'May Have Been A Thief But A Speaker Of Truth' : CBI Court About Raju's Testimony Which Turned Vital In Sister Abhaya Case
A human being who became a professional thief by the force of circumstances,but a speaker of truth nonetheless - Court about Raju.
The crucial witness in the sensational Sister Abhaya murder case was a former thief named Raju, who happened to be in the premises of St Pious Tenth Convent at Kottayam on the fateful night of March 27, 1992.It was Raju @ 'Adakka' Raju's testimony which linked Father Thomas Kottoor to the crime. Raju told the court that he saw two men in the convent compound during the wee hours of the...
The crucial witness in the sensational Sister Abhaya murder case was a former thief named Raju, who happened to be in the premises of St Pious Tenth Convent at Kottayam on the fateful night of March 27, 1992.
It was Raju @ 'Adakka' Raju's testimony which linked Father Thomas Kottoor to the crime. Raju told the court that he saw two men in the convent compound during the wee hours of the crime night and identified one of them as Kottoor.
The defence fiercely attempted to shake the credibility of Raju by placing strong reliance on his criminal antecedents. But Special CBI Court at Thiruvananthapuram found Raju, who was examined as Prosecution Witness 3(PW3), to be a credible witness regardless of his past.
"PW3 may have been a thief, but he was and is an honest man, a simple person without the need to dissemble, a human being who became a professional thief by the force of circumstances,but a speaker of truth nonetheless", the Court observed in the judgment
He told the Court that when he went to the St. Pius X Convent Hostel for stealing the copper plate from the lightning rods installed at the terrace,he found that two men were approaching the staircase,with the aid of a torch light; according to him one of them was Thomas Kottoor and he was able to identify the accused in the dock.
"It is noteworthy that PW3 was subjected to continuous, severe and grueling cross-examination by two lawyers for two long days, but he, uneducated and untrained though he was, stood his ground", the Court observed.
The CBI Court referred to the precedent of the Supreme Court in the case State of Uttar Pradesh v. Farith Khan 2005 (9) SCC 103 which held that while the testimony of a witness with a criminal background must be treated with caution, if such evidence gets sufficient corroboration with the evidence of other witnesses, there is nothing wrong in accepting such evidence.
In this regard, the CBI court referred to the testimony of the convent cook Achamma(PW11) for corroboration of Raju's deposition. The convent cook deposed that Fathers were in the habit of visiting the St. Pius X Convent Hostel and that PW11 would on such occasions be asked to cook sumptuous dishes to be served to the priests.
The defence lawyer, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai, argued that there were material contradictions in Raju's testimony which show that he was a planted witness. But the Court disregarded such arguments by noting that the alleged contradictions were not material and that they could be errors which might have took place when the CBI officers recorded Raju's statement in English.
The Court said that such contradictions and omissions "completely fail to affect detrimentally the credibility of PW3 as a witness in this case".
"Considering the long delay between the occurrence, recording of statements and giving of evidence before the Court, minor discrepancies deserve to be ignored", the Court said.
"His demeanor during his examination by the defence, of showing a sign by rotating his right hand near his right ear is significant and speaks volumes; from this gesture, I comprehend his inability to recollect the statement given by him to the Magistrate. He was examined before this court on 29th August 2019, and the alleged incident took place on 27/03/1992, 27 long years have elapsed since then. So, mathematical precision and exact replication cannot be excepted in the deposition of a rustic witness who did not complete even elementary education", CBI Judge Sanilkumar observed in the order.
"The evidence of PW3 as a whole has consistency in material particulars, and is capable of inspiring confidence as his substantive statement before this Court is that on all the three occasions when he carried out his thieving operation, he entered into the St. Pius X Convent Hostel compound between 3 AM and3.30 AM but on the last occasion, he was compelled to wait outside the compound, watching the movement of the two men which made him be there till the sounding of the siren at 5 AM", the judgment records.
Raju subjected to torture
The CBI Court also noted in the judgment that Raju was subjected to "inhuman torture" by the crime branch to force him to own up the murder of Sister Abhaya.
The Court appreciated the fact that Raju stood his ground despite such pressures and also lures of money.
"PW3 was taken by the Crime branch,Kottayam, into custody from Ramakkalmedu, Idukki District, and he was kept in Crime Branch Station of Eerayilkadavu, Kottayam for 58 days. He was subjected to inhuman torture to extract a confession from him to the effect that PW3 had committed the murder of Sister Abhaya. PW3 stood his ground and did not budge even an inch, where upon he was offered a substantial monetary reward and a job for his wife and the meeting of the educational expenses of his children and a house to live in, but he did not succumb to these blandishments", the judgment noted with appreciation.
Hewas subjected to prolonged cruel and inhuman physical torture and mental torment by DySP Sri. K. Samuel under the instigation of Crime Branch SP, Sri. K.T. Michael, the court noted.
"PW3 (Raju) was subjected to prolonged cruel and inhuman physical torture and mental torment by DySP Sri. K. Samuel under the instigation of Crime Branch SP, Sri. K.T. Michael; the same is clear from the evidence of PW3 and PW8. Further, it can be seen from Ext.P106 series of judgments that PW3 was falsely booked in a catena of cases and he was pressurized by DySP Sri. K. Samuel as per the direction and supervision of Crime Branch SP, Sri. K.T. Michael, to take the responsibility of the crime of the murder of Sister Abhaya", the court said while taking note of the allegations made by prosecution.
"From the evidence of PW3, it can be established beyond all doubt that there was the presence of A1(Father Kottoor) in St. Pius X Convent Hostel, on the night of 26/27-3-1992 and no further proof is required in this matter and this conduct of A1 is sufficient to destroy completely the presumption of innocence of A1".
Also Read : Sister Abhaya Case : 17 Circumstances Which Led CBI Court To Convict Father Thomas Kottoor & Sister Sephy