Kochi, Jul 31 A CBI court on Friday acquitted three accused in the 1992 murder of abkari contractor K G Munna in Palakkad, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to prove the case.
CBI Court Judge P K Mohandas acquitted P Vijayan, P K Sudheer and George Mangalam, all natives of Kottapuram in Palakkad district.
According to the prosecution, Vijayan and Sudheer were abkari contractors while Mangalam was an employee of Vijayan.
Munna was also an abkari contractor.
The prosecution alleged that Vijayan and Sudheer had promised to pay Munna Rs 1.5 lakh if he refrained from bidding for arrack shops in the Mannarkkad Excise Range and brandy shops in Ottapalam during the 1992 auction.
Though Munna did not participate in the auction, the accused allegedly failed to honour the promise initially.
It was alleged that Sudheer later paid Munna Rs 1.5 lakh on April 10, 1992, but the accused conspired to recover the amount.
On the same day, they allegedly picked up a quarrel with Munna at a tourist home in Perinthalmanna, followed his car and intercepted it at Pathaikkara.
The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the car and assaulted Munna with a jack lever.
They also allegedly attempted to abduct Radhakrishnan, who had witnessed the incident, before taking Munna's body to Sreekrishnapuram and setting the car ablaze with the body inside in an attempt to destroy evidence.
The case was initially registered by the Sreekrishnapuram police before being transferred to the Crime Branch and later to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which arrested the accused.
Acquitting the accused, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the cause and time of Munna's death.
"Even if it is found that the accused were not in good relationship or were on inimical terms with the deceased, unless there is clear evidence to prove the role of the accused, they cannot be found guilty," the court observed.
The court said the prosecution had not produced any evidence to establish the alleged criminal conspiracy or the allegation that the accused had destroyed evidence by burning the car.
During the trial, the public prosecutor argued that defects or lapses in the investigation by themselves could not justify an acquittal if the court was otherwise satisfied about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
He also contended that where there was suppression, fabrication or diversion during the initial investigation, the court should be more vigilant to ensure justice to the victim.
The court, however, observed that there were serious lapses during the initial stages of the investigation and that the police had failed to act properly during the crucial early hours after the crime.
"This cannot be found to be innocent. But that is not a substitute for legal evidence. The accused can be found guilty only on the basis of admissible evidence adduced by the prosecution which rules out every other possibility except the guilt of the accused," the court said.
The court noted that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime and that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
"In this case, there is no reliable material to connect the accused with the offences alleged by the prosecution so as to find them guilty of any of the offences charged against them. The prosecution did not succeed in proving the case against the accused and they are entitled to be acquitted," the court observed.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 50 witnesses, produced 187 documents and four material objects, while the defence produced 71 documents.
Advocates Raman Pillai, Thomas Abraham and Sojan Micheal appeared for the accused persons.
Jibin Joseph KA was the Special Prosecutor for CBI.
