The dead talk. To the right listener, they tell us all about themselves: where they came from, how they lived, how they died – and who killed them.”
These are the words of Val McDermid, the author of Forensics: The Anatomy of Crime.
With the right methods and an analytical mind, it is indeed possible to solve any crime. Another thing that is crucial to solving a crime and bringing the culprits to book is the right intention. The investigator has to be the right listener, as McDermid said.
So, when we look back at a 20-year-old case, we see several grey areas in the investigation, proving that those inquiring the case did not do their job well. Biplab Das was just 21 when his body was found buried in a cemetery in Mawlai Mawroh. Investigations found that he was kidnapped for ransom and later killed.
Twenty years on, several questions remain unanswered, which point to a careless investigation that led to the acquittal of the two prime accused in the case, cousins Bernard and Boney Lyngdoh Phawa, last month. In the High Court’s words, “the investigating agency made a mess”.
Biplab went missing on February 18, 2006. His body was found on February 21. It seems that the accused were known to Biplab. During the course of the investigation, the motive of the murder was not established clearly. If money was the reason for killing Biplab, then why wasn’t the ransom call made immediately on that day? Why were the ransom calls made from Guwahati, and that too, only after killing Biplab? More disturbing is that the police found it completely irrelevant to even submit the call details from the PCOs in Guwahati as evidence.
The police questioned Nirvika Singhania, a close friend of Biplab. She told the cops that Biplab’s laptop was with her and that he was supposed to collect it later. Was any evidence found in the contents of the laptop? According to sources close to both Biplab and Nirvika, the two were in a relationship. Even Bernard in his statement mentioned that Biplab and Nirvika got married against the wish of the latter’s family.
If that is so, did the girl’s family know Biplab? If yes, then were any of her family members questioned in relation to the case?
Also, according to media reports, the postmortem report said the hyoid bone was found broken on both sides and that it “could be a case of suicide by hanging”. Was the doctor not sure about suicide? Because in forensics, strangulation and hanging would have distinct marks, and hyoid bone fracture is a mark of manual strangulation. If the post-mortem report was not convincing, did the police think of going for another round of post-mortem?
These questions are besides the loopholes which have been raised over the years. A detailed report on the Meghalaya Monitor website will give an insight into the missing links so far.
Biplab’s case reminds one of the Rizwanur Rahman case in Kolkata. Rahman’s body was found near a railway track just a month after his marriage. Rizwanur and Priyanka Todi, who is the daughter of industrialist Ashok Todi of Lux Cozi, married secretly. His suicide note blamed Ashok Todi and four others for pushing him to the brink.
A CBI inquiry was ordered, in which it was found that Rizwanur did commit suicide. However, Rizwanur’s brother filed a complaint, and based on that, the High Court of Calcutta set aside the CBI inquiry report and ordered a fresh investigation on the basis that it was a murder.
Coming back to Biplab’s case, was the contract killing angle considered in the case? And if not, then why not? Because clearly the investigation could not strongly establish Boney and Bernard’s motive.
If Biplab had committed suicide, then who buried the body and why?
The Meghalaya High Court order pointed out the loopholes, which were stark. So, why was a re-investigation not ordered?
With the acquittal of the two, the question is who actually killed Biplab or pushed him to the brink to commit suicide? Probably, the dead needed a good listener to know his tragic story. So, the most important question that remains is, will Biplab’s family get justice?
