the goan I network
PANAJI
While the nation grapples with the question over, if not the Talwars, who killed Aarushi, the Bombay High Court at Goa has similarly acquitted a couple who were convicted by the sessions court of killing a brother/brother-in-law who had spent a night in their house at Taleigao.
Khomu Kasar Bahadur Raul and his wife Yeshori Keshav Bahadur Raul were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Panaji on May 29, 2015 for the murder of Premkumar Khadka on the basis of circumstantial evidence leading them to appeal in the High Court. Khadka is the brother of Yeshori.
The Bahadur Rauls were staying in a rented room at Taleigao. On January 3, 2012 the deceased Khadka arrived at the house and had shared alcohol and dinner on the night of January 4, 2012. After dinner, they went to sleep in the same room at about 11pm with the couple sleeping on the bed and the deceased sleeping on the floor.
When Khomu woke up the following morning on January 5, he noticed that the deceased was still sleeping. He thought that the deceased must have been under the influence of liquor, consumed
THE CASE
Husband-wife duo convicted by Sessions Judge on May 29, 2015 for murder of brother/brother-in-law who had spent a night in their house at Taleigao on the basis of circumstantial evidence
THE INCIDENT
Khadka arrives at relative's house, has alcohol & dinner that night
After dinner, all go to sleep in the same room with the couple sleeping on the bed and the relative on the floor
Couple wakes up next morning, notice relative is still sleeping
They let him sleep thinking he must have been under influence of liquor
Couple finishes their morning routine work, leave for their respective jobs
Husband returns at around 11 am, notices that relative is still asleep; tries to wake him up
Informs neighbours; police also called during previous night. The couple after finishing their morning routine, left for their respective jobs.
However, when Khomu returned to the room around at around 11 am he noticed that the deceased was still sleeping and, therefore, he went to wake him up. As there was no response and the deceased was motionless, he called his wife and also informed the neighbours. The police were also informed.
When the police checked the scene there was nothing suspicious. There was vomit near the dead body as well as blood coming from the mouth and a bruise mark on the tip of the nose of the deceased. The deceased was wearing a black beads necklace around his neck and there was slight compression marks around the neck.
The post mortem noted on the basis of ante-mortem injuries, more particularly, the ligature mark around the neck, indicated that it was a case of homicidal death as it was a death due to asphyxia as a result of compression of mouth, neck and nose.
The Sessions Court framed charges against the husband wife duo accusing them of murdering Khadka. They pleaded not guilty.
In their defence they claimed that Khadka was a close relative (brother of Yeshori), the relations were quite cordial and that they have been made scapegoat in the case by the investigating officer.
The Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that from the circumstances on record, it has been sufficiently established that the deceased was "last seen together" with the appellants and his death occurred in the room of the appellants and, therefore, they are responsible for causing death of the deceased, while at the same time saying that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive behind the murder.
"The conduct of the appellants returning from the work speaks volumes and would indicate that perhaps they were not the real assailants for the simple reason that had they been involved in the offence, normally they would not have returned back; rather they would have attempted to conceal their presence or destroy the evidence," the High Court noted.
"The conduct of the appellants while leaving the room early in the morning without waking the deceased up is quite obvious as on the earlier night he had consumed liquor and, therefore, according to the appellants, they allowed him to sleep and left for their respective work. The possibility of another person entering into the room during night hours, therefore, cannot be totally ruled out in the light of the fact that there was no reason for the appellants to keep the door of the room open from inside had they been real culprits," the High Court also noted while overturning the conviction and setting the husband wife couple free.
