the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa in its findings recorded in its order has found that the Children’s Court, which had acquitted both Samson D’Souza and Placido Carvalho for the drugging of British teenager Scarlett Keeling and her subsequent death by drowning, had arrived at conclusions that were contrary to the evidence on record.
“The acquittal is a result of improper appreciation of evidence and is capricious. The conclusions are contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. The trial Court has ignored cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence of the witnesses coupled with medical evidence which corroborates the fact that the victim was under the influence of narcotic drugs and alcohol,” the High Court noted.
“There is indeed a miscarriage of justice. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is an impossible view in the given set of facts and circumstances. We have, therefore, re-appreciated and reviewed the entire evidence on record and constrained to take a different view. Decision of the learned Trial Court will have to be reversed to meet the ends of justice,” the High Court said.
The Court in arriving at its conclusions noted how there were not substantial discrepancies in the testimonies provided by the witnesses including shack owner Luis Coutinho, Murli Sagar who was present in the shack and Chandru Chavan who was a waiter in the shack.
“Without analysing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a serious case like this, the trial Court has jumped to a conclusion that the prosecution case is weak. It is not even clarified what were the so called omissions and contradictions. Merely saying that there were omissions and contradictions without explaining whether they really existed and on material facts, such observations sans any basis deserves to be ignored,” the High Court said.
“There is absolutely no discussion whether the so called omissions and or contradictions were referred to the concerned Investigating Officer/s by the defence counsel and whether so called omissions and contradictions have been duly proved or otherwise,” the court noted.
Dealing with the findings of the Children’s Court that the witnesses, who themselves
admitted to consuming narcotics, gave statements to save themselves from prosecution under the NDPS Act, the High Court found that “even if it is presumed that witnesses have violated certain provisions of NDPS Act for storing and selling of narcotic drugs to the customers, nevertheless, their testimonies, which withstood stringent cross examination, could not be said to be unworthy of credit only because police or CBI did not initiate action.”
The Court also noted that under the Goa Children’s Act the burden is upon the accused to prove his innocence which he did not substantially do.
“The learned Trial Court has also ignored the bruises noticed by the medical expert below the knees i.e on the shin and other parts of the body,” the High Court said.
The court also held that the fact that D’Souza is now the sole bread earner would not be enough to show him leniency. “The mode and manner in which he thereafter took the victim to the beach and outraged her modesty also exhibits the lasciviousness on his part. Merely because he is the only earning member of the family with a minor daughter would not be a mitigating circumstance to show leniency in his favour,” the court said.
