The Kasaragod Sessions Court on 30th March acquitted all three accused in the murder case of the 34-year-old muezzin (person who proclaims the call to the daily prayer) and madrasa teacher in Kasaragod named Mohammed Riyas Maulavi. The three accused, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) activists and residents of Kelugude in Kasaragod town, S Ajesh, N Akhilesh and S Nithin spent the last seven years in prison awaiting trial.
The trio was finally released when Judge Balakrishnan K K of the Session Court found them not guilty. A native of Karnataka’s Kodagu area, Riyas Maulavi served as the muezzin of the Muhayuddin Juma Masjid at Choori, which is located outside Kasaragod town. Furthermore, he taught at the mosque’s religious school, Issathul Islam Madrasa.
“Three individuals were unjustly detained in prison for seven years without being granted bail. From the beginning, police started the investigation with the presumption that the murder was committed by the RSS. The police attempted to salvage their reputation by apprehending these individuals. However, the accused had no prior connection with the victim, and they were unfamiliar with the location where the incident took place,” voiced advocate Binu Kulammakad, who represented them.
Following the development, their attorney T Sunil Kumar, stated that the prosecution had not only failed to prove the charges against the trio, but had also deliberately placed evidence against them. Riyas Maulavi suffered 14 stab wounds above his waist prior to his death. Sunil Kumar mentioned, “The wounds were on his head and shoulders, too. The prosecution produced Maulavi’s lungi as evidence. The lungi had these 14 stab marks. If we have to believe the prosecution, then we would have to assume Maulavi was sleeping with the lungi over his head when he was attacked.”
The counsel also pointed out, “The accused were under 25 years old. But the police line-up had men who were above 38 years old. The line-up also had Muslims who wore their lungis differently, making identification easier. Above all, the police showed the photos of the accused to the witnesses making the exercise a mockery.”
He added that when the first accused’s outfit and alleged weapons were sent for DNA testing, the police failed to seal them. Additionally, the defence contended that the scissors designated as the murder weapon were manufactured and that the blood on them was from the location of the crime. “So when the weapon and the clothes were not sealed separately, the DNA could get transferred because of the proximity”, he added.
Background of the case
On the intervening night of 20th and 21st March 2017, unknown culprits broke into the mosque compound and might have knocked on Riyas Maulavi’s door. According to authorities, when he opened the door, they stabbed him fourteen times and left him to die. The senseless and unmotivated killing brought Kasaragod dangerously close to communal conflict. The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) issued a strike call on 21st March. On the same day, A Srinivas, the Kannur Crime Branch Superintendent of Police at the time, led a special investigation team appointed by the State Police Chief.
The special team apprehended 19-year-old Nitin, 20-year-old Ajesh and 25-year-old Akhilesh on the third day of the murder. According to A Srinivas, the victim was unknown to the accused and the murder was driven by communal hate. He remarked, “I don’t see any other reason.” The final report was filed by the police against the trio under Sections 449 (house trespass), 302 (murder), 153A (promoting enmity on the ground of religion), 295 (defiling place of worship), 201 (destruction of evidence) r/w 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code.
The chargesheet was filed within ninety days and was examined by the court with 97 witnesses, 215 documents and 45 pieces of material evidence. The accused weren’t eligible for bail benefits because the chargesheet in the case was submitted within ninety days of the crime. The COVID-19 pandemic and transfer of judges have been used as reasons for the case’s repeated postponements.
