A day after the lawyers for the accused in the Abhaya murder case laid bare the inconsistencies in the testimonies of crucial prosecution witness Kalarkode Venugopalan Nair, Nisha Rani who was lined up by the prosecution to establish that the third accused, Sister Sephy, was immoral turned hostile on Wednesday.
The prosecution then refrained from questioning Nousha Rani, sister of Nisha, knowing she too would take her elder sister's line. By now three prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, and another witness (Nousha Rani) was rendered useless for the prosecution even before questioning.
Earlier Sister Anupama, Sister Abhaya's convent mate, and Sanju P Mathew, a neighbour, had told the CBI Special Court that they had not said the things attributed to them by the CBI.
Morning after Abhaya's death
Nisha Rani, like Sr Anupama, was Sr Abhaya's convent mate. She and her little sister Nousha shared a room and was in the convent on the night Sr Abhaya was found dead. They were in room number 15 on the first floor of the convent. Nisha said she came to know of Sr Abhaya's death only after 8:30am.
She said the inmates got the sense that something serious had happened by 7:30 in the morning. “Some inmates who went for the early 7:30 breakfast to the dining hall below told us that something bad has happened. They also said that everyone was keeping a strange silence,” Nisha told the CBI Special Court.
She said the convent well behind the kitchen was visible from her room window. Nisha said the presence of Fire Force personnel near the well made her suspicious. Soon enough, she also saw a body being lifted out of the well. But she had no idea whose body it was.
It was only when she went down for breakfast at 8:30am that she and others were told by a kitchen staff, Thresiamma, that it was Sr Abhaya who had died. “She also told us that Abhaya's headscarf and slippers were found at the back,” Nisha told the Court. (Sr Anupama had in 2008 told the CBI that she had seen the headscarf, slippers and also an axe in the kitchen but during the ongoing trial had retracted the statement.) Nisha did not attempt to get a glimpse of Abhaya's body. “We were too afraid to think of it,” she said.
Unstained kitchen
The cross-examination of defence lawyer J Jose, who was appearing for Sr Sephy, was focused on demonstrating one aspect of the incident: nothing had happened in the convent's kitchen as has been alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution case is that Abhaya was fatally assaulted when she suddenly came into the kitchen during an ungodly hour and found the accused in sinful circumstances.
“Did you wash your hands before and after you had your breakfast,” Jose began his cross. Even the magistrate was a bit amused by what looked like an unnecessary lead question. Nisha said yes. “Where did you wash your hands,” Jose asked. “At the wash area,” she said. “Is the wash area in the dining hall or outside it,” Jose asked. “It is not in the dining hall but in the wash area behind it,” Nisha said.
The defence lawyer was, in effect, stating that the day Abhaya was found dead was also a day when the inmates had their breakfast at the appointed hour, and could move among rooms near the kitchen without hindrance. Meaning, the kitchen, where the violence is said to have committed, was functioning as usual.
To counter the perception, the prosecution asked Nisha whether she had been to the kitchen that day. She said no. Prosecution lawyer Navas then said only the mess was functioning. The stress was on the word 'mess'. What he seemed to insinuate was that the inmates were given food prepared elsewhere, and not in the kitchen.
Sound in the well
The prosecution wanted Nisha primarily to strengthen its case against Sr Sephy. “Who do you think was most likely to hear something falling into the well in the convent,” Navas asked. “Anyone who was not sleeping that day,” Nisha replied. “I want to know who was most likely to hear a sound in the well,” Navas repeated. “Any one in the ground floor,” Nisha said. “So who stays in the ground floor,” Navas asked. “Sr Sephy,” Nisha said. “So Sr Sephy must have heard something falling into the well,” Navas said. “I never said that Sr Sephy heard it,” Nisha said.
Character sketch
Navas then asked probing questions about Sr Sephy. “How was Sr Sephy as a person,” he asked. “She was a pleasant woman,” Nisha said. “But hadn't you told the CBI earlier that Sr Sephy was angry and very moody after the death of Sr Abhaya,” Navas asked. “All of us where in a shock. I did not specifically take note of how Sr Sephy behaved those days,” Nisha said.
The probe went deeper. “You have also told the CBI that Sr Sephy was a bit flirtatious and that it would be hard to say that her character was good,” Navas said. Nisha stoutly denied this.
Objection, your honour
Defence lawyer Jose raised vehement objection to questions on Sr Sephy's character. “The Evidence Act clearly states that the character of an accused is irrelevant in criminal proceedings,” he said and wanted the magistrate to prevent Navas from asking further. “Even if there is video evidence that the accused was involved in some illegal activities even a day before the murder, it is not admissible in the court,” Jose said.
Navas argued that the very case is based on the character of the accused. He said that it was the immoral nature of the accused that led to the crime. Moreover, he said the Evidence Act did not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself “a fact in issue”.
The judge noted both the defence objection and also the prosecution's question. The prosecution then declared Nisha hostile.
Scrap dealer and a thief
Scrap dealer M M Shameer was the first prosecution witness to take the podium on Wednesday. He was lined up to support petty thief Adakka Raju's testimony that he had seen two men climbing up the walls of the convent on the day Abhaya died. Raju has testified that he was on the terrace of the convent to steal the copper parts of a lightning arrester installed on the convent's roof. According to the CBI, Raju had sold his stolen goods to Shameer.
Shameer told the court that Raju had indeed come to him with a copper piece that had the design of the sun, a reference to the lightning conductor with its ray-like projections from a round centre. Shameer said he had known Raju for a long time. He also told the court that he had no idea that Raju was selling him stolen goods till the police came to his shop with Raju.
Shameer also told the court that he and his brother Riyas M M were brutally tortured by the police and were told to testify against Raju in 28 cases. Shameer stuck to what he had told the CBI.
Problem is Raju had stated that he had no idea to whom he had sold the items he had stolen from the convent. The thief has not named Shameer in his deposition. The defence argument is that Shameer is a fake witness created by the CBI.
