Hostile witnesses, no video proof cost prosecution case
A Mangaluru court, which on Monday acquitted all 30 accused in the 2009 pub attack case, listed the prosecution’s inability to produce videos shot by news channels as evidence, nine witnesses turning hostile, and the failure to get the women who were assaulted to depose as ‘fatal’ shortcomings in the case.
On January 24, 2009, men and women were assaulted allegedly by members of the Sri Rama Sene who accused them of ‘tarnishing’ Hindu traditions. Among the 30 people charged with the assault, was the Sene’s former chief Pramod Muthalik.
In his judgment, judge Manjunatha R said there were a series of shortcomings that the prosecution failed to address.
The prosecution had identified nine witnesses , one of them being the owner of the establishment and five employees. According to the judge, the owner, Rajshekhar was listed as an eyewitness by the prosecution, whereas he told the court that he got news of the assault through another person and reached the spot after the incident.
Consequently, he was unable to identify any of the accused. He also said that while he signed on the initial complaint, he was unaware of its contents. He was eventually termed hostile by the prosecution.
The second witness, one Krishnakant Shetty, was not an eyewitness. He too turned hostile.
Among the actual eyewitnesses who turned hostile was one Oswald Fernandes while Pavaraj Shetty, who was allegedly assaulted during the inci-
BENGALURU:
dent, “deposed that in the inci- dent some of them assaulted him, but he did not witness those per- sons”. Shetty also denied having given police any statement or having any knowledge of who was present at the pub.
Sharath Kumar, who was listed as the supervisor of the pub, told the court that the incident occurred outside the premises and, hence, he did not see any of those involved. He also said that no damage was done to the pub, which is contradictory to the evidence given by Rajshekhar, who said he arrived at the pub to see broken tables and chairs.
Four other employees who were listed as witnesses also denied giving the police any statement about seeing anything.
The judge said the inability to produce the victims of the assault weighed against the prosecution’s case. “The women customers are the victims and they are the best witnesses in this case. If the investigating officer examined them the real truth would have come out.”
The judgment also pulled up the police for a 16-hour delay in the dispatching the FIR to the court. “The delay in dispatching the FIR is not explained. The delay in dispatching the FIR is also fatal to the prosecution case,” the judgment says.
The failure of the police to procure TV news clips as evidence also tripped the case. “Non-production of the videos and photographs is fatal to the prosecution case. Further in order to prove the conspiracy no materials [were] placed before this court.”
The judge said the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt because the evidence fell short.
Neither additional public prosecutor Chetan Nayak, nor any of the three investigating officers in the case responded to calls for their comments.
Bengaluru-based lawyer Alok Prasanna Kumar said the evidence put up by the prosecution was clearly lacking. “From the police’s failure to not naming the initial investigating officer as a witness, there were many shortcomings in the case,” he said. “Based on the evidence it is clear that their acquittal was certain.”