HC allows probe in Kodanad case, says deaths serious & suspicious

HC allows probe in Kodanad case, says deaths serious & suspicious

‘Chargesheet Is No Reason To Stop A Probe’

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:28.08.2021

Rejecting the plea of a prosecution witness, the Madras high court on Friday allowed further investigation into the case of murder and burglary at former chief minister Jayalalithaa’s Kodanad estate in April 2017, saying that deaths of people connected with the incident are ‘serious and suspicious.’ “In this case, not only a murder and dacoity had taken place at Kodanadu tea estate, it had been followed by serious and suspicious deaths,” said Justice M Nirmal Kumar on Friday, refusing to stall trial in the Nilgiris sessions court and ruling that nothing could stop further investigation including filing of chargesheet. The judge was passing orders on a petition filed by N Ravi, prosecution witness 35 in the trial, opposing further investigation and seeking early completion of the trial which had reached the questioning stage.

The case had acquired political overtones after former CM K Palaniswami said in the assembly that attempts were being made to frame him in the case. The AIADMK also staged a walkout over the issue. Justice Nirmal Kumar, acceding to the submissions of advocate-general R Shunmugasundaram and public prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, said: “This court holds that the investigating agency/police invoking Section 173(8) CrPC at any stage of the criminal proceeding cannot be doubted, objected and faulted with.”

The duty cast upon the court is to see that there is proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation. The filing of a charge sheet or the pendency of the trial can by no means prohibit further investigation, he added.

‘Better to have fair, impartial trial than arrive at a decision’

As per Section 173(8) of CrPC…nothing can stop the investigating officer to continue with further investigation after filing of the charge sheet when they come across and obtains further evidence,” the court said. “The object of a criminal trial is to discover the truth and plausible evidence is to be brought on record, whatever stage it may be... Whatever materials are collected, it is ultimately the concerned court to decide the acceptance and otherwise of the same. It is always better to have a fair and impartial trial to arrive at a just decision,” said Justice Nirmal Kumar.

As to the locus of the petitioner, who is an Amma Peravai office-bearer, the judge said: “The petitioner is neither a defacto complainant, nor a victim or accused. He is only a witness in this case. He has no say in the manner of investigation and trial of the case. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if further investigation is conducted.”

Trashing Ravi’s apprehension that further investigation of the case might delay conclusion of trial, the judge said: “Fair trial is the first imperative of dispensation of justice and there is qualitative difference between right to speedy trial and fair trial.”

The object of a criminal trial is to discover the truth and plausible evidence is to be brought on record, the court said