THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Adding non-bailable charge against Sriram Venkataraman in the FIR without obtaining concrete evidence against him helped the IAS officer easily obtain bail on Tuesday, said legal experts. On Saturday morning, police initially registered the FIR with the bailable charge of ‘causing death due to negligence’. By evening, an additional non-bailable charge of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ (304 II) was added.
IPC Section 304 (II) carries a maximum jail term of up to 10 years. The police added the additional charge after a huge public outcry over their lackadaisical attitude in the case. The blood sample of the accused, the most crucial piece of evidence to justify the charge, was collected nine hours after the incident. This delay jeopardised the case and the accused could easily obtain bail.
“When the more serious charge (IPC 304 - II) was added, the investigation on the ingredients that merit such a charge had not been obtained. Neither could the police obtain any evidence to prove Sriram was drunk or was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner before pressing the culpable homicide charge,” said Advocate Ajaykumar V.
However, it needs to be noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that ‘ingredients’ in similar cases can be recovered at a later stage also. This was in the context of the two sensational cases - Alistair Pereira v/s State of Maharashtra case and also in the BMW hit-and-run case in Delhi involving a former Navy Chief’s son, he added.
However, senior lawyer B Raman Pillai is of the view that the police could justify addition of Section 304 (II) on the basis of the statement of co-passenger Wafa Firoz that Sriram was drunk and over-speeding. Also, the severity of the accident and the impact indicate the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. This too can justify adding of culpable homicide charge, Pillai said.
‘Police conspired’
Adv Chandrasekharan Nair, who appeared on behalf of the de-facto complainant (the representative of ‘Siraj’ newspaper on whose complaint the FIR was lodged), has demanded monitoring of the entire investigation by the court. Lashing out at the police, the counsel of the complainant demanded adding conspiracy charges against the SI of Museum police station.
“Even though the doctor got the smell of alcohol, the police neither tried to corroborate it nor did they record it in the case diary. There is a clear conspiracy between the police officer and Sriram right from the beginning,” he said. The counsel of the complainant has also demanded the addition of IPC Sections 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) in the case.