Court acquits 6 in Moira bar assault over evidence gaps

PANAJI
Nearly nine years after a violent assault at a bar in Moira left one man with serious head injuries, the Fast Track Court, Merces, has acquitted all six accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their identity or prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a detailed 67-page judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Artikumari Naik acquitted Joaquim D’Costa, Suryesh alias Babu Arolkar, Ashvek Valavalkar, Vinay Gadekar, Sunny Mithapara and Vijay Karbotkar of offences under the Indian Penal Code, as well as the Arms Act.
The incident occurred at Popular Bar and Restaurant in Moira on December 18, 2017, where a group of armed men allegedly attacked one Ravi Naik and his associates using swords, knives, baseball bats, liquor bottles and other weapons.
The court, however, found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and observed that the identity of the alleged assailants remained doubtful throughout the trial.
“The identity of the accused is under question as this witness has not identified a single witness,” the court observed while evaluating the testimony of the bar owner, who had stated that all the attackers were wearing masks. A central factor weighing against the prosecution was the testimony of key witnesses who either failed to support the case or contradicted earlier statements recorded by police.
The court noted that the bar owner, examined as an independent witness, testified that only five masked persons had entered the establishment, whereas six persons were eventually charge-sheeted. 
The court further remarked that merely establishing the presence of five individuals did not automatically prove the existence of an unlawful assembly.
The prosecution’s case was further weakened when several witnesses stated they could not identify any of the attackers because they were wearing masks.
One witness testified that police had wrongly recorded details in his statement, while another told the court he had signed a typed statement without its contents being explained to him.
The court also found contradictions in the evidence of injured witness Ravi, who named certain individuals during his testimony, with the court pointing out that one of the names he repeatedly referred to, “Jack”, did not correspond to any of the six accused before the court.
The court observed that the prosecution failed to explain how six persons came to be arraigned as accused when multiple witnesses consistently referred to only four or five masked assailants. “There is no iota of evidence as to how there are six accused persons in the present case,” the court noted.
The judgment also highlighted shortcomings in the police investigation.
The investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that no test identification parade was conducted, no masks were recovered from the accused despite witnesses claiming attackers wore masks, and certain potentially important witnesses had not been examined. The court found these omissions significant, particularly because identification of the assailants was the central issue in the case.