was conducted. That would belittle the case of the prosecution as far as identification parade is concerned”, the judge observed.
On the return of the gold chain and cell phones to the complainant, Judge D’Silva said there’s no dispute that the gold chain and cell phones were released to the complainant before filing of the charge sheet without making any inventory or without maintaining any record. PI Sidhant Shirodkar has stated that the gold ornaments were handed over in a sealed condition to the complainant. The receipt taken from the complainant is not available in the case papers. There was no panchanama conducted at the time of release of gold ornaments and the PI did not feel it necessary to preserve the polythene bags containing the gold ornaments with the seals for the production in the court at the time of evidence”, Judge D’Silva observed, saying the failure to conduct the panchanama has created a doubt as to whether the articles were really sealed or not.
The judge noted further, “No sketch of Michael was prepared as per the description given by the complainant. She also does not remember if the faces of the accused were covered when they were brought before the mamlatdar.” He added that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused were involved in the incident and that they are responsible for the injuries sustained by the victims or that the ornaments were recorded at the instances of the accused.
“Complainant Maria Fernandes has nowhere stated that the persons who had entered their house had any firearm with them. Her mother Antonetta Cardozo had claimed that one of the persons had a pistol which was pointed to her neck. She has not identified the pistol nor the same was shown to her”, the judge said, adding there is nothing on record to show that the accused used any pistol or firearm in committing the dacoity.
