Chennai: The Madras high court referred the matter of autopsy on the body of Ramkumar, the sole accused in techie Swathi murder case who allegedly committed suicide in Puzhal prison on September 18, to a third judge.
The judge will decide as to whether an independent private doctor could be allowed to be present at the time of autopsy as there was difference of opinion between two judges of a division bench on this issue.
In his appeal, Paramasivan sought to set aside an order of a single judge dated September 19, which turned down his plea to permit a doctor of his choice to be present at the time of autopsy to be conducted by the government doctors on the body of his son Ramkumar. The bench said while the counsel for the appellant insisted that an independent forensic expert of his choice should be on board at the time of conduct of the post-mortem, the relief was vehemently opposed by the additional advocate general.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs State of Maharashtra by the appellant, wherein the Supreme Court, on the basis of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officers, has culled out the charter of the United Nations, which has opined that “affording the victim’s family and legal representative the right to request that an independent qualified representative be present during the autopsy of the victim’s body”.
In the present case, it was the case of the appellant since the victim had died while in custody, it was a case of custodial death, warranting the presence of an independent person of the victim’s choice to be present at the time of post-mortem. However this stand was opposed by the additional advocate general, the bench added.
The bench said on the above aspect, while Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh was of the view that it would be advisable to allow such independent forensic expert to be present at the time of the post-mortem, as the same would be in no way prejudicial to the case of the prosecution and would in effect fortify the stand of the state about its fairness, Justice S.Vaidyanathan, however, subscribes to the view of the additional advocate general that an independent person with forensic knowledge would, in fact, lead to creating a doubt in the minds of the public about the arbitrary nature of the conduct of the state machinery and suggested induction of one more government doctor in the post-mortem panel instead of an independent person of the choice of the appellant, the bench added.
Earlier, during the course of arguments, R.Sankarasubbu, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant wanted Dr P. Sampathkumar, vice principal and HoD, Ramachandra Medical College, Porur to be present during post-mortem.
When the bench pointed out that Dr. Sampathkumar is a private doctor, Sankarasubbu cited three judgments to show that the presence of a doctor of victim’s choice is allowed during autopsy.
Additional advocate general C Manishankar submitted that the government has nominated reputed doctors to conduct autopsy on the body of Ramkumar. After postmortem if the appellant has any doubts, he can challenge the post-mortem report. Sankarasubbu said it is only based on circumstantial evidence that Ramkumar was arrested. While effecting arrest, police inflicted injuries on him. Thereafter also he was subjected to torture. Complaints were made to authorities. Under these circumstances, he died on September 18. According to them it is not a case of suicide, but custodial death.
Passing orders on an appeal filed by Ramkumar’s father, R.Paramasivan, the bench comprising Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and S.Vaidyanathan said, “Since there exists a difference of opinion with regard to the appointment of an independent person to be present at the time of autopsy, between us, Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for listing the matter before the third judge for his opinion on the above aspect. Not to conduct autopsy till the decision is taken by the third judge”.
