Muthanga case: 23 years on, mystery over Constable Vinod’s death remains; verdict on July 31

Kalpetta: More than 23 years after Constable Vinod's death, questions over the manner in which he lost his life formed the focus of the defence's arguments before the District Principal Sessions Court here on Saturday as the trial in the 2003 Muthanga land agitation case entered its final phase.

With the marathon hearing nearing completion, District Principal Sessions Judge Ayoob Khan informed the court that the proceedings were scheduled on a fast-track basis, with the verdict set to be pronounced on July 31.

The case originates from the violent confrontation that erupted at Gowdanvayal, Thakarappadi, inside the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, on February 19, 2003, when police moved to evict tribal protesters who had occupied forest land as part of a 47-day agitation led by the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS) under the leadership of C K Janu and M Geethanandan.

The police operation culminated in a fierce clash in which tribal protester Jogi and police constable Vinod lost their lives. According to the prosecution, Jogi died after sustaining bullet injuries during police firing, while Vinod succumbed to a deep injury to his neck allegedly inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. Hundreds of tribal agitators also were injured in the police shootout and evacuation of protestors.

During the final arguments, the defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Vinod was killed by tribal agitators. The defence argued that the prosecution's version was unsupported by reliable eyewitness evidence and pointed to what it described as significant inconsistencies in testimonies of several witnesses.

According to the defence, none of the eyewitnesses, including journalists who covered the incident, were close enough to clearly witness what transpired inside the temporary shed where Vinod was being held. They submitted that all such witnesses were positioned more than 50 metres away from the shed, making it impossible to accurately identify who inflicted the fatal injury.

The court was told that Vinod, along with another policeman, was held captive inside the makeshift shed during the confrontation. The defence referred to witness accounts stating that the agitating tribals had warned police that if they fired at the protesters, including women and children, the captive policemen would be killed.

However, the defence argued that the actual events inside the shed remained unclear because the area was engulfed in smoke caused by continuous gunfire and grenade explosions. Under such circumstances, they contended, none of the witnesses could have had an unobstructed view of what occurred.

The defence further submitted that the statements of four Deputy Superintendents of Police (DySPs) and several policemen contained contradictions regarding the location of the shed and the sequence of events leading to Vinod's death. It also pointed out that all police personnel involved in the operation were armed with .303 rifles, raising questions about the prosecution's reconstruction of the incident.

The defence also advanced an alternative possibility regarding the fatal injuries. It argued that sharp injuries could have been caused by the metallic casing of stinger grenades used by police during the operation. It also suggested that injuries might have resulted when armed policemen carrying bayonet-fitted rifles entered the shed during the rescue attempt.

Another major contention raised by the defence related to differences between the charge sheets filed by the Kerala Police and the subsequent investigation conducted by the CBI. According to the defence, there were material inconsistencies between the two investigations that had not been satisfactorily explained.

The defence also relied on the testimony of journalists who witnessed the incident and referred to observations made by forensic expert Dr Shirley Vasu in her autobiography, 'Postmortem Table', concerning the weapons and ammunition allegedly used during the police operation. It also questioned the circumstances surrounding the Executive Magistrate's order authorising the police firing, arguing that there were contradictions in the records relating to the permission granted for the operation.

Highlighting another inconsistency, the defence referred to a witness statement claiming that the person who attacked Vinod later fled into the forest. According to the defence, this version was inconsistent with other prosecution evidence and further weakened the case.

The defence also accused the prosecution of withholding crucial material by allegedly failing to place before the court the witness statements recorded during the initial investigation by the Kerala Police and the Crime Branch before the CBI took over the case.

The hearing will resume on Monday, when the prosecution and defence are expected to focus on the alleged role of the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS) in the occupation of forest land and the violence that followed.

The trial is historically significant as it marks the first time that proceedings in a CBI-investigated case have been conducted in a court in Wayanad district.