PALAKKAD: Jalaja Madhavan, former special public prosecutor who had appeared in the Walayar sexual abuse and death case for three months in the Pocso Court, has blamed the Child Welfare Committee and shoddy police investigation for the acquittal of the four accused and said it is not right on the part of the chief minister to blame all prosecutors who had appeared in the case.
The government replaced Latha Jayaraj, who was the special public prosecutor in the initial stage of the case, with Jalaja Madhavan, but it again replaced the latter with the former. Addressing mediapersons here on Tuesday, Jalaja said the P K Haneef Commission, which had inquired mainly into the lapses of the police and prosecution in the Walayar case, had asked her only one question: “Why is it that the confessional statement of the fourth accused, Pradeep Kumar, a neighbour of the girl, did not carry the date of deposition?” She told the commission that was clearly the lapse of then DySP M J Sojan.
Moreover, extra judicial statements did not have any evidentiary value, she added. “I was the public prosecutor only for three months. I was handling five Pocso cases at the time and there was only one court. Now, there are three Pocso courts in the district and as many public prosecutors. Three months is too little a time to even study the case. Moreover, there was no cooperation from DySP Sojan who was investigating the case. When I had tried to clarify on many points, the DySP was conspicuous by his absence. Therefore, I would like to know for what reason was I removed from the post. The home department which appointed me had a responsibility to let me know the reason,” said Jalaja.
“After the elder girl was found hanging after being sexually assaulted, the then chairman and members of the Child Welfare Committee should have enquired and initiated action. Then, the death of the younger girl could have been avoided. Why was the committee passive in the case?”
Jalaja also said then DySP Sojan, who was investigating the case, should reveal the persons he had consulted in the case. “If he had held no consultations, he should give the reason for the same,” she demanded. “Thirdly, why did the home department remove me from my post?”
Jalaja said there was only circumstantial evidence in the case, no scientific evidence. “In my personal opinion, since the girls’ parents say that the deaths were in fact murders, a fresh FIR needs to be filed as a case of murder and additional witnesses included. In the present case in which the chargesheet says the deaths are cases of suicide and with the same witnesses, a reprobe is not possible.”