Paralakhemundi: Delivering its verdict in the much-discussed 2008 murder case of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, a special court in Gajapati district on Tuesday acquitted Maoist leader Azad alias Duna Kesaba Rao in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Paralakhemundi, Satyanarayan Patra delivered the verdict after examining the evidence presented in the case. The court observed the prosecution has failed to establish Azad’s involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It also directed that Azad be released immediately if his custody was not required in connection with any other case.
Emphasising that suspicion cannot be substituted for proof, the court acquitted Azad of charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
On August 23, 2008, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and four others were killed in an armed attack at the Jalespata Ashram. According to witness accounts, between 15 and 25 armed assailants took part in the attack. The attackers were reportedly wearing masks or monkey caps, making identification difficult.
The prosecution’s case against Azad relied mainly on the identification made by one witness. However, no other witness identified him as one of the attackers.
The court observed it would not be safe to convict Azad solely on the basis of a single identification, particularly when the attackers had allegedly covered their faces during the assault.
A letter bearing the name “Azad”, recovered from the crime scene, also failed to establish a direct link between him and the murders. The prosecution did not submit any handwriting expert’s report to establish that the handwriting or signature on the letter belonged to Azad.
The court noted, the weapons seized during the investigation were not recovered from Azad, and there was no scientific or forensic evidence linking the seized arms to him.
The prosecution also failed to establish the allegation of a conspiracy to murder Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati. The court found no reliable evidence regarding alleged meetings, communication or a conspiracy between Azad and the other accused. Two witnesses produced by the prosecution also did not support the allegation of his involvement.
After assessing the evidence as a whole, the court said the occurrence of the attack and the killing of five persons had been established, but Azad’s involvement in the crime had not been proved.