A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday suspended the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Thiruvananthapuram CBI Special Court to Father Thomas M. Kottoor and Sister Sephy, convicts in the Sister Abhaya murder case.
The Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran granted them bail. The order came on a petition seeking to suspend their sentences and grant them bail, filed along with their appeals challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Court verdict
Fr. Kottoor and Sister Sephy were awarded the sentence after they were found guilty of murdering 19-year-old novice Sister Abhaya. She was found dead in a well at the Pious X Convent of the Knanaya Catholic order in Kottayam in March 1992.
The Bench, while passing the order, observed that after a prima facie look at the evidence as pointed out by the defence, and not effectively countered by the prosecution, "we cannot but release the two accused, as an interim measure, suspending their sentence till the disposal of the appeals."
The court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail on execution of a bond for ₹5,00,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. For the first six months after the release, the petitioners shall report before the police station concerned every Saturday at 11 a.m. and thereafter every second Saturday, the court said.
P. Vijayabhanu, senior counsel for Sister Sephy, argued that there was no evidence to show that Fr. Kottoor and Sister Sephy had met on the night of March 26, 1992. There was nothing on record to show that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the accused persons or any one of them.
B. Raman Pillai, senior counsel for Fr. Kottoor, submitted that the sentence passed by the special court was absolutely improper and incorrect. The trial was vitiated by grave illegalities and irregularities. The conviction and sentence were based on the evidence given by three unreliable witnesses. Besides, the verdict was based on an unfounded story. The weapons used were neither seized nor recovered nor produced before the court.
He argued that the verdict was delivered without examining the evidence in the case. It was not a judgment in law, but was ‘a beautifully drawn screenplay based on fiction.’ If the sentence passed against him was allowed to be sustained, it would be a travesty of justice.
