In a significant verdict, the Additional Sessions Court in South Goa has acquitted all five accused in a high-profile 2018 attempt to murder case from Colva. The court extended the benefit of doubt, pointing to serious lapses and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Court Delivers Verdict After Scrutinizing Evidence
The five individuals who have been acquitted are Raju Talwar, Vipul Pattari, Sadiq Shaikh, Damodar Naik, and Unwan Deshnur. All are residents of Margao and Navelim in Goa. They were facing trial for the alleged assault on a man named Maqbool Khan, which occurred in 2018. The prosecution had claimed that the accused attacked Khan with sharp weapons, inflicting injuries on his head, shoulder, and stomach. The motive was cited as prior enmity involving the main accused, Raju Talwar.
Why the Prosecution's Case Collapsed
However, the court found the prosecution's narrative to be unreliable. The judge highlighted critical inconsistencies that undermined the entire case. A major flaw was found in the testimony regarding the seizure of the alleged weapons. While the investigating officer, Sujay Korgaonkar, provided a detailed account of how the weapons were recovered and linked to the crime, the panch witnesses—independent witnesses required to validate such seizures—failed to support his version of events.
The court explicitly stated that it would be unsafe to rely solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the investigating officer. This lack of supporting witness testimony created a major doubt about the very existence of the material evidence.
Contradictions in Victim's Testimony
Further weakening the case, the court noted contradictions in the statements made by the victim, Maqbool Khan. Specifically, his account of the type of weapon used in the assault was inconsistent. When a victim's own testimony lacks clarity on such a fundamental detail, it raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of the entire accusation.
Based on these grounds—the unreliability of the seizure process and the contradictions in the victim's statement—the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Upholding the principle that it is better to acquit a guilty person than to convict an innocent one, the judge granted the benefit of doubt to all five accused and ordered their acquittal.
The Aftermath of the Acquittal
This verdict brings a legal conclusion to a case that has been pending since 2018. The acquittal means the five men are free from the charges. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in meticulously examining evidence and highlights how procedural lapses and inconsistent testimonies can lead to the collapse of a criminal case, even in serious charges like attempted murder. The prosecution's inability to present a watertight, corroborated chain of evidence ultimately resulted in the court favoring the liberty of the accused.
