Mother to file suit questioning the RDO enquiry
C Shivakumar/ENS
Chennai:
The RDO enquiry into the death of Sri Lankan refugee woman gave a clean chit to the police maintaining that the woman attempted suicide due to stomach ache and turned a blind eye to the dying declaration made in the presence of chief judicial magistrate after Madras High Court direction.
According to the enquiry report accessed through Right To Information Act, Karur RDO Manish Chhabra maintains Padma Devi attempted suicide due to stomach ache and backed the first dying declaration which was allegedly taken under duress while not recording the third dying declaration which was taken after High Court intervention following a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
After recording the statements of the victim’s mother Padmavathy, police personnel, doctors and Parameshwari, the wife of one Murali who is accused in a double murder case along with Padma Devi’s husband Kumar, the RDO report rejects the claims made by Padmavathy and Padmadevi of sexual assault by the policemen and says their statements are contradictory.
Contesting the report of RDO, Padmavathy states that the non-perusal of the dying declaration recorded in the presence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate after the High Court order shows the enquiry is flawed.
Interestingly, Padmavathy was enquired twice by the RDO. In the first statement she says police took Padma Devi’s photos and kept her in a locked room for half an hour. In the subsequent enquiry she says that what I divulged in the first enquiry is wrong. “Why did the RDO record the statement of Padmavathy twice,” wonders advocate Pari who is filing a case on the behalf of Padmavathy demanding a CBI enquiry into the case.
There are also contradictory statements by Inspector Mohandas, sub inspector Ganesan and constable Tirupathy which was recorded by the RDO. While Ganesan and Tirupathy maintain they left for Trichy at 2.30 pm after immediately handing over the victim to Inspector Mohandas and police women, Mohandas maintains that he along with the duo left for Gandhigram at about 3pm to investigate the double murder site where Murali and Kumar are the accused in the case.
Even the RDO is silent on the violation of Criminal Procedure Code 160, says advocate Pari. “As per the section, no male person under the age of 15 or woman shall be required to attend an enquiry other than the place in which such male person or woman resides. But the RDO is silent despite the clause is violated by the police,” says Pari.
The mother states that the post-mortem was conducted without the request of the petitioner and it was not videographed.
The RDO report also rejects the claims made by Padmavathy after going through Parameshwari’s statements who says the door of the enquiry room was kept open and not closed as claimed by Padmavathy, the presence of women constables as well as denial of the claims made by Padmavathy that no photos were taken and Padma Devi was not stripped. The report also quotes Parameshwari saying that she was suffering from stomach problem much before the incident which again questions the claim that she committed suicide due to stomach ache as she was bearing the pain much earlier. “How could she have committed suicide on that particular day due to stomach ache,” questions Pari.
The mother is approaching the High Court demanding FIR against the policemen based on the dying declaration, an interim compensation of Rs five lakh and to change the investigation from Tamil Nadu police to Central Bureau of Investigation.
BOX: Chronology:
07.03.2010
Padmavathy taken from the Rayanoor Camp at 1.45 pm by Sub-inspector Ganesan, Thirupathy and woman constable Parimalam
2.30 pm Taken inside the Armed Reserve Police Camp
3.30 pm Padma Devi suffers stomach ache
4.30 pm Rushed back to their home by Sub-inspector Ramalingam
7.30 pm Padma Devi commits suicide
8.35 pm First dying declaration by judicial magistrate I Karur
09.03.2010
3.pm Appeal filed in HC seeking direction from the CJM to record the dying the declaration as the first one was suspected to be taken under duress
6.45pm While the argument is going on, the second dying declaration is taken by the same judicial magistrate. Insterestingly, there is no such provision for a second dying declaration.
8.22pm RDO enquires into the case. Takes the statement from Padma Devi (Interestingly, the enquiry was conducted two days after the incident)
10.30 Third dying declaration taken by chief judicial magistrate after the HC intervention
28.03-2010:
Padma Devi succumbs to injuries
27.04.2010
RDO submits the report
No comments:
Post a Comment