‘Casual investigation’ of a murder

‘Casual investigation’ of a murder
Preetu Nair | TNN

Panaji: The Supriya Lotlikar murder, Margao's most sensational killing in 2004, saw accused, husband Deepesh Raiker, acquitted on June 2 this year. While passing the order, the division bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa observed: “It appears that the investigations were carried out in a most casual manner and is one of the reasons the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt”.
On February 26, 2004, Supriya a lab technician received a call and left her workplace. A missing person's report was filed the following day. Raiker was arrested for Supriya's murder five days later.
As the gruesome crime came to light — Supriya had been hit on the forehead, smothered and buried at Gogol by the side of a compound wall next to the eastern bye-pass highway — police claimed Raiker, who had a civil marriage with her, committed the crime as he didn't want to “marry” Supriya and had an illicit relationship with another woman. Police later arrested the woman for conspiring to the murder, but she was acquitted by an additional sessions court.
Sifting the evidence, the high court observed, “Not only did the prosecution fail to produce any evidence in court to even remotely suggest that Deepesh had any special relationship, much less an affair or illicit one with the woman, it couldn't even produce any evidence to prove that the relationship between Deepesh and Supriya was strained. On the contrary there is sufficient evidence to conclude that she was happy.”
Commenting on a crucial missing link in the chain of evidence, the court said that once it was established that none had seen the accused and the deceased going together on the fateful day, the least which was expected on the part of police officers Sudesh Naik or for that matter Shirwaikar was to have found out the source of the telephone call, “which for reasons best known to him, Shirwaikar did not do as an investigation officer (IO)”.
Pointing out the lapses in the probe with regards a gold chain and ear studs found on the deceased the court noted, “It was certainly expected of the IO to have seized the said gold chain and studs for the purpose of further investigations and not hand over the same to the brother of the deceased. These are but serious lapses on the part of the IO.”
As the weapon used for murder was not recovered, the court observed, “If it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted on her forehead causing her injury and then strangulated, then it was expected on the part of the IO to have made some effort to find out with what weapon the deceased was assaulted; but there is total silence in that regard.” The court also dismissed the police theory of recovering Supriya's body, as a clear case of manipulation. “Considering the location and manner the body was found in it is quite probable that the existence of the body at the place was known to the police through other sources and the story of discovery could be fabricated only with the assistance of a pliable witness,” the court noted.
To the prosecution’s theory that Deepesh and his alleged girlfriend had conspired to murder Supriya, the court observed, “There is nothing to connect the accused to the murder of the deceased and the proof of motive fell to the ground with the discharge of (the woman) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao on August 12, 2004.”
The Court further observed that if Deepesh wanted to marry another “he could have always got his marriage with Surpiya annulled and there was no reason to strangulate and murder her.”
Further, the police’s case had also got support from the confession of “star witness” accused Bijay Singh, involved in another murder case, who was sharing prison space with Deepesh. Bijay had informed the police on March 6 that two or three days prior, Deepesh had confessed to him about the crime.But the court dismissed his statement observing “the confession made by the accused when he is in police lock-up either to a police officer or to any other person is inadmissible.”
Trail of an inquest
November 24, 2003: Deepesh Raiker and Supriya Lotlikar have a civil marriage
February 26, 2004: At 2.45 pm, Supriya receives a call. She goes out from her place of work
February 26, 2004: At 10.30 pm, her brother Sanjiv and father Manohar along with her employer search for her. Deepesh searches on his bike
February 27, 2004: At about 1.40 pm a missing person report is lodged. Deepesh doesn’t come to the police station
March 2, 2004: Raiker is arrested for Supriya’s murder. Later his alleged girlfriend with whom police say he had conspired the murder, is also arrested. Another person who was in police custody (in a theft case) with Raiker, but was released on bail, is also arrested for trying to dispose of Supriya’s body allegedly on Raiker's instructions
March 6, 2006: Additional Sessions Judge, Margao acquits the alleged girlfriend and man. It observed that there was no evidence to create even reasonable doubt about the woman’s complicity in any offence and the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the man in destroying the evidence. Both orders were not challenged by the prosecution. However, Raiker was sentenced to life imprisonment and 7 years rigorous imprisonment
June 5, 2006: Raiker files an appeal in the High Court
June 2, 2008: As case is based on circumstantial evidence that prosecution failed to prove, the accused is acquitted

June 8, 2008, The Times of India, Goa edition