The post-mortem examination report on the death of Velmurugan, a suspected Maoist, goes against the encounter claim of the police, C.P. Rasheed, secretary of the Janakeeya Manushyavakasa Prasthanam, said on Wednesday.
Velmurugan, 32, a suspected member of Kabanidalam-2 of the Western Ghats Special Zone Committee of the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist), was killed in an alleged police encounter on the Banasura mountains in Wayanad on November 3 last year.
The police had claimed that Thunderbolt commandos fired at him when a six-member armed Maoist group opened fire on them. The post-mortem examination report of the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, cited 44 wounds on the body, a testimony to the arbitrary police shoot-out, Mr. Rasheed said.
He said food particles in the intestines were not digested, which showed that the police fired at him while he was having food or just after having food. The police said the incident occurred around 9.15 a.m. but there were no hints in the report regarding the time since the body was kept in a cold room for a long time.
The report cemented the doubt on the time of occurrence. Moreover, mediapersons were not allowed to visit the site after the killing, he said.
The report stated that firearm injuries to chest and abdomen involving heart, lungs, liver, kidney and intestine were the reasons for the immediate cause of death. It said fractures to lower one-third of both thigh bones were post-mortem injuries and not caused by firearms.
“The fractured end on the right side was displaced,” Mr. Rasheed said adding that it showed that the police brutally attacked the body even after the death of the youth.
The inquiry report of the judicial magistrate about the encounter was not legal and it was against the ruling of the Supreme Court as such an inquiry should be done by an executive magistrate, he said.
The report also failed to find the cause for the encounter. Moreover, the magistrate reported that there was no mystery in the killing even before considering the ballistic and forensic report. Such a move was denial of justice and the organisation would challenge the findings legally, he said.
