Chennai techie’s death: Madras High Court asks reasons for delay in arrest of AIADMK functionary - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Chennai techie’s death: Madras High Court asks reasons for delay in arrest of AIADMK functionary

Hindustan Times, Chennai | ByMC Rajan
Sep 25, 2019 10:08 PM IST

On September 12, R Subasri was riding her scooter near Pallikaranai in South Chennai, when one of the illegal banners put up on the road by S Jayagopal, former AIADMK councilor, for his son’s wedding came crashing on her.

Coming down heavily on the Chennai police for slackness in arresting an AIADMK functionary, prime accused in the death of 23-year-old techie Subasri when an illegal banner crashed on her scooter, Madras High Court on Wednesday asked whether the absconder had slipped out of the country.

At the commencement of the hearing, P Wilson, senior counsel DMK MP, squarely blamed the police for inaction and demanded that the investigation be transferred to the CB-CID and monitored by the DGP.(HT image)
At the commencement of the hearing, P Wilson, senior counsel DMK MP, squarely blamed the police for inaction and demanded that the investigation be transferred to the CB-CID and monitored by the DGP.(HT image)

A division bench, comprising Justices M Sathyanarayanan and N Seshasayee, expressed strong displeasure at the lackadaisical investigation and the manner in which the case has been filed. The bench was hearing a petition by social activist Traffic Ramaswamy against illegal hoardings, banners and cut outs.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

“How long will you take to arrest Jayagopal? Has the prime accused in Subasri’s death case also slipped to safest haven abroad?” the Judges asked.

On September 12, R Subasri was riding her scooter near Pallikaranai in South Chennai, when one of the illegal banners put up on the road by S Jayagopal, former AIADMK councilor, for his son’s wedding came crashing on her. She was fatally run over by a water tanker that came behind her. She was the only child of her parents. It created a public outcry and the High Court took up the case suo motu.

Last year itself, the High Court had banned flex boards and banners as well as hoardings.

The petitioner, a social activist, has sought a direction to the police to register a case under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), against the errant officials including the police, corporation and the ruling AIADMK for the death of Subasri.

At the commencement of the hearing, P Wilson, senior counsel DMK MP, squarely blamed the police for inaction and demanded that the investigation be transferred to the CB-CID and monitored by the DGP. He submitted neither any concrete action has been taken against the errant officials nor the prime accused arrested.

“The police and the accused are hand in glove,” he charged.

The Judges asked whether the ruling AIADMK had filed an affidavit, as directed by the Court, that it would not permit its cadre to erect flex boards. The bench also asked why a watered down case was registered in this incident though the illegal banner claimed a human life.

Senior counsel for the government, Vijay Narayan submitted that a team headed by an Assistant Commissioner was making efforts to nab the former councilor.

Filing separate status reports the police and the Corporation said departmental action has been initiated against the erring officers. While the police informed that the St Thoman Mount Traffic Inspector and Pallikaranai Police Inspector have been proceeded with, the Corporation submitted that necessary punitive action has been taken against the concerned Divisional Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer.

However, the Court was not satisfied with this and directed the Additional Commissioners for Law and Order and Traffic as well as the City Police Commissioners to file separate status reports in the matter and posted the case to October 15.

Further, the Court rejected the plea of the Digital banner firms to allow them to continue their business since they have valid licences for three years.

In the absence of rules and regulations for erecting banners, permission could not be granted, the Judges observed adding that after printing huge banners up to 150 ft, the firms could not evade responsibility for untoward incidents.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On