Table of Contents
Similar to the 2009 bar attack, Mangaluru homestay attack case too fails to get support of witnesses
The judge says there was no material whatsoever to connect the accused persons with the alleged offences. The injured persons have not implicated the accused persons in any manner in homestay attack case
A file photo of Morning Mist a homestay at Padil where many girls and boys were attacked by right-wing activists in July 2012.
Failure on the part of eye-witnesses to support the case of prosecution has led to the acquittal of all the accused in the 2009 bar attack case (also called as pub attack) and in 2013 homestay attack case in Mangaluru.
These two cases involving right-wing activists were prominent among the cases of moral policing registered against the activists in Dakshina Kannada. Subhash Padil, an activist of the Hindu Jagarn Vedike, was accused number one in both the cases while eight other activists of the vedike were also accused in both the cases.
All the 26 accused in the attack on boys and girls at Amnesia Bar and Restaurant in the city on January 24, 2009, were acquitted by the magistrate of Second Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, R. Manjunatha, on March 12, 2018. The 6th Additional District and Sessions Court Judge, Mangaluru, K.M. Radhakrishna, upheld the order of the JMFC Court on November 11, 2021.
S.V. Kantharaju, the 6th Additional District and Sessions Court Judge, on August 6, 2024 acquitted all the 39 accused in the case of assault and sexual harassment on 13 boys and girls partying at Morning Mist Homestay, near Padil, on July 28, 2012.
Bar attack case
While pointing out the failure of customers and staff of the bar, who were eyewitnesses to the alleged assault on students, in supporting the case of the prosecution in the bar attack case, the magistrate took strong exception to the failure of the investigation officer (IO) Vinay Gaonkar in examining the girls, who were victims of the attack. Non-securing victims is fatal to the prosecution, the magistrate observed.
The District Sessions Judge, who upheld the order of the magistrate, went a step further and observed that the blunder by the IO can be said as an indirect attempt by the officer to protect the real culprits. The judge took strong exception to the officer ignoring the video footage of the incident, which was telecast on different media channels.
Homestay attack case
Though all 13 victims of the homestay attack were deposed about the incident, they failed to identify the accused before the court. The complainant Vijay, who had organised the party, told the court that it was dark at the time of the attack and hence he could not say which of the accused did what. While stating that he did not know how many accused persons were there in the group that attacked, he said tahsildar did not do a test identification parade of accused persons.
Gurudutt Kamath, the co-organiser of the party, said that 40 persons trooped inside the homestay. He said that as the incident occurred in a fraction of a second, he couldn’t identify the attackers. Similarly, other victims, including three girls who were injured and sexually harassed, failed to identify the accused. One victim told the court that the media showed the incident badly and it was telecast by hiding its originality. These admissions go to the root of the case, the judge observed. The judge further pointed out that five media persons, who are material witnesses, failed to support the case of the prosecution.
The judge said there was no material whatsoever to connect the accused persons with the alleged offences. The injured persons have not implicated the accused persons in any manner, the judge observed while acquitting the 39 accused persons.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT