http://www.cybervictims.org
In the time when web censorship is getting lime light due to the recent on going tussle between the courts and the Google and other websites, the news of acquittal of four murder accused of Adnan Patrawala pulls out mixed response from me. In 2007, this teenager was found dead some where in Navi Mumbai. He was the son of an affluent businessman; he loved life and social networking through Orkut. He reportedly became friendly with his alleged murderers through Orkut (see Did Orkut friends kidnap and kill Adnan?(August 20, 2007), published in http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/20adnan1.htm) and was allured by one “Angel” to go out where he met his bloody end (See Adnan murder trial opens on Orkut;Published on Friday, Aug 24, 2007, By Arun Ram; availbale @ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_adnan-murder-trial-opens-on-orkut_1117311). No body knows whether he really met “angel” of Orkut or not, but the police depended heavily on the indirect evidences including the Orkut exchanges which vouched that he went out to meet some one. His family later received two calls asking for a lump sum for Adnan, who was reportedly in their custody when the calls were made. The news was leaked in the media and it created a huge wave of sympathy among Adnan’s friends who started discussing the issue in many communities. Some believe that the alleged kidnappers got panicked with the out break of the news. The media highlighted how Adnaan’s friends in Orkut have started a virtual investigation. Resultant the wrong doers killed the teenager. In 2012, when the alleged murderers were acquitted, the court justified its sentencing by stating that both forensic and circumstantial evidences were “assembled so loosely that it ended up cutting down each other rather than forming a cohesive thread against the accused” (Court acquits murder accused in Mumbai teenager Adnan case, pg 20, The Hindu on January 31, 2012). The Orkut messages between the four accused men and Adnan were considered as the “key evidences” by the police; further the police reportedly drew the conclusion that Adnan was murdered by these guys on the notion that he was last seen with one of them. The police picked up the accused on the testimony of a garment dealer who saw one of the accused lifting apparently unconscious Adnan; later on the day, when he read about the whole issue, he informed the police. The defence lawyer emphasised that “there were no eye witnesses and an identification parade did not inspire the court’s confidence”.
The question of acceptability of the exchange of messages through Orkut really presents thin chances to target the four men. This is especially so since the identity of “Angel” remained a mystery and no one could prove that the profile was operated by any of the accused or either their aide. The case presents a tangled web in every sense. Many suspected that all the profiles may have been fake and they were made to trap the poor little rich boy. But nonetheless, the boy did fall in the trap and the whole issue, as reported in the media, created an example as how virtual friends can allure one to come out of the net and face real life danger. But the court gave more weight on the production of solid evidences rather than depending on evidences such as these. True, the court stuck to the principles of rule of law, where flimsy evidences do not find any space. Perhaps the court did the right thing on not depending too much on the Orkut messages especially when the police themselves did not go for a stringent thorough search. The news reports suggested that the police relied mainly on the person who saw the boy was being lifted in the car. He didn’t see the act of strangling; neither could he hear what Adnan had to say about this. The other way round, many may shift the blame on the victim as why did he trust Angel, who was probably a fake identity; and this is probably the reason that the court didn’t want to reply upon the circumstantial evidences that came up from the Orkut message exchanges. What did the profile owners do? They made the victim to believe them, especially Angel and come out of his home. But for what? Every individual has right to express and simultaneously every individual has his/her own right to reciprocate or not to reciprocate to the subjects expressed by the other. But that can not be the point to draw up the conclusion and shift the burden as heavy as planning a murder and finally executing the same, to the creator of the message unless the proper nexus is proved. Perhaps the court felt not to do injustice with these accused on the grounds of this principle................. perhaps not..
I really wish that further investigation takes place when the family goes for appeal , and this question is answered. If the prosecution can really prove that there lies strong nexus between the Orkut friend’s messages and his murder (may be by someone who was/were operating the profiles), probably a new history would be created in Indian evidence law which is shifting very much towards cyber space happenings.
Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Did the court do justice to Orkut posts that reportedly called Adnan to see his end?”, 1st February, 2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”
