Scarlett Keeling was found dead at Anjuna beach in north Goa.
The verdict in British teenager Scarlett Keeling death case will be pronounced on September 23, eight years after her semi-nude and bruised body was found at Anjuna beach in Goa.
A local barman Samson D'Souza, working on a shack, and one Placido Carvalho, also a local, were tried on charges of drugging, sexually abusing and leaving the teenager to die on the beach, where her body was found on February 18, 2008.
Goa Children's Court president Vandana Tendulkar said the verdict would be pronounced on September 23 with the final arguments in the case concluding today after two days.
The prosecution has examined 31 witnesses, including the mother of the deceased, Fiona Mackeown during the trial.
Carvalho and Samson have been charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sexual abuse and drugging.
Ms Mackeown has flown to Goa from Davon (UK) to be present in the court. She has already deposed before the court.
The case, initially investigated by Goa Police, was later handed over to CBI after Scarlett's family accused the local police of hushing up the matter.
CBI Special Public Prosecutor Ejaz Khan banked his arguments on the 'last-seen-theory' as Scarlett was allegedly seen with Samson, three hours before her body was found on the shore.
"The accused (Samson) in his statement has not revealed what has happened during the three hours after he was last seen with the girl. The accused is trying to deny his presence at the scene," Mr Khan said.
According to CBI, Scarlett was administered drugs in a shack where Samson was working, in presence of Placido on the fateful day.
"Both the accused should be punished. One committed the offence, and other helped him hiding it," the SPP argued. He dismissed the contention that CBI framed Samson under "some influence".
"Common people like a barman cannot pressurise CBI which is a national agency of repute. What benefit will CBI get by entangling a barman?" Mr Khan told court.
Defence lawyer Mervin D'Souza said Samson was being targeted as he was defenceless.
During the arguments, he submitted that there was no involvement of the accused in the crime, claiming "largescale interference" in the investigation, which, he said, is "evident" from the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses.