During submission on 18th August 2011, defence counsel M.Visvanathan had pointed out a major flaw in the case of the prosecution when it failed to present the evidence of the investigating officer.
To the argument by the prosecution that the I.O was offered as a witness to the defence, Visva countered that it was not the job of the defence to call for the evidence of the investigating officer, and that a conviction without the evidence of the I.O is unknown in Malaysia.
On this score alone, he submitted, the accused should be acquitted and discharged.
He further pointed out that the court order only prohibited an assembly around the British High Commission, where none of the accused were arrested.
Murugan is accused of holding on to the railings of the FRU truck and challenging the police to arrest him.
However despite the testimony of more than 20 witnesses, including 11 photographers, there was not a shred of evidence to prove this.
Besides, the two Independent Observers of the Bar had testified that the crowd was peaceful and was fired
upon with water cannon and teargas without any provocation.
They had also said that they never saw any court order although they made it a point to look out for it.
Going by the evidence adduced in a fair trial, Muruga can reasoably expect to walk away a free man.
No comments:
Post a Comment