In a startling turn of events, the court has acquitted 14 accused individuals allegedly involved in leaking the Second Pre-University Certificate (PUC) Chemistry question papers twice in 2016.
This decision has sparked outrage and raised serious questions about the investigative process and the handling of crucial evidence by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
The case, which revolves around accusations of jeopardizing the futures of thousands of innocent students and their parents, took a dramatic turn during the trial. The court highlighted grave lapses committed by the investigating agency, pointing out critical shortcomings in the investigative approach.
According to reports from The New Indian Express, even prime witnesses, including lecturers who initially confessed to training students with leaked question papers, turned hostile during the trial. They cited pressure and threats from CID police as reasons for retracting their statements made before the magistrate.
One key witness, Shivaprasad, who was pivotal in sharing the leaked question paper with the director of the Pre-University Board via WhatsApp, had his testimony recorded. However, the investigating officer's evasive responses during cross-examination cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence presented.
The court highlighted several lapses, including the failure to record statements from students who admitted to the circulation of leaked question papers via WhatsApp. This lack of concrete statements weakened the prosecution's argument regarding the accused arranging training or tuition based on the leaked papers.
Furthermore, the prosecution struggled to establish that seized amounts from the accused were indeed proceeds of crime. The analysis of Call Detail Records (CDR) and related reports did not yield substantial evidence against the accused individuals.
Crucially, the CID's inability to procure essential evidence regarding the use and destruction of mobile phones, SIM cards, and data cards containing the leaked question paper dealt a severe blow to the case's integrity.
The court also raised concerns about the alleged voluntary confession statement made by the accused, noting that it lacked proper certification as per legal requirements.
Ultimately, the acquittal underscores significant challenges in proving accusations of academic misconduct and criminal activities in such cases. The failure to produce compelling and definitive evidence has not only led to the release of the accused but has also called into question the entire investigation process and the effectiveness of legal frameworks in tackling such complex issues.
The repercussions of this verdict are likely to fuel debates on the need for stringent investigative protocols, improved evidence gathering, and legal reforms to ensure justice in cases of academic fraud and paper leaks.
