Slamming a Sub-Inspector (SI) of police for seeking to stall a CB-CID investigation into a murder case in which he is an accused, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has said that the petition filed by the police officer was only an attempt to escape being charge-sheeted.
The Sub-Inspector T Udhayasankar, now posted at Karur, and his brother Udhayakumar, a lawyer, were accused of killing a man Manikandan in Kanyakumari in July 2010 due to previous enmity over managing the affairs of a polytechnic college.
When the local police sought to give a clean chit to the Sub Inspector and his brother, the victim’s relative Sadasivam and others sought an independent inquiry into the case. Following this, in September 2010 the investigation in the case was transferred to the Crime Branch of the CID.
Subsequently, a CB-CID Inspector John Leo had commenced investigations in July 2011 and was on the verge of filing the charge-sheet in the case.
At this juncture, Udhayasankar moved the court in March this year seeking to transfer the case to some other officer claiming that Leo, who was his previously his superior officer, might falsely implicate him in the charge-sheet.
Noting that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate on April 2, Justice K K Sasidharan dismissed the petition. He said: “The timing of the submission is of greater significance. The background facts clearly showed that the SI was following the case and it was only when he was convinced that the Inspector was filing the charge-sheet against him, he had come up the allegation against the Inspector.”
Referring to the petitioner’s claim that he had strained relations with the Inspector that too 18 months after the investigation had commenced, the judge said Udhayasankar had no concrete instance to show why the Inspector was having an animosity towards him.
“The Nature of allegations made against the Inspector showed that the petitioner was longing for a reason to transfer the investigation,” the judge added.
In addition to his, the relatives of the deceased person had no grievance against the CB-CID Inspector, in spite of the fact that the accused Sub Inspector worked under him. This showed the integrity of the Inspector, Justice Sasidharan said.
Referring to the Sub Inspector’s contention that Additional Superintendent of Police had given a report that the Sub Inspector and his brother were falsely implicated in the case, the judge said “the so called intelligence collected by the Assistant Superintendent of Police cannot be a reason to conclude that his finding has to be accepted.”
“The petitioner had got the ASP’s report way back in September 2011, and filing it in the court now, shows his motive,” the judge added.