BENGALURU/PANAJI: A murder investigation that fuelled anti-migrant protests in Goa, prompting Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant to publicly demand exemplary punishment and sending three migrant workers to prison for over eight months has unravelled dramatically, with a Goa sessions court finding "absolutely no incriminating substance" against any of the accused.
In a rare pre-trial discharge order, Additional Sessions Judge at Merces dismissed the case against construction supervisor Lokesh Puttaswamy from Bengaluru, Jharkhand labourer Rohit Kumar Prajapati, and Tamil Nadu cook Viji Suppan, ruling that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient material even to frame charges in the murder of 63-year-old Morjim resident Umakant Raghoba Khot. He was found dead near a farmhouse construction site in Morjim on November 5, 2025.
The verdict raises questions about whether public outrage and political pressure overshadowed investigation into one of Goa's most closely watched murder cases. Political groups and local residents linked the incident to alleged illegal construction and organised protests against "outsiders" working in North Goa. CM Pramod Sawant had then assured strict punishment for those responsible.
Ironically, one of the discharged accused, Viji Suppan, was not fleeing the scene but had discovered Khot lying on the road. Court records show he ran nearly 100 metres to alert the victim's family, rushed Khot's daughter to the spot on his scooter and handed over his mobile phone to summon an ambulance.
Forty-eight hours later, he was arrested for murder. After examining every witness statement, the court concluded that not a single witness had seen any assault involving the three accused. The complainant had not named them in the FIR, medical evidence did not connect them to the death, and even a bloodstain on the Bengaluru supervisor's shirt did not match the deceased.
The court also dismantled the prosecution's central theory that Khot was murdered for opposing illegal construction. Official land records did not recognise him as a tenant of the disputed property, no complaint had been filed by him against the construction, and the project possessed the necessary statutory approvals.
