The police on Tuesday opposed tooth and nail a plea by a prosecution witness in the 2017 Kodanad estate heist-cum-murder case to stay further investigation in the case.
Appearing before Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate-General R. Shunmugasundaram and State public prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah said the police had now received certain confidential information.
Further investigation was absolutely necessary as there was an attempt to screen evidence in a serious case related to a murder and robbery on the premises of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.
The court was told that Jayalalithaa’s driver C. Kanagaraj, the prime accused in the heist cum murder, died in a road accident a few days after the crime. Another accused, K.V. Sayan, also met with a similar accident, but escaped with injuries.
Further, a CCTV operator on the estate died by suicide under mysterious circumstances after the crime. All these incidents highlight the need to unravel the truth behind the heist and murder of watchman Om Bahadur, the SPP said.
The SPP also informed the court that personnel attached to the Sholurmattam police station in the Kothagiri circle of the Nilgiris district had issued summons to the wife and brother of Kanagaraj and called them for inquiry after three days.
He stated that no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioner, “Anubhav” Ravi alias N. Ravi of the AIADMK’s Amma Makkal Peravai, in appearing before the police, along with his lawyer, in response to police summons and answering a questionnaire.
On his part, the A-G assured the court that the investigating agency was interested only in unravelling the truth behind the murder and its intention was not to harass or defame anyone. Even if the police found evidence against a new accused, they could always resort to the remedy of anticipatory bail and bail, he said.
Answering a question from the judge, he said the police would require only eight weeks to wind up the further investigation. The police had filed a memo before the trial court and sought permission to conduct further investigations.
However, senior counsel I. Subramanian and A.L. Somayaji, representing the petitioner, referred to a Supreme Court verdict and said even the trial court could not grant permission for further investigation after commencement of trial.
They said 41 witnesses had been examined in the case. The trial court had also questioned the witnesses under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner too had been examined and cross examined, the judge was informed.
Therefore, the question of conducting further investigation when the trial was at an advanced stage was impermissible under law, Mr. Somayaji argued. He said the trial court had not granted any express permission for further investigation.
As far as the mysterious circumstances in the case were concerned, the senior counsel said they were raked up long back when the surviving accused, Sayan and Valayar Manoj alias Manoj, had given a video interview alleging the involvement of former Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami in the crime.
However, the courts had consistently ignored such allegations and termed them to be diversionary tactics to derail the trial, he said. Mr. Subramanian said the High Court had on three occasions ordered the completion of trial in three months.
Yet, the trial had been delayed, he complained, urging Justice Kumar to stay further investigations and order the conduct of trial on a day-to-day basis.The judge decided to pronounce his orders by Friday.
