There were at least five people awake very very early that morning of 27 March 1992 at St.Pius X Convent, Kottayam. Three of them probably never slept; two of the three had arrived at the convent only a while ago. Each of them had a need and each one was active in fulfilling the same. One of those needs was a shared need; Father Thomas Kottoor and Sister Sephy collaborated in satisfying it. Father Jose Poothrikkayil was on stand by, and was perhaps awaiting his turn. Woken up by her room-mate, novitiate Abhaya rose early to prepare for an examination that day in college. She wanted cold water to splash on her face and went to the kitchen fridge, when she came upon the stunning sight of a priest and nun together engaged in strange physical manoeuvres. She knew both the players.
This reminds me of a story in the Bible of an Israelite and a prominent Midianite woman found in Numbers 25:6-8. But Abhaya was no Phinehas and the circumstances were vastly different. The result: it was Abhaya who got murdered, not the couple caught in the act. (We won’t go in to all the horrible details; you can find them in Wikipedia)
About the same time “adakka” Raju set out on his nocturnal mission and on this occasion he zeroed in on St.Pius. You would think that a convent is an unlikely place to harbour gold and silver. Maybe as he is described as a petty thief, Raju was not very ambitious; it transpires that his interest was in the Copper strips of the lightning arrestor, not the brass candle stands (guess he knew somethings were sacred). A crime no doubt but he figured God will understand; He wouldn’t mind His property being used to satisfy hungry souls in his family. For sure, he had not read Proverbs 6:30 where it says “People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving”; he was operating entirely by instinct. As events would later unravel, he might well have been God’s agent that fateful morning!
For, lo and behold he saw two respected priests on the terrace of the convent as he climbed the wall. The image locked in his simple memory. It is not clear how long Raju lingered and what else he saw on that fateful morning. All that we can deduce is that the good fathers figured God had miraculously sent them a dumb scapegoat on which to lay their sin; no doubt, they thanked the Lord for His kindness and mercy in this regard.
As to the fate of the scapegoat? Who cares?
Not even the Crime Branch, it seems. Under the able direction of the then Superintendent of Police Mr.K.T.Michael, it was first established that Raju was present at the scene of the crime that morning . Caught in a catch-22 situation, Raju faced a difficult choice. If he testified against the suspects in the high-profile murder, he would have to incriminate himself by confessing he had been at the site to steal. But he came forward on his own! The choice he made in 1992 has now helped nail the priest and nun who killed Sister Abhaya. He alleged that police, especially the crime branch, which investigated the case before the CBI, tried to foist the murder charge on him (curiously echoing the clergical schemes), citing his presence in the compound.
Even the special CBI court that delivered the verdict and sentence acknowledged that Raju “may have been a thief, but he was and is an honest man… (and) a speaker of truth nonetheless”.
Its judgment noted how Raju had stuck to his statement amid intimidation and blandishment. It said the police had held Raju in custody for 58 days, tortured him and implicated him in 40-odd theft cases, while offering him lakhs of rupees, a new house, free education for his daughters and a job for his wife if he changed his testimony!
But Raju stood firm throughout as successive administrations went slow on a case that involved the reputation of the Church. The case passed from the district police to the crime branch, which claimed suicide, and to the CBI, which tried to file three closure reports. In the meanwhile witnesses were merrily contradicting themselves, some of them turned hostile, photographs taken at the scene of the crime were suppressed, material evidence destroyed, chemical laboratory reports doctored, narco analysis test allegedly manipulated, forensic data fudged, honest investigating officers resigned, those officers consumed by guilt of their falsity took their own lives, sister Sephy underwent hymenoplasty, activists smelt a rat, Abhaya’s sorority agitated and the legal eagles intrigued. Twenty eight years is a long time.
“They tried to lure me with all kinds of things,” the now sixty-something Raju said after the December verdict, “but I have two daughters.” The court itself observed: “It is noteworthy that PW3 (prosecution witness 3 — Raju) was subject to continuous, severe and gruelling cross-examination by two lawyers for two long days, but he, uneducated and untrained though he was, stood his ground.”
He “may have been a thief, but he was and is an honest man, a simple person without the need to dissemble, a human being who became a professional thief by the force of circumstances, but a speaker of truth nonetheless”, it added, throwing out theft cases against him, for lack of evidence.
Raju says he quit theft and took to manual labour after becoming a witness in the Abhaya case. He now refers to Abhaya as his daughter, since her parents died about four years ago.
“So I’m talking as her own father. I’m very happy. Today I’ll drink in joy,” Raju told reporters when the verdict was pronounced.
While Raju thought it was God’s will that he was present in the convent the day of the heinous crime, it was strange that Father Thomas Kottoor also mentioned God as he was being driven away after the verdict.
But we all know in whose heart righteousness and truth were kissing each other.
_________________________________