The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Court rejects Muthulakshmi's plea

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Mar 03, 2006

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Court rejects Muthulakshmi's plea

Special Correspondent

Veerappan's wife had sought a probe into circumstances leading to his death

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has rejected the writ plea of Muthulakshmi, wife of slain brigand Veerappan, seeking a CBI probe into a complaint on the circumstances leading to the killing of her husband and three of his associates on October 18, 2004.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.A.K. Sampathkumar, dismissed her writ petition, saying there was no basis for her claim that Veerappan and others were captured alive and tortured by the Special Task Force before being killed in a "fake encounter." They also rejected her claim that the doctors who conducted the post-mortem were incompetent.

Petitioner's counsel R. Sankarasubbu submitted that Ms. Muthulakshmi's complaint was not accepted by the police and no FIR was registered. He said that Veerappan was administered "anaesthetic material" and was done to death and that an independent human rights organisation submitted a report confirming the doubts.

A.L. Somayaji, Additional Advocate-General, however, argued that Ms. Muthulakshmi's version on regarding the cause of Veerappan's death was inconsistent and that her complaint was an "after-thought." He said there was no legal sanctity for the human rights organisation's report.

A Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry into the matter and submitted a report, which was accepted by the Government.

No basis

Acceding to the Government submission, the Judges said: "The allegations that Veerappan and his associates were captured three days prior to the encounter and tortured and that he was administered an anaesthetic material have not yet been substantiated... There is no basis for the doubts raised against the competency of the doctors who conducted the post-mortem... From all relevant materials, including the post-mortem report and the videograph taken at the time of post-mortem, besides photos and the RDO inquiry report, we are satisfied that no sufficient material was put forth [before the court] to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is need for inquiry by the CBI."

As for a single judge order, dated February 4, 2005, directing the police to take Ms. Muthulakshmi's complaint on file after the RDO probe, the Bench said the direction was "not warranted and in any event cannot be sustained."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail