The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Kunnamangalam acquitted human rights activist A. Vasu, popularly known as ‘GROW’ Vasu, due to lack of evidence against him on Wednesday. Judicial first class magistrate V.P. Abdul Sathar stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove any of the charges levelled against Mr. Vasu.
The 93-year-old former Naxalite had been imprisoned for the last 45 days after he was arrested on July 29 in connection with a protest in front of the Kozhikode Government Medical College mortuary he had taken part in seven years ago against alleged extra-judicial police killings of two Naxalites in the Nilambur forests. The bodies of the two Maoists – Kuppu Devaraj and Ajithan – were kept at the mortuary and the protestors had claimed that the two were killed through treachery and not an encounter.
There have been 20 accused in the case, including Mr. Vasu. Of the other 19 accused, 17 were acquitted due to lack of evidence, while the other two paid a fine of ₹200 each and skipped trial. Mr. Vasu, the first accused, was charged under Section 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting) and 283 (obstruction of public way) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court had taken note that there were no formal complaints against the unlawful assembly and that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution except one were policemen. The only independent witness failed to identify Mr. Vasu among the protesters. The prosecution also failed to produce the certification under the Evidence Act for the main evidence, a compact disk.
Ever since he was arrested, Mr. Vasu refused to cooperate with the police and the court, claiming that the case against him was fabricated and that he had not blocked any path, but only raised a few slogans. He refused to take the help of an advocate and represented himself in court. He spoke for the deceased Maoists and stated before the court and the media that the State government was responsible for their deaths.
He also refused to avail himself of bail or pay the fine, claiming that he need not do so as he was not guilty. He rejected the court’s offer to appear for the trial through video-conferencing and insisted on being present in person every time. He continued to raise slogans in favour of the deceased Maoists in the court premises despite its express orders not to do so.
