As two full months have passed since the brutal rape-murder of a 29-year-old Dalit law student near Perumbavoor, some 45 KM east of Kochi, the Kerala Police's Special Investigation Team probing the murder, is reportedly nearing the conclusion of its investigation.
However, questions are now coming up about whether the SIT has got concrete evidences.
Though the SIT has been busy carrying out identification parades for the accused, Ameerul Islam (23), a native of Dholda village in Assam, who was arrested on June 16, and taking him to locations linked to the crime for evidence-gathering, legal experts say that the case can become “dangerously weak” in the court if answers to certain vital questions are not found.
According to police sources, Ameerul, a construction worker, has admitted that he himself had killed the Dalit law student, who was living with her mother in a small house at Iringole near Perumbavoor as an act of revenge for insulting him at a bathing ghat on the canal near her house, when some women attacked him for spying on them, while they were a taking bath. The Dalit woman was killed inside her house on April 28.
One of the most vital questions is about the motive behind the brutal murder. According to the autopsy report, there were 38 wounds on the body of the victim. There had been wounds all over body, her genitals had been mutilated with some sharp weapon and her internal organs had come out.
Even many police officials are not prepared to believe the story that he had murdered the Dalit woman so brutally, just because she ridiculed him at the bathing ghat. Moreover, women in the locality say that no such incident had ever taken place. The police are reportedly going ahead with the inference that Ameerul had killed the Dalit law student out of sudden provocation.
Another question troubling the police, is the finding that there was a good quantity of alcohol in the body of the victim. According to police sources, Ameerul had admitted that he had given her liquor when she asked for water as he strangled and stabbed her brutally. “But this explanation doesn't seem to be plausible,” said a retired forensic expert.
The police had earlier recovered a knife, which they believed was used by Ameerul to kill the Dalit woman, but it was later found that the wounds in the body did not match its measurements. It is now said that the police have found the actual weapon used in the crime from backyard of the house of the Dalit woman, inside which she was murdered.
“The inference so far is that the Assamese was the only one responsible for the murder. However, there were also reports about the possibility of a second person's involvement, though the police are yet to be sure about it. The question whether there was an accomplice with Ameerul in the crime is very confusing,” said a leading Kochi-based lawyer.
legal experts point out that the strongest evidences the police have so far found, relate to the DNA analyses of the samples collected from the crime scene. As per police claims, the DNA analyses had shown the involvement of Ameerul in the crime but questions have come up as to whether this alone would suffice in proving the case in the court.
After visiting the accused at Aluva, the police's base camp for the probe, the mother of the victim said that he was not familiar to her. According to the victim's sister, the mother asked the man why he had killed her and whether he had done it at anybody else's insistence. “He had no clear answers,” said the victim's sister.
A woman in the victim's neighbourhood had identified Ameerul as the person wearing a yellow T-shirt, whom she had seen going out of the scene on the day of the crime. An autorikshaw driver in Perumbavoor also has identified Ameerul. However, the special probe team is yet to find the yellow T-shirt.
legal experts point out that a clear conclusion about the case can be drawn only after finding the missing links, but they add that the SIT has still got time. According to one of the senior-most lawyers in the Kerala High Court, “The police case could turn out to be dangerously weak in the court if clear answers to such questions are not available.”