North Goa Court Clears Agasaim Resident in 2018 Electricity Lineman Assault Case
A North Goa court has acquitted Lourenco Palha, also known as Hadpoi, from Agasaim, of all charges related to assault and causing grievous injuries to A Parvatkar, an electricity department lineman. The incident occurred in 2018 following a power failure, but the court found significant flaws in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal.
Contradictions in Witness Testimonies Undermine Prosecution
The court highlighted major contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses, which severely weakened the case against Palha. One version of events claimed that Parvatkar was assaulted with a koita (a traditional Goan tool), while another stated he sustained injuries after falling from a metal sheet. These inconsistencies created reasonable doubt, and the court noted that prosecutors could not be blamed when witnesses themselves failed to support the prosecution's narrative.
Key Evidentiary Gaps and Procedural Lapses
Several critical gaps in evidence contributed to the acquittal. The complainant, Parvatkar, could not be examined during the trial as he died while the case was pending, leaving a void in the prosecution's account. Additionally, police failed to obtain the muster roll, which would have been crucial to establish that Parvatkar was a public servant discharging official duties at the time of the alleged assault.
The scene-of-offence pancha witness provided testimony that further undermined the case. This witness stated that the sketch of the scene was prepared before the panchanama (official record) and that the panchanama began before they even reached the spot. More damningly, the witness claimed that a junior engineer forced him to act as a pancha witness by threatening disciplinary action, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence collection process.
Hostile Witness and Unreliable Evidence
Another witness, a bar and restaurant owner, turned hostile during the trial. He testified that he only saw the lineman with a bleeding hand and provided no incriminating evidence against Palha. The court deemed this testimony unreliable, further eroding the prosecution's position. With no solid evidence to corroborate the assault claims, the court concluded that the case did not meet the required legal standards for conviction.
This acquittal underscores the importance of consistent witness statements and thorough evidence collection in legal proceedings. The court's decision reflects a careful evaluation of the facts, emphasizing that contradictions and procedural lapses can lead to reasonable doubt, even in cases involving alleged violence against public servants.
