Bail granted to three accused; arrests questioned; Sessions Judge says prosecution failed to establish prima facie role
File photo of the Goa Police officers and personnel deployed for law and order duties after the murder at the Sunni Gulistan Masjid, Gogol on January 30.
MARGAO
The criminal conspiracy angle pursued by the Fatorda police to effect many arrests in the January 30 Ali Kalandar Khan murder case that took place at the Sunni Gulistan Masjid Gogol has come under close lens of the South Goa Sessions Court.
In fact, while granting bail to three of the seven persons arrested in the case, South Goa Additional Sessions Judge Ram Prabhudesai categorically stated that the conspiracy hatched by the accused at a meeting is unknown.
The Sessions Court’s observations while granting bail to the accused has further thrown up questions over the arrests made by the Fatorda police in connection with the murder. The observations further assumes significance and comes against the backdrop of the sudden transfer of then Fatorda police station in-charge, PI Nathan Almeida for reportedly saying no to name some persons in the crime.
A close look at the Sessions Court order granting bail, shows that the Court was not satisfied with the submissions made by the Fatorda investigation officer on criminal conspiracy.
Role of accused not established
Referring to the submission made by the Investigating Officer that the only incriminating thing against the accused is their presence in a meeting held the previous night in the house of Makandars wherein the conspiracy was hatched to commit the murder, the court was categorical in saying that the IO and the Public Prosecutor were unable to point out any role of the accused in the alleged conspiracy.
In fact, Judge Ram Prabhudesai said the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present crime by the complainant cannot be ruled out.
Motive and intent questioned
“It is also an admitted fact that the murder occurred during the scuffle between the members of both groups in the precinct of the masjid. Therefore, the police ought to have investigated at least the conspiracy angle to prima facie establish that it was the intention of the accused and the other co-accused, who had attended the meeting, to create a commotion, encourage physical fights between the groups, and specifically target the deceased. It is not the prosecution’s case that the deceased was the leader of the rival group, or that the deceased was the main person opposing the accused group in either managing the masjid or the collection and management of the funds,” the judge observed.
The judge added: “Under the circumstances, a question arises as to what benefits the accused, and the co-accused would have derived from the murder of the deceased, whose relationship holds no significance within the entire controversy. Consequently, the prosecution’s assertion of a conspiracy, lacking any substantial basis or material evidence, appears to be a strategy employed to implicate the accused and other individuals similarly situated.”
No material link to meeting
That’s not all. The judge further noted that the accused’s name is not listed in the complaint concerning attendance at the meeting the previous night at the Makandars’ residence. “Even if it is admitted that the meeting was held at the residence of the Makandars, it could have been for several other reasons. In the absence of any iota of material connecting the said meeting to the crime, the prosecution’s submission that a conspiracy was hatched at that meeting cannot be accepted. If the above theory of conspiracy is blindly accepted, it shall cause serious prejudice to the accused and similarly placed persons. Admittedly, the main culprit who has committed murder and the other person who supplied the knife to him are arrested,” the judge said.
No CCTV or direct evidence
Incidentally, the Fatorda police made a submission before the Court there is no incriminating evidence, such as CCTV footage or photographs, to show that the accused had played any role in furtherance of the said crime at the crime scene, with the IO further submitted that the only incriminating thing against the accused persons is their presence in a meeting held the previous night in the house of Makandars wherein the conspiracy was hatched to commit the murder.
