VIJAYAWADA: With the Hyderabad High Court acquitting P Satyam Babu in the Ayesha Meera murder case, the natural question that begs an answer is, if not him, whodunnit? In its verdict, the court questioned why the probe on the role of some suspects was not taken to its logical conclusion.
The investigating agency initially suspected the cook, Siva Anjaneyulu, hostel warden Koneru Padma, her husband Inampudi Shivaramakrishna, and eight others. Their blood samples were also taken for DNA profiling - in fact, in all, samples of 55 persons were sent for DNA examination and polygraph and narco analysis tests were conducted on 39 persons during the course of the investigation.
One among the suspects was Guruvind Singh alias Laddu, a man with allegedly perverted sexual tendencies. The court held that the police, who arrested him, could not justify his subsequent release though they were certain he was involved and there was prima facie evidence against him. Similarly, the court found fault with the investigating officials for not subjecting hostellers, hostel warden and her husband to narco test in spite of an order granted by the trial court which was confirmed by the high court.
The only excuse offered by the police for their failure in this regard was that when they were about to make arrangements to send them for narco test, the investigation officer was transferred. His successor assumed charge on Aug 13, 2008. The court also observed that the investigation, which was proceeding in one direction till the apprehension of Satyam Babu, took an abrupt U-turn from then on.
Ayesha’s mother, Shamshad Begum, alleged in her deposition that the investigation was not carried out properly. According to her, the cook, Siva Anjaneyulu, used to come to hostel at 4 a.m. and that one key was with him and one was with the warden.
The National Women’s Commission visited the scene of offence and advised the police to refer the inmates of the hostel for narco analysis test.
The test was supposed to be conducted on hostelmates of the deceased including roommates Kavita, Sowmya and Preeti, the hostel warden and her husband and Siva Anjaneyulu, besides Laddu. Close on the heels of the green signal given by the high court for conducting the narco test on these suspects, the appellant, Satyam Babu, was brought into the picture on Aug 9, 2008.
The court also took cognizance of Ayesha’s mother’s statement on a party that allegedly took place at the hostel on December 26, 2007, hours before the girl’s murder.
According to Ayesha’s mother, she received a phone call from Vijayawada informing her that the investigation of her daughter’s case was deliberately diverted and that on December 26, a party was organised on the ground floor of the hostel. The warden’s husband, K Satish, K Suresh, Ganesh, Chinta Pavan Kumar and Rajesh (relatives/friends) were present and two of them went to the second floor to meet their girlfriends in the same block in which Ayesha was staying and on seeing them, the girl warned them that she will reveal the facts to her parents and vacate the hostel.
The court further took note of the recommendations on investigation given by the National Women’s Commission, State Human Rights Commission and the Minorities’ Commission, who visited the crime scene. The court wondered why their recommendations were not given due consideration and said for reasons best known to the prosecution, their reports were not made part of the records.
The court also considered the deposition of Ayesha’s mother that after she had met the then Vice-President, chairperson of the National Women’s Commission and DGP SSP Yadav, she received a threatening call. The anonymous caller threatened to kill her second daughter too just like they disposed of Ayesha. The court wondered why no cross-examination was preferred when Ayesha’s mother sought reinvestigation.
The court said the attempt of the police to project different persons as culprits indicated not only their vacillating attitude and their failure in conducting proper investigation but also their anxiety to draw a curtain on the case projecting somebody or the other as culprit.