Crime Branch destroyed evidence in Abhaya case: CBI

‘Agency did not return eight objects taken for probe’

October 14, 2019 11:21 pm | Updated December 03, 2021 08:08 am IST - Thiruvananthapuram

KOCHI: 31/1/2013:I  Sister Abhaya

KOCHI: 31/1/2013:I Sister Abhaya

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday attempted to prove in court that the State Police Crime Branch (CB) had wilfully destroyed evidence to save the accused in the Sister Abhaya case.

The CBI special court here is trying Fr. Thomas M. Kottoor and Sister Stephi, both from the Knanaya congregation, on the charge of having killed Sister Abhaya to prevent a scandal after the novice found them in “objectionable circumstances” in the kitchen of St. Pious X convent in Kottayam on the night of March 27, 1992.

The CBI’s case is that Sister Stephi had hit Abhaya three times on the head with the blunt side of an axe and, with the help of the priest, threw the nun’s body into the well to make the murder appear as a suicide.

Two witnesses

CBI special prosecutor Navaz produced two witnesses, both former court clerks, to bolster the agency’s finding that the Crime Branch had not returned the eight material objects it had requisitioned from the evidence room of the sub-divisional magistrate court in Kottayam, ostensibly for investigative purposes.

 

The CBI argued that sly attempts to thwart the investigation had commenced at an early stage of the probe and possibly had the support of certain elements in the State law enforcement. The “eight missing objects” included the clothes worn by 19-year-old Sister Abhaya at the time of her death, her headscarf, a pair of slippers, a water bottle and the novice’s diary in which she made daily entries.

According to the CBI, the Crime Branch had taken possession of the materials from the clerk in charge of the evidence room. However, the agency did not return the objects but created a court record that it had done so.

The prosecutor examined the two clerks and showed them a bundle of court documents pertaining to the period and questioned the witnesses about the identity of the officials who had signed on them. The agency’s case was the Crime Branch had returned the evidence to the court only on paper.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.