The prosecution produced yet another witness before the CBI special court on Tuesday to once again establish that the material objects related to Sister Abhaya's death that were taken away by the crime branch were not returned to the sub-divisional magistrate office.

The witness was Sankaran, a former head constable. Crime branch DySP K T Samuel had in 2014 testified before the CBI that he had handed back the material objects (a nun's veil, a brown plastic slipper and a water bottle) to the SDM office through a head constable (No. 3037). This was Sankaran, now retired.

HC 3037's surprise

Sankaran, who looked weak and so was allowed to be seated in the witness box, denied this in front of the CBI special judge K Sanilkumar on Tuesday. Sankaran said he had assisted Samuel in the Abhaya case but insisted that Samuel had never told him to hand over the 'thondimuthal' to the SDM office. “I was not even told to enter this in the case diary file,” Sankaran said. It was Sankaran's duty to fill up the case diary.

The CBI's contention is that the material objects were destroyed by the accused with the help of police and revenue officials willing to bend rules for a price.

Looked like the defence strategy was to demonstrate that Sankaran suffered from a certain level of memory loss. “You seem to be a bit unwell,” defence lawyer A Jose asked. “Yes,” Sankaran said, feebly. The former head constable also found it difficult to speak loud.

“Do you remember where you were on July 6, 1992,” Jose asked. “I was in the crime branch,” Sankaran said. “Fine, but what I meant was do you recollect where you where and what you did on that day,” Jose clarified. “I don't,” Sankaran said feebly.

Violation of procedures

The prosecution also produced another witness named Raju Namboodiri, a former lower division clerk in the SDM office, Kottayam, to detail the procedures related to the collection and storage of 'thondimuthal' from investigating agencies.

On October 14, too, the CBI had lined up two former revenue officials (Divakaran Nair who was upper division clerk at the Kottayam SDM office in 1992 and John who was senior superintendent at the same office for two years from 2014) to provide details on how the material objects that were brought in were collected and stored in the SDM office.

Namboodiri more or less echoed what Divakaran Nair and John had said. It is the postal clerk who collects all the documents from the investigating agency. He puts it up to the senior superintendent who, after initialling, directs it to the section clerk concerned. The section clerk then enters the contents into the crime records register.

The CBI's contention is that this routine flow in accepting and storing material objects from an unnatural death scene was not followed after the crime branch got hold of the objects. A crime branch letter dated July 6, 1992 saying that the material objects had been returned is seen to have been accepted by the then senior superintendent but it does not have the mandatory verification seal of the section clerk.

Namboodiri also said that though the files related to the case could be destroyed three years after the final report was accepted, there was nothing in the office manual about how to deal with material objects. “So we normally don't destroy them,” he said. The CBI's charge is that one of the material objects from Sister Abhaya's death scene, the nun's diary, was destroyed by some officials in the SDM office. The other objects, according to the CBI, were taken outside and never returned.

Jolt for prosecution

Namboodiri, however, sprang a surprise when he said that he had never been questioned by the CBI on the issue before. Prosecution lawyer Navas was caught off guard. Even when he was probed further, Namboodiri just couldn't seem to remember. “This was 2014, not far back,” Navas said. He stood on the witness box with a confused half smile.

“The CBI was frequenting your office during the time and questioning people. You still don't remember,” Navas pressed on. “They might have asked something,” Namboodiri finally said.

Inadmissibility of narco test

The day also saw the defence team objecting to the lining up of doctors who were part of a narco analysis test done on second accused Sister Sephy as witnesses. Defence lawyer A Jose argued that the Supreme Court had made it clear that narco analysis was not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

“Even if it is with consent, narco analysis can be used only as an aid in the investigation but not for trial,” he said. Jose said that it could be used for trial only if the narco test had helped the investigators to adduce additional proof. “But the prosecution has not informed us of any new proof that they have unearthed with the help of the narco test,” Jose said. “They cannot spring a surprise on us, too,” he added. The judge agreed.