Kochi, Wednesday, December 23, 2009: The Kerala High Court today stayed the Ramankary Court’s decision to return the charge sheet filed by the Special Investigation Team probing the Paul Muthoot George murder case, calling for further investigation into various dissimilarities observed by the Court. The High Court also directed to make George Muthoot father of Paul Muthoot an additional respondent.

Last week, the Ramankary Court had summoned Deputy Superintendent of Police K.M. Tomy, who was part of the SIT, and 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.

George’s counter petition, requesting the court to make him an additional respondent, pointed out that his version too had to be heard before considering the bail application by the accused. However, the court, considering the facts available and the present circumstances of the case, rejected the petition.

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

The dissimilarities observed by the Court in the charge sheet, which was submitted on November 19, included incongruities in the 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 bloodstains 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.

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, pointing out that the sequence of events that led to the murder, as stated by the police, was not convincing.

Pointing out the police version that Paul had stopped his car to see 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 was said to have stopped his car.

As for the technical shortcomings in the charge sheet, the medical report which said Om Prakash had liver complications and therefore had to be exempted from narco analysis was not submitted.

The court asked why Rajesh was exempted from 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.