The Mapusa trial court has pulled up the police investigation in the sensational Morjim murder case, observing that the chargesheet lacked direct evidence, eyewitness testimony or any specific overt act linking three of the four accused to the alleged murder of 63-year-old Umakant Khot.
Additional Sessions Judge Shilpa Pandit made the observations while granting bail to accused Viji Supan on his second bail application, along with co-accused Lokesh Puttaswamy and Rohit Kumar Prajapati.
Khot was allegedly murdered on November 5, 2025, near a disputed property in Morjim where alleged illegal hill-cutting and construction activities were underway. According to the FIR, the deceased had repeatedly objected to the construction work and had allegedly received threats from workers at the site.
Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution claimed that Supan, a cook/gardener along with Prajapati (JCB operator) and Puttaswamy (supervisor) and the absconding prime accused, had conspired and assaulted Khot with kicks and blows, causing fatal head injuries.
However, after examining witness statements and medical material placed on record, the court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case against the accused.
“None of the witnesses have stated that they had seen accused Nos. 2 to 4 assaulting the deceased,” the court observed.
The court further noted that witnesses had only stated that the accused persons were not seen during the lunch break between 1 pm and 2 pm on the day of the incident.
The defence argued that there was no eyewitness to the alleged assault, no recovery of any weapon and no forensic evidence connecting accused to the crime. It further pointed out that several witnesses had merely stated that the accused discovered the body and informed family members.
The defence also relied on the autopsy clarification opinion, contending that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have resulted from a fall, particularly in view of his severe cardiac condition.
The prosecution and the intervener argued that call detail records, witness statements and surrounding circumstances indicated the existence of a criminal conspiracy.
While acknowledging that the offence under Section 103 (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was serious and punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court held that concerns regarding absconding, tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.
The court accordingly granted them bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each along with other conditions for compliance.
