Kottayam: Many eyebrows have been raised on the principal sessions court acquitting Chacko John, father of Ninu, in the Kevin murder case.
According to legal circles, Chacko was given the benefit of doubt on the principle that if two versions are possible from one inference, the advantage should be given to the accused. The court acquitted three others due to deficiency of evidence.
Legal circles say Chacko’s acquittal is a huge lapse on the part of the prosecution and that it could be raised by the other accused to seek release on the ground that if the father can be acquitted, why others should be convicted.
The prosecution failed to convince the court of the involvement of the father in the case though his role was more important than that of his son and first accused Syanu Chacko considering his relationship with his daughter.
The prosecution failed to connect several pieces of evidence, including the visit of Chacko to the police station on the day before the abduction of Kevin, when he forcibly tried to take Ninu with him.
The prosecution could not convince the court about 49 suspicious calls exchanged by the accused to Chacko’s phone from 2 a.m. to 6.45 a.m. on the day of the crime.
The prosecution also could not prove that Chacko spoke to his son exclusively about the case, especially when there is no circumstantial evidence to corroborate the telephonic conversation.
Going by the tower location of Chacko, he was inside his house when these conversations happened.
The prosecution was also not able to properly produce the call records from Chacko’s phone. They also say that the mobile phone was untraceable as he may have destroyed it. However, no evidence was taken by the investigation team or the prosecution to trace the phone which could have strengthened his involvement in the case.
Chacko produced another mobile phone in the court and no efforts were made to ascertain its duplicity.
