Why did it take 28 long years for Abhaya’s killers to be convicted?

It is a story of intrigue, manipulation, tampered tapes, pressure on witnesses and how numerous investigating agencies failed to make a breakthrough into who killed nun Abhaya in a Kerala convent. There were three investigating agencies and conflicting stands. RAMESH MENON reports on the case that has finally found closure.

TWENTY-eight years is a long time. But, that is what it took for the wheels of justice to move to convict those accused of the murder of 19-year-old Catholic nun Abhaya in Kerala. 28 years after her body was found in a well of her Pious Xth Convent Hostel in Kottayam. The story pedalled before the media was that she had committed suicide.

After a protracted investigation that raised many questions, a special CBI court in Thiruvananthapuram found Fr. Thomas Kotoor, 71,  and Sister Sephy, 57, guilty of murdering Abhaya. Both were sentenced to life in prison.  They were charged under Section 302 for murder and Section 201 for the destruction of evidence of the Indian Penal Code. The CBI court had earlier allowed the discharge petition of Father Puthrikkayl as they had no evidence against him.

The case meandered for more than two and a half decades, it was full of intrigue, half-truths, manipulation of evidence, lies and suspense. It is a case every lawyer and law student must study as it shows how the wheels of justice can move in ways we cannot normally imagine and how long it can take for justice to be finally delivered. Also, how justice can be done if the court forces investigating agencies to do their job and not file closure reports.

The case meandered for more than two and a half decades, it was full of intrigue, half-truths, manipulation of evidence, lies and suspense. It is a case every lawyer and law student must study as it shows how the wheels of justice can move in ways we cannot normally imagine and how long it can take for justice to be finally delivered.

In short, the prosecution said that Sister Sephy was in a relationship with two priests, Father Kottoor who was the chancellor of the diocese and Father Puthrikkayl, a faculty member at a Kottayam college that the diocese ran.  On that fateful day, Abhaya who stayed at the hostel in the convent had woken early at 4 am as she wanted to study for her undergraduate exams. Wanting to drink some water, she headed for the kitchen. In the kitchen, she allegedly saw the two priests and the nun in a compromising position. Alarmed, the priests and the nun got together to strangle Abhaya and hit her with a wooden axe, and dumped her into the well at the convent.

But, that was not what the initial investigations said.

When Abhaya was found dead on March 27, 1992, the local police registered a case of unnatural death. They did this after they recorded the statement of Sister Leissue, Mother Superior of the Convent.

But, on April 13, the probe was taken over by Kerala’s Crime Branch. On January 30, 1993, it pronounced that Abhaya had in fact, committed suicide.

The Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case soon after in March 1993. This was because Sister Banicassia, Mother Superior, and over 65 other nuns from the convent complained to the then Chief Minister K Karunakaran that Sister Abhaya had been murdered and as the investigation was being botched up, it should be handed over to the CBI. The probe was then handed over to the central agency.

The CBI probe was inconclusive.  A K Ohri’s, SP of the CBI filed a report in the court of the chief judicial magistrate saying that the identity of the culprits could not be established. The court rejected the report.

Not once, but twice, the CBI filed in the court that though it was a homicide, they could not find the assailants. It pleaded that the court treats it as a closed case.

The court said nothing doing.

Not once, but twice, the CBI filed in the court that though it was a homicide, they could not find the assailants. It pleaded that the court treats it as a closed case. 

In September 2008, the Kerala High Court told the CBI that it had 90 days to complete the investigation. So, a new team was formed to restart investigations led by DSP Nandakumaran Nair.

He recorded the statement of Sanju Mathew who lived next to the hotel who said he had seen Father Kottoor in the convent campus on March 26, a day before Abhaya’s body was found.

As investigations continued, the police arrested Sister Sephy, Father Kottoor and Father Puthrikkayl.

As Mathew turned hostile during the proceedings, the court asked the CBI to conduct a narco-analysis test on the three suspects.

The CBI told the court that there was no new evidence in the narco tests it conducted.

A copy of the narco-analysis CD was presented to the court.  The chief judicial magistrate’s court in Kochi asked the Centre for Development of Imaging Technology (CDIT) based in Thiruvananthapuram to examine the CDs.

Incidentally, Verghese Thomas, former CBI deputy superintendent of police who was one of the investigators resigned in 1993 alleging that he was being pressured to pass off Abhaya’s death as a suicide.

The CDIT found that master tapes of the narco tests were tampered.

The CD of the test administered on Father Kottoor was tampered at 30 places.

Similarly, the CD of Father Puthrukkaayil was tampered at 19 places.

The CD of Sister Sephy was tampered with at 23 places.

It came as no surprise when the Chief Judicial Magistrate ruled that the narco-analysis and brain-mapping tests could not be used as evidence.

The CBI team probing the case had told the Kerala High Court that Justice Cyraic Joseph who was then the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, visited the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to view the videotapes of the narco-analysis tests conducted on the three accused.  This was corroborated by Dr. Malini, former assistant director, FSL, who also deposed saying that. The visit of the judge was also recorded in the FSL register.  Joseph retired as a Supreme Court judge in 2012.

The CBI was considering listing retired sub-inspector V V Augustine who had initially probed the case. But that did not happen. Augustine committed suicide.

Incidentally, Verghese Thomas, former CBI deputy superintendent of police who was one of the investigators resigned in 1993 alleging that he was being pressured to pass off Abhaya’s death as a suicide.

As many as eight of the 49 prosecution witnesses turned hostile. One of them was Mathew.

Ultimately, the court decided the case based on circumstantial evidence. It took into account the statement of Adakki Raju, a small-time thief, who on that fateful day had sneaked into the hostel in the early hours looking for something to steal like copper plates of lightning arresters. He said that he saw Father Kottoor and Father Puthrukkayil in the campus of the convent in the early hours around 4 am that day and they were still there when he left the premises at 5 am.

Raju said he was offered money to change his testimony. Not only that, even the police he said, tortured him asking him to change his testimony. Now that the verdict was finally out, he said he was so happy that he might treat himself to a drink.

The CBI finally settled on these pieces of evidence:

• There had been an unusual disturbance in the kitchen.
• A water bottle had fallen down near the fridge and had dripped water.
• An axe and a basket had fallen down.
• A veil was found underneath the exit door, which was found locked from the outside. But the latches inside were unlatched.
• Two slippers of Abhaya were found at different places in the kitchen.
• The kitchen gave the appearance of a tussle having taken place.

The court accepted the conclusion of forensic expert Dr. Kandaswamy that said that Abhaya’s death had occurred six to eight hours before the postmortem which indicated that she had been killed in the early hours of the morning. Referring to her head injury that had caused her death, Dr. Kandaswamy told the court that his inference was that Abhaya was attacked by the accused with the intention to kill.

Justice Sanilkumar said that Father Kottoor had failed to explain why he was present in the convent in the early hours and that the evidence of Achamma, help at the convent, showed that he had closed all the doors the previous night showed the nefarious conduct of the accused. The court inferred that Father Kottoor had entered the ground floor of the convent building with the help of Sephy to carry out their sexual activities and Abhaya was attacked with a blunt weapon when she was a witness to it. The court order said that two doctors who examined Sephy said she had undergone procedures to artificially show that she was a virgin.

On the eve of Christmas, Special CBI Judge K Sanal Kumar awarded a double life sentence to Father Kottoor ordering him to pay a fine of Rs 6.5 lakh. Sister Sephy was sentenced to life and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 5.5 lakh.

The court inferred that Father Kottoor had entered the ground floor of the convent building with the help of Sephy to carry out their sexual activities and Abhaya was attacked with a blunt weapon when she was a witness to it.

The prosecution had asked the court to give the maximum punishment to both.

Father Kottoor pleaded that he was old and was suffering from cancer and Sister Sephy said that she was a diabetic.

The verdict came as a relief to Jomon Puthenpurackal, a human rights activist who had been demanding justice for the last 28 years.  Then, he was just 23 years old. He joined an Action Council formed in Kottayam soon after Abhaya’s death as many felt it was not a simple case of suicide. He told himself that he would not let go till the case reached a logical conclusion. In fact, the struggle all these years demanding justice made him into a full-time activist and he started taking up corruption cases against bureaucrats and politicians. Waiting for 28 years for justice was worth it, he said.

But Abhaya’s father, Aikkarakunnel Thomas and mother Leelamma, died waiting for justice. They passed away before the trial began in August 2019.

(Ramesh Menon is an author of six books, an educator and editor of The Leaflet.)