Four close-up photos taken by photographer Varghese Chacko had disappeared when the murder case of Sister Abhaya was turned over to CBI.
“I knew it was not suicide, since from the beginning, I felt like they were hiding something,” recalls Varghese Chacko, photographer and also the seventh witness in the case of Sister Abhaya. “When I got there, her body was lying on a grass rug covered with a white cloth. They did not remove the white cloth to take photos. I was not allowed to take a close-up shot of the head either, but I did manage to take photos of his neck and face. While taking the photos, I saw red marks on both sides of his neck. “
Varghese began his profession as a photographer when he was 16 years old, at the Venus studio in Kottayam. When he was assigned to take photographs of Abhaya’s body in the 1992 police investigation, he was 26 years old. 28 years later, speaking to TNM from an oil mill that he runs, he remembers everything that happened that day.
“Usually a photographer should have been present while the body was being pulled out of the well. But they called me very late. I just clicked on the photos of the body that was on the floor, the convent facilities and the well,” he said. .
Varghese gave ten photos with negatives to the owner of the studio. Later, a policeman picked them up. “We sent a bill for 200 rupees to the convent. They paid it,” he said.
Varghese was never a witness in the case, until the early 2000s. Neither the police nor the first group of CBI officials asked him anything. Later, a CBI investigation led by DySP Nandakumar Nair included him as a witness.
“I thought the photographs were there, so that they themselves could see the marks I saw. So I didn’t tell anyone. A few days after the murder, although many said it was a suicide, others knew it was not ,” he said.
Varghese was surprised when the CBI and the prosecution approached him because they only showed him six photos. “Four photos disappeared. CBI did not obtain them. Three of the missing photos were near Abhaya’s face and neck, where the markings were visible. Another was taken at an angle from her feet,” he said.
“In court, the defense attorney showed me the other six photos and asked me where the marks were. But they were only visible in the missing photos. The six photos were general shots,” he said.
Varghese had also undergone polygraph tests and brain maps.
Eight witnesses in the case turned hostile during the trial. But there were few others on the other side, who stuck to his statements.
“When I gave my statement to the CBI, everyone warned me, saying that I could get hurt. But I was not afraid in all these years. I was firm and told them everything I saw. The owner of my studio also protected me. A very person. powerful in Kottayam, I also had that courage, “he said.
He also said that no one pressured or threatened him to change his statements.
“They claimed that he was lying for the CBI and that he was taking money from them. I don’t need money. I will only tell the truth so that his (Abhaya’s) soul can rest in peace,” he said.
He said another piece of evidence was that CBI had received the invoice for the photos it handed over to the convent officials. “The bill showed that there were ten photographs. I had signed that bill,” he said.
The photographer’s testimony later helped prove that Sister Abhaya’s death was a homicide. The IWC court, in its ruling sentencing two defendants in the case, noted that there was no conflict in the report of Radhakrishnan, a forensic expert and prosecution witness 33, and Varghese’s findings. In sentencing, the court noted that nail mark injuries as stated by Varghese are injuries that cannot be inflicted while “the body is submerged in the water or is heading towards the water”, indicating that there was a struggle before the nun’s death. .
While Varghese confirmed that there were nail marks, Radhakrishnan’s report does not mention marks. However, the court said that just because Radhakrishnan did not see the marks, it does not mean that he was not there.
“As this case originated and developed over the decades and was investigated by the different wings of different Investigating Agencies, PW7 (Varghese) had to undergo lengthy questioning on numerous occasions. On all these occasions he was consistent in his position and remained firm despite the pressure of the intense and repeated questions, ”the sentence observed.
Read also: Nail marks, head injury, statements from former thieves’: what the Abhaya sentence says
.
