KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of Idukki CPM district secretary M M Mani with regard to political killing did not contain any substance or material enabling a further investigation into the death of Idukki INTUC leader Balasubramaniam alias Balu.
The court also dismissed the plea by the state government that the appeal against the Sessions Judge’s order of conviction in the case relating to the murder of INTUC leader Balasubramaniam be kept in abeyance until the completion of further investigation into the case following revelation of Mani.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Babu Mathew P Joseph also observed that the disclosure of the CPM leader does not contain any substantial material attracting prosecution in Balu murder case.
Mani had made the revelation on May 25,2012, three years after the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons and nearly eight years after the incident on October 20, 2004.
Hence there was a delay in seeking further investigation in the case, the court pointed out.
Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the attempt was only to delay the final hearing of the appeal against conviction and that there was no material whatsoever in the revelation made by Mani to grant further investigation.
The Bench pointed out that the content of the disclosure did not give any clear and complete link of any particular person or group of persons being masterminded or executing the incident which led the murder of Balu.
Even after the disclosure, the investigator has not found any link which could be treated as sufficient enough to generate the requirement for the judicial authority to open up and pave way for further investigation.
The court further observed that neither the investigator has any case that any material or matter was left out during the course of investigation that led to the registration of crime nor there was any material that may now have been shown as surfaced as would have been relevant during the course of the earlier investigation.
The so called disclosure made by Mani does not contain any substance or material attracting the prosecution, the Bench held.
The government in the appeal said that, if the proposed investigation continued, the role of new accused with the convicted accused would be probed afresh. It would bring out the larger conspiracy behind the murder. Further investigation would have a direct impact on the result of appeal pending before the High Court.
If the appeal was disposed of before completion of the further investigation, it would defeat the very purpose of the investigation. Therefore, it was essential to keep the hearing of the appeal in abeyance.