MARGAO
The acquittal of all the accused in the sensational deaths of two United Tribal Alliance Association (UTAA) activists, Deelip Velip and Manguesh Goankar, has thrown up a host of questions “ Who were the culprits involved in setting up the Achal Cashew Factory, Balli on fire on May 25, 2011, where the two deceased were found dead after being trapped inside? Whether the evidence advanced by the prosecution was not convincing enough to convict the accused in the case? Or, was the prosecution’s reliance on the CD, DVDs and slides failed to identify the accused persons?
A glance at the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Irshad Agha acquitting the accused persons throws some insight into the prosecution case and the reasons behind the case ending in an acquittal.
Judge Agha was clear in saying that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient enough to convict the accused persons for causing mischief by fire.
“There is nothing on record to show that the accused persons committed the act of putting fire and assault knowing fully well that a person may die, but without any intention to commit murder”, the Judge observed.
The Judge added: In the present case, there is no direct evidence. The circumstances do not connect each other. The prosecution has to prove how the accused persons did the criminal act. From a criminal act, the role of the accused persons cannot be established unless some evidence is brought on record. In a given case, even if one person is present and the fire was put to any building or article, the court cannot conclude that the fire must have been put by the same accused person who is present near the item or building to which fire is put”.
The Judge further said that the possibility of setting fire by some other persons other than the accused cannot be ruled out because Pw4 Prashant Velip has deposed that he had seen the fire before 20-25 persons could come there.
“This raises a doubt because if the fire was put before the group of persons could come to the spot, the fire must have been put by some other person. Possibility of such a happening and the benefit of the same should go to the accused persons”, the Judge added.
The Judge observed he do not find any of the witnesses who have deposed convincingly against any of the accused persons.
“Nobody knows how the fire was set to Achal Cashew Factory and the vehicles. There is no evidence to show who was assaulted and how they were assaulted. There is no evidence to show whether dandas were used for assaulting”, the Judge said, adding “The prosecution witnesses were either found to be interested or they did not state anything against any accused persons”.
“Pw2 Prasanna Bhagat has deposed that six persons were trapped in the building, out of which, two died and four were rescued. The testimony of this witness shows that civilians rescued the persons trapped in Adarsh Bhavan. In cross-examination, he has admitted that locals, i.e. civilians, tried to rescue him."
"Pw3 Soiru Velip has also deposed that the persons trapped in the building were asking for help and in cross-examination, he has admitted that the civilians rescued the persons. From this evidence, it is clear that the civilians or the locals, even if gathered, did not intend to cause any harm to any persons. In fact, they wanted to save the persons whose lives were in danger. This part of the evidence brings out the accused persons from the charge of Section 304 (ii) of IPC”, the Judge further observed.
He added: “All the accused persons, as per the address given in the charge sheet, are the local persons. In all probabilities, the witnesses should have identified the accused persons. None of the witnesses has identified the accused persons. Identification in CD or DVD or slides is not a good identification”.
The Judge said the evidence of a witness in identifying an accused does not inspire confidence after the witness submitted that he has identified an accused based on a photograph shown to him.
“Identification, if any, ought to have been carried out by carrying out a test identification parade during the course of the investigation. No such identification was carried out by the Investigating Agency,” the Judge said.
