Achivement: He speaks to Gomantak Times about the infamous Mahanand Naik case and shares his personal moments as the Advocate for this vilified person.
Advocate Joe Antao, the former Sarpanch of Guirdolim has been practising law for the last more than 35 years. He has been a Lecturer at the Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law for 29 years besides also teaching the students of Salgaonkar Law College, Miramar. He speaks to Gomantak Times about the infamous Mahanand Naik case and shares his personal moments as the Advocate for this vilified person.
In the first place, how did you get to represent Mahanand Naik?
I am on the panel of advocates offering free legal aid through the District Legal Service Authority, which allots cases in turns to those on the panel. That is how I was allotted the Mahanand Naik cases.
But is it a practice to allot three cases to the same Advocate?
Normally, no. In fact, that is the question I posed to the authority and they told me that they felt justice would best be served if one Advocate represented the person in all the three cases before the District & Sessions Court at Margao.
What was your initial reaction when you were asked to represent Mahanand Naik?
To be very honest, the first reaction was “how am I going to defend this person?” You see, I was guilty of being carried away by the media reports and had in my mind formed an opinion that offered no defence to the accused.
But then what made you change your mind?
My juniors Adv. Mincy Dias and Adv. Monica D’Costa did the spadework and they informed me that the charge sheet filed was no charge sheet at all and that the prosecution had no cases at all. Then I went through the files and I was convinced that these cases were worth taking up.
What was the reason for taking up the cases?
I was convinced that the police had framed Mahanand in each of the three cases handed over to me. In all three cases, there was no link established between Mahanand and the deceased and in one case, the prosecution’s case was full of contradictions. The very fact that Mahanand was acquitted in all three cases proves beyond any doubt that the police had only framed him.
But why would the police do that?
You see, there are a lot of undetected and unsolved cases in police files. So when they caught Mahanand they probably thought let us dump these cases on him and beef up our image by reducing the number of undetected cases in our files.
Can you tell us about the three cases specifically and how you succeeded in getting acquittals?
In the first place, the defence did not really have to put up a case. The task was only to demolish the prosecution case and that was really quite easy as all the three cases were very weak. In fact, in one case, I cross examined only one prosecution witness and their case went flying out of the window.
Let us talk about the three cases. Which is the first one?
There was this case where Mahanand was accused of having murdered Surat Gaonkar from Panchawadi. The prosecution’s case was that on 19th March 2006, Mahanand took Surat to Parvat in Paroda after promising to marry her and after strangulating her took away her gold.
So how did the case proceed?
Well, the prosecution examined three witnesses in this case – the Investigating Officer Police Inspector Nilesh Rane, the victim’s mother Saku Gaonkar and one pick-up driver Devidas Gaonkar. While the mother deposed that Surat had left the house with money amounting to around Rs. 25,000 and also gold ornaments, Devidas’ testimony was that on 19th March 2006 he had given a lift to Mahanand and Surat in his pickup from Paroda to Parvat.
How did you break their testimony?
In this case, the mother could not tell the court from where the money came or where it was kept and how much money was actually taken. Hence it was established that the claim of having taken Rs. 25,000/- was concocted by the police. Besides, she was also unable to provide information like when the gold reportedly taken by Surat was purchased or made or for whom; hence her testimony could not be relied upon. As far as Devidas was concerned, during the cross examination, I brought it out that he only remembered the faces and the date of the incident, besides which he could not remember anything including the type of clothes they wore on that day. I brought it to the notice of the court that it was highly impossible for a driver, who only got a glimpse of couple seeking a lift and boarding his vehicle behind, to remember the face after nearly three and a half years. Besides, it was also brought on record that Devidas had no license to transport passengers. But the crucial factor was the fact that Devidas admitted to the suggestion that he identified Mahanand because of the fact that his photographs were published in the media.
What about the Nirmal Amonkar case?
This is the case where I cross examined only one of five prosecution witnesses to disprove their case. The prosecution’s case was on the same lines that Mahanand promised to marry Nirmal, took her to the Verna hill and after murdering her, took her gold.
So what did you disprove in this case?
I cross examined Nirmal’s brother Pundalik who stated on oath that he identified his sister’s body by the clothes, bangles she wore and the nail polish as the face was not recognisable since the body was decomposed. During the cross-examination I brought out the fact that the clothes too were mutilated and also the fact that the nail polish was not really distinctly identifiable as many other women must be using the same. More significantly, Pundalik admitted that he did not know what clothes his sister had worn when she left her house on 19th February 2008 after which she did not return home. Besides, though the prosecution quoted the weight of the gold allegedly taken away by Mahanand, Pundalik did not know the quantity. But most significant was the fact that he admitted to having lodged the complaint against Mahanand only after reading the news of him being accused in similar cases.
Doesn’t this mean that the case was totally false as the victim could not even have been Nirmal?
True. In fact, the judge in his judgement has noted: “I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the dead body which has been lying in the morgue was the dead body of Nirmal Amonkar as no DNA test has been carried out to determine the identity of the dead body.”
And who was the Investigating Officer in this case?
In this case, it was Police Inspector R S Prabhudessai from the Verna Police Station.
Tell us about the third case.
This is the case where Mahanand was accused of having murdered Bhagu Upaskar from Shiroda on 21st March 2007. Now in this particular case, which again was investigated by Police Inspector Nilesh Rane, there was absolutely no application of mind while preparing the charge sheet as it was full of contradiction.
What was the prosecution’s case here?
Once again, their case was that Mahanand had promised to marry Bhagu and went away with her on 21st March 2007 and after strangulating her to death, took away her gold. Incidentally Bhagu’s body was found at Paroda lying in a field by the road side.
So what were your arguments here?
I did not challenge the prosecution’s case here. I went by the post mortem report which said it was an “asphyixial death due to drowning.” And based on this I disproved the prosecution’s contention that Mahanand had strangulated Bhagu. Besides, there were no marks on the neck of the victim to suggest strangulation. The second issue here was the gold that was worn by Bhagu which was ostensibly recovered by the police. Anita Dessai, at whose house Bhagu was working as a maid and who had lent her gold to Bhagu on that day, clearly stated that the gold ornaments shown to her in the witness box were not what she had lent to Bhagu as those shown to her were new ornaments while she had lent old ones. The panch witness during the cross examination admitted that the gold ornaments were new while the Investigating Officer said that he could not say whether the gold was new. Due to these various contradictions, the accused got an acquittal.
Are you personally convinced that Mahanand deserved an acquittal?
In the cases I handled, of course because these three cases were nothing but frame ups by the police to alter their record of unsolved cases.
What was the reaction when you got the acquittals?
The reaction was shocking to say the least. When I got the first acquittal, I was literally lambasted by many. There was a lady from Sarvodem, a regular church goer who actually accused me of helping criminals and I had to point out to her that Lord Jesus Christ had himself asked people not to judge others and further point out that when a woman doing wrong was brought before him, Jesus Christ asked those who had not wronged to cast the first stone on her. In fact, the reaction was so strong that I used to fear going out as I did not know who would question me. My son who is in Dubai was quite worried and kept phoning regularly to ensure that I was safe and this was probably because of the strong reaction he got there.
Does that reaction still persist?
No. After the second acquittal things eased a bit and when the third acquittal came, there were people congratulating me for exposing the weakness in the prosecution’s case. Really speaking, I do not blame the people for the way they reacted. You see Mahanand was projected to be a demon and people went by the media hype and formed their opinion.
It is quite obvious now that the police blundered. Is there any action that can be taken against them?
I do not think so. However, I feel that the courts should intervene in such matters and pull up the concerned police officers. At the moment, at the most, the judges just make a passing reference to the inaptitude of the investigating officer and things lie there.
What about Mahanand? As you say he was falsely implicated in these cases. Does he have any recourse?
Well, he could file a case against the police for malicious prosecution. But for me the more serious issue is the manner in which the media hyped this case and how the police very conveniently leaked out information. It began with one case, went up to three murders and then the numbers kept increasing making a final figure of 16. Besides, there was a tiatr produced on this issue and it had quite a successful run. By right, Mahanand should be filing a case of slander and defamation against these people and in fact I had suggested it to his wife, but there was no follow up probably because of the troubles she is facing.
This whole episode must have been quite traumatic for Mahanand.
It was definitely not fair to him. See what has happened. His house was broken and his family driven away from there for no fault of theirs, even if we presume that Mahanand is guilty. He was vilified and his family ostracised by society. Today his wife lives at one place, the child is elsewhere and I am told that last year, some schools ever refused to admit the child. Is this really fair? Specially when it is now established that Mahanand was a mere scapegoat.
Mr. Antao, the general impression amongst the public is that lawyers means exorbitant fees and that if you do not pay your advocate well, he will well destroy your case.
That is not really true. As an advocate, I have my responsibility towards my client and I have always adhered to this principle. There are cases I have handled where I have not seen the client except when the brief was handed over to me.
But then what is it that made you work so hard on these cases knowing that you will not be paid for it especially as presently criminal lawyers charge quite a high fee?
Incidentally, the District Legal Service Authority does pay us though it is a paltry sum. As for me, it is not a question of money. When I take up a brief, I give it my best. Even in Mahanand’s cases, at times I held back my personal paying cases to concentrate on his matter. And this is not the first time I have got an acquittal for a accused referred to me by the District Legal Service Authority, I have had successes in the past too when such cases were allotted to me.
How much do you get paid for these cases?
We are paid between Rs. 800 to Rs. 1,200 for the entire case irrespective of the amount o work put in and number of hearings attended. But I have not received any payment except in two cases. As an advocate taking up these free legal cases, I am expected to go to the court clerk and get a certificate for the number of times I attended the matter and then submit the application to get the payment. I did it the first time to be paid Rs. 800. Subsequently, I felt it was demeaning to go through this procedure specially since I did not ask for the case and more so since I have worked diligently on it. In one of the Mahanand cases before Additional Sessions Judge Desmond D’Costa, I was paid Rs. 1,200/- only because the judge directed the clerk to do the required formalities.
Do you really think that Mahanand is innocent?
Without breaching the client’s confidentiality, I would say that the prosecution has to prove its case and saying that I rest my case.
