By Express News Service

KOCHI: While acquitting the prime accused undergoing double life imprisonment in the Chekannur Maulavi missing case, the High Court on Monday observed that the CBI had failed to prove that the Maulavi had died. “This case is an instance where there is no proof that the Maulavi had died. His death is assumed since he had not come back after going to Kozhikode on July 29, 1993,” the court held.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A M Shaffique and Justice P D Somarajan issued the order on an appeal filed by the first accused, V V Hamsa, seeking to quash the order of the Ernakulam CBI special court, which awarded him a double life sentence and a fine of `1 lakh. The court convicted him for murder and conspiracy.

The CBI said a criminal conspiracy had been hatched at Markaz Arts College, Karanthur, under the leadership of Usman Musaliyar (ninth accused) to eliminate the Maulavi for “acting against Islam”. The accused abducted and killed him. Later, the body was disposed of in a mysterious manner so that it will never be recovered. The CBI could not recover the body.

‘It’s for the prosecution to prove Maulavi had died’

The Bench noted that the only evidence that could link the accused to the murder was that two witnesses had seen him visit the Maulavi’s house and escort him out of there. Though the last-seen theory was a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, it will be safer for the court to look for corroboration, especially in instances where the time lag between the occurrence of death and when the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased.

The Bench observed that if there was evidence to prove the Maulavi’s death immediately after being taken from his residence, an explanation from the accused would have been necessary. But there was no such evidence. “It is for the prosecution to prove with ocular or circumstantial evidence that the Maulavi had died and there are circumstances to implicate the accused in the crime. Unfortunately, no such material is forthcoming in the case,” observed the Bench.

The Bench made it clear to arrive at a conclusion that the accused was involved in a conspiracy to abduct and murder the Maulavi and thereafter destroy the evidence, there ought to be sufficient circumstance that was proved beyond reasonable doubt. “Maybe he is murdered, but what is the material adduced by the prosecution to prove it?” observed the Bench. There was a substantial contradiction in the version of Havva Umma, the Maulavi’s wife, and Abdul Jabbar, an employee of the press run by Maulavi, which by itself cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion that the first accused was one among the persons who had visited the Maulavi’s house.There was no evidence of conspiracy of abduction or commission of murder, added the Bench.