E-Paper
2 contradictory pleas in HC on Kodanad case intensify slugfest
Two contradictory petitions filed in the Madras High Court on August 9 in connection with the 2017 Kodanad heist and murder case have intensified the political slugfest in the Tamil Nadu assembly
Two contradictory petitions filed in the Madras High Court on August 9 in connection with the 2017 Kodanad heist and murder case have intensified the political slugfest in the Tamil Nadu assembly.
In the first petition, a witness in the case, N Ravi sought a stay on any further investigation and demanded fast-tracking of the trial. His plea came up for hearing on Tuesday and Justice M Nirmal Kumar said that he will pass an order on August 27.
In his petition, Ravi, who is known to a few of the accused, said that he was being threatened by various sources to give a statement “according” to “requirement”.
In the other petition, three of the ten accused in the case have asked the high court to order interrogation of the former chief minister and opposition leader of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Edappadi Palaniswami, and late J Jayalalithaa’s close confidante V K Sasikala among others in the matter.
Soon after the demise of Jayalalithaa in December 2016, ten people were accused of breaking into the Kodanad estate in the Nilgiris hills and murdering the security guard in 2017. This sprawling bungalow was Jayalalithaa’s summer retreat and also often functioned as a secretariat. The crime became more mysterious after the death of an accused and the family members of another accused in the case. All the 10 accused in the case are from Kerala.
However, the case took a murky turn in 2019, when K V Sayan, a prime accused in the case alleged Palaniswami’s involvement. He was chief minister at the time. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which then sought Palaniswami’s resignation over the matter, is now pushing investigations after returning to power in May. Last week, Sayan was questioned by the Nilgiris police, leading to a political storm in the state. The AIADMK accused the DMK of a witch hunt to frame its leaders, but chief minister M K Stalin denied this in the assembly and said that it was their election promise to bring the real culprits to book. Palaniswami repeatedly alleged that a “secret statement” was taken from Sayan to frame him and even submitted a complaint to Governor Banwarilal Purohit last week. On Sunday, the AIADMK also released a video in which Sayan is purportedly asked by few persons to name Palaniswami.
Deepu, MS Satheesan, and A Samthosh Samy, who, along with seven others, are charge-sheeted in the case being tried at the session court in the Nilgiris, have now filed a joint revision petition requesting interrogation of nine persons, including Palaniswami, Sasikala, Jayalalithaa’s foster son V N Sudakaran, the then-Nilgiris collector, the police chief, and two employees of the Kodanad Estate. This petition was rejected by the Nilgiris sessions judge on April 30, prompting them to approach the high court.
The accused are seeking the examination on several grounds. In their petition, they say that the investigation officer has conducted the investigation in a lethargic manner and let the real culprits go free.
The petitioners also submitted that when one of the accused in the case wanted legal aid, an AIADMK party advocate, who was formerly AAVIN chairman during MGR’s period, was appointed as the Counsel.
“...which makes it clear that the entire proceedings have been influenced and monitored by the persons who were holding power in the former ruling party,” the petition said.
“The learned judge of the trial court failed to consider the sensitivity of the case wherein the second respondent (Sayan) has come forward in digital media to depose about the involvement of former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, and mechanically dismissed the petition,” the petition alleges.
The three have claimed that the trial at the Nilgiris court was “hurried”, “influenced” and “monitored” by persons holding power in the former ruling party, a reference to the AIADMK. They also alleged that the police inquired only 41 out of over a hundred witnesses listed. Their review petition also cited that the death of the family of one of the accused was an accident and alleged political pressure on Sayan. Apart from this, it also claimed that a person associated with the AIADMK was appointed as the lawyer for one of the accused in the past in an attempt to derail their defence.
