Panjim:The recent clarification reportedly given by the accused in the Porvorim Casino Majestic shooting case, as circulated in the attached video, raises extremely serious questions that the people of Goa cannot afford to ignore. These questions demand a thorough, impartial, and independent investigation and not a hurried conclusion based on one-sided narratives.
According to the accused’s version, the firing incident was not what it is being portrayed to be. He reportedly claims that the alleged cross-firing was pre-planned, that the firing took place at close range, and that despite several shots being fired, no one was injured. He further claims that the victim, Mr. Srinivas Nayak, and his bodyguard were allegedly involved in an arrangement in which shots would be exchanged but nobody would be hurt. These are extraordinary allegations. If true, they could fundamentally alter the understanding of the entire incident. If false, they must be conclusively disproved through an impartial, evidence based investigation.
The most serious and disturbing claim, however, is the alleged prior relationship and understanding between the accused and Mr. Srinivas Nayak. The accused has reportedly stated that this alleged plan was discussed or worked out approximately a year earlier, or long before the shooting, and that Mr. Srinivas Nayak knew him very well. He has further allegedly claimed that Mr. Nayak had given him money on several occasions. If these statements have indeed been made, they cannot simply be dismissed as an attempt at diversion without proper verification. The investigating authorities must establish whether the accused and Mr. Nayak had prior dealings, communications, financial transactions, meetings, or any other relationship that may have a bearing on the shooting episode.
The question that naturally arises is: What was the nature of the relationship between the accused and Mr. Srinivas Nayak? Why does the accused claim that the alleged plan was made long before the incident? Were there financial dealings between them, and if so, for what purpose? Were there communications or meetings that could corroborate or disprove these claims? These questions require documentary, digital, financial, and witness based verification not speculation and not selective acceptance of one version.
The accused has also reportedly claimed that he was a regular visitor to the casino, that he could have caused fatal harm to Mr. Srinivas Nayak if he had genuinely intended to do so at the alleged distance, and that the bodyguard fired approximately six shots during the incident. He has further alleged that he was instructed on what version to give to the police in the event of his arrest, including a reference to an individual named “Papu,” whom he claims he had never even seen. These statements, if accurately reproduced, demand thorough verification, forensic examination, and questioning of every person connected with the episode.
The central question is simple: Was this a genuine shooting incident, a staged exchange of fire, a conspiracy, an arrangement that went wrong, or something else entirely? The truth cannot be determined through selective statements, public relations narratives, or an investigation that leaves serious questions unanswered.
The Crime Branch has reportedly described the accused’s video as an attempt to divert attention from the investigation. That may be the agency’s position, but such a position cannot substitute for transparent, evidence based investigation. The contents of the video must be examined against the physical evidence, ballistic reports, CCTV footage, call detail records, mobile phone data, eyewitness accounts, weapon-forensics findings, medical evidence, and the precise sequence of events.
I therefore call upon the Government of Goa and the competent authorities to ensure a completely independent, impartial, transparent, and time-bound investigation into the Porvorim casino shooting episode. If there is any reasonable apprehension of local influence, conflict of interest, or investigative compromise, the matter should be entrusted to an independent Special Investigation Team or referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), subject to the applicable legal process. The involvement of appropriate central investigative or intelligence agencies should also be considered wherever legally justified and necessary.
The role of every person connected with the alleged episode must be examined without fear or favour, including Mr. Srinivas Nayak, his bodyguard, the person described as the accused, and any other individual whose involvement is disclosed by the evidence. No person should be presumed guilty merely because allegations have been made against them, but no person should be placed beyond scrutiny because of influence, wealth, political connections, or social standing.
If the investigating authorities find that the conflicting statements cannot be satisfactorily resolved through ordinary investigative methods, they should consider every legally available scientific and investigative procedure. If legally permissible, and subject to informed consent and the necessary judicial safeguards, the authorities should also consider whether narco-analysis or any other scientifically recognised examination is appropriate in relation to the accused, the bodyguard, Mr. Srinivas Nayak, or any other relevant person. Such examination must never be used as a substitute for independent evidence, and its use must comply fully with constitutional rights and the law. The objective must be to discover the truth, not to target or prejudge anyone.
The investigation must examine not merely the firing itself, but the entire chain of events: the alleged planning, the reported prior relationship between the parties, the alleged financial dealings, the persons present, the weapons used, the source and movement of the weapons, the alleged instructions given before or after the incident, the communications between the parties, the role of security personnel, and whether any person attempted to manipulate the investigation, influence witnesses, or obstruct the course of justice.
If the accused’s claim that money was allegedly given to him by Mr. Srinivas Nayak is found to have a factual basis, the competent authorities should determine the nature, purpose, frequency, and legality of those transactions. Relevant bank records, digital payment records, communications, business records, and other lawful evidence should be examined wherever legally warranted. Any financial investigation must be evidence-based and must not become a fishing expedition or an assumption of guilt.
Further, if credible evidence emerges of unexplained wealth, benami transactions, unlawful land dealings, money laundering, or other financial irregularities connected with any person involved, the competent authorities must conduct a lawful and comprehensive financial investigation. This should include verification of relevant property transactions, company records, beneficial ownership, bank and financial trails, and assets held through associates or entities, wherever supported by evidence and authorised under law. Any examination of family members or close associates must be based on specific evidence or lawful investigative grounds, and not merely on their relationship with the person concerned.
The reported presence of private armed bodyguards accompanying Mr. Srinivas Nayak over the past several years also deserves lawful scrutiny. The authorities should establish whether the weapons, licences, security arrangements, and deployment of such personnel comply fully with the law, and whether any official security-related records or permissions are relevant to the incident.
The people of Goa are also entitled to ask whether any individual connected with this matter has enjoyed political protection or unusual influence across successive governments. Such questions must be investigated through facts and records, not merely political allegations. No person should be allowed to use political proximity, business influence, or social standing to obstruct a genuine investigation.
This is not a demand for conviction through social media. It is a demand for truth, accountability, transparency, and equal application of the law.
Goa’s reputation cannot be allowed to suffer because of allegations of influence, organised manipulation, or a lack of transparency in a case involving firearms and public safety. If the allegations made by the accused are false, let the investigation establish that clearly. If they contain elements of truth, let those responsible face the full consequences of law. If there has been any conspiracy, fabrication, intimidation, or obstruction of justice, the law must act without fear or favour.
The Porvorim casino shooting case must not be reduced to competing narratives. Every angle must be investigated, every credible lead must be pursued, and no influential person must be given a free pass. Goa deserves the complete truth.
This statement refers to allegations and claims reportedly made in the circulated video. The allegations must be independently verified, and no person should be treated as guilty unless established through due process of law.
One important publishing caution: I have used phrases such as “reportedly claimed” and “if true” around the allegations of prior planning and payments. Those qualifiers are essential. The strongest legally defensible position is to demand that the authorities verify the alleged relationship, prior planning, and financial transactions, rather than state as fact that Mr. Srinivas Nayak organised the episode.
From: Francisco Xavier Pacheco ( Mickky)
Former Tourism Minister Govt of Goa, former MLA of Benaulim & Nuvem.
Ph: +918888128888
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19VeSvGYPz/?mibextid=wwXIfr
