How police failed to knit conspiracy theory tight
5 Points Where Investigators Fumbled In Shankar Murder Case
A.Subramani@timesgroup.com 23.06.2020
For condemned prisoner Chinnaswamy, it was one grand leap, indeed, from the gallows to a clean chit. It is no mean feat, for he was the first-accused in the murderous attack on his daughter Kaushalya and her newly-wed dalit husband Shankar in March 2016. He was among six who were awarded death penalty by a trial court in December 2017.
But, Chinnaswamy’s fate hinged on answers to five questions that a division bench of Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Nirmal Kumar had framed. Previous complaints given against him by Kaushalya herself, immediately after her marriage with Shankar; his frequent mobile phone conversations with the actual assailants; withdrawal of money several times from ATM to pay the hirelings; his ‘conspiracy’ with the assailants at Children’s Park in Palani; and the fact that he had arranged rooms for the hirelings at a lodge in Palani.
As for the previous complaint, Kaushalya herself withdrew it as part of a compromise – that her parents would do her no harm, and that she would return jewellery and other belongings to them. Though, prior to the time of occurrence, there were frequent contacts between him and the assailants, there was nothing to show the contact as evidence for the conspiracy, more so because conversation between them had not been recorded.
The crux of third question was that Chinnaswamy withdrew money from an ATM multiple times and paid them to the assailants. Pointing out that the prosecution did not show any CCTV footage at the ATM as evidence, the judges said, “Though ATMs do contain CCTV camera, and naturally the image of the people who come and use the ATM would have been recorded, the same has not been seized by the investigating officer.” In this regard, the judges pointed out that a CCTV camera at Eswari Departmental Store alone captured the actual murder, and the footage had helped the prosecution.
The fourth issue that it was Chinnaswamy who got rooms for the assailants at a lodge too did not hold water since police did not seize the register nor find receipts for their stay. Though the lodge owners gave statements in courts, they were not backed by hard evidence.
The final question was a prosecution claim that there was a witness to the actual conspiracy being hatched at the five-acre Children’s Park and near rope car junction in Palani. The witness, an autorickshaw, driver said he was at about 70 metres away when he heard them discussing the murder plan. The defence side smashed the claim by pointing out that 70 metres was too long a distance for anyone to hear discussions.
Thus, evidence against Chinnaswamy was either ‘artificial’, as the court found, or inadequate. As he was not present at the scene of murder, only the conspiracy charge would have got him conviction.
But for Kaushalya’s clarity, other assailants would have got away. The bench, pointing out that she was a gravely injured witness, makes light of minor discrepancies like the number of assailants, according to Kaushalya. Initially she says there were six, then says there were only five.
“If a witness gives a parrot-like version with minute details, a doubt is bound to arise as to the tutoring of the said witness by the prosecution.” Pointing out that she remained conscious after the attack, the judges said: “The death of her life partner as well as the near-death experience by her, would be remembered by her for a long time and as such, her testimony cannot be brushed aside though there are some discrepancies in her evidence.”
