Alappuzha, Tuesday, 08 December 2009: The Ramankari First Class Magistrate Court send back the charge sheet submitted by the police in Paul M. George murder case.

The court returned back charge sheet because it observed that the investigation is incomplete. Court summoned Tomy, Alappuzha DySP and gave the charge sheet.

The court, which summoned Deputy Superintendent of Police K.M. Tomy, who was part of the SIT, gave him a nine-page document detailing technical deficiencies and dissimilarities in the charge-sheet as well as the manner in which the investigation was conducted, asking for these to be rectified and the charge-sheet to be re-filed.

Dissimilarities observed by the court in the charge-sheet, which was submitted on November 19, included the incongruities in statements given by Shibu, the driver of Paul, on the occupants of the Scorpio he was driving while following Paul; why Om Prakash and Rajesh Puthenpalam, who claimed to be close friends of Paul, had escaped without taking him to hospital; why there were only blood stains and no mud on the clothes of key witness Manu, who claimed he had fallen into a nearby paddy field after being attacked; and how Shibu could identify 17 of the accused when he had seen their faces with just a car’s headlight as the light source.

Business deals in which Paul was involved prior to his murder were not probed and the motive for the murder, as stated by the police, was not clear, the court observed, also pointing out that the sequence of events that led to the murder, as stated by the police, was not convincing.

The court also picked on the police version that Paul had stopped his car to check whether there was any damage after he allegedly hit a two-wheeler, which was when the murder occurred. The court observed that this was not convincing since there was no streetlight where Paul is said to have stopped his car.

As for technical shortcomings in the charge-sheet, the medical report which said Om Prakash had liver complications and therefore had to be exempted from the narco-analysis, was not submitted. The court also asked why Rajesh was exempted from the narco-analysis on grounds that he did not know English, more so when the court had allowed a translator. The lack of follow-up on applications submitted by three of the accused to turn approvers was also pointed out by the court.