'Only one wound, but it was on the neck': HC tears into crime branch, questions handling of Nitin Raj case

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday came down heavily on the Crime Branch over serious procedural lapses in the investigation into the death of dental student Nitin Raj, questioning whether there had been an attempt to bring disrepute to the Home Department, which has otherwise undertaken commendable initiatives such as Operation Toofan.

"Did someone tell you that the government should be disgraced? Was anyone trying to tarnish the Home Department?" Justice A. Badharudeen asked during a stern hearing, as Crime Branch DySP Sudhir Kallan faced a barrage of sharp questions from the court. SP K.V. Venugopal also appeared before the court pursuant to its summons.

The court was examining the circumstances in which the investigating officer initially failed to specify legally sustainable grounds for the arrest of the accused, Dr. Ram, a lapse that allegedly enabled him to evade custody.

Referring to the police report stating that the accused was being arrested "because he had committed a grave offence and because his anticipatory bail had been dismissed", the single bench asked whether that was the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court.

"The common man has a court here. Justice has not vanished. The police should not harbour the notion that they can harass anyone. Such lapses should never be repeated," the court observed.

Justice Badharudeen further warned that if the government failed to take appropriate action against those responsible, the court would order a detailed investigation into the matter.

The State government informed the court that disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against the officials concerned and that Dr. Ram had been re-arrested and remanded in judicial custody. However, the court remarked that such measures would not ease the suffering of Nitin Raj's parents. It directed the government to submit an action-taken report and posted the matter for further consideration after two weeks.

Court questions investigating officer

During a pointed exchange, Justice Badharudeen questioned DySP Sudhir Kallan about the lapses in the investigation.

Asked how long he had been in service, the officer replied that he had served for 22 years. He also stated that he had carried out at least ten arrests during the past two years and had submitted the required arrest grounds in those cases.

The court then asked why this case alone had been handled differently.

The officer maintained that nothing had been done deliberately.

Justice Badharudeen asked why the police had waited until the accused approached the Supreme Court before acting.

In response, the officer said the police had searched for the accused even in Karnataka in an effort to trace him.

The court then asked whether any superior officer had instructed him to allow the accused to escape.

The officer replied that senior officers had contacted him in the course of the investigation, but insisted that nothing improper had taken place.

Justice Badharudeen followed up by asking whether anyone had instructed him to tarnish the image of the Home Department.

The officer offered no reply.

The court observed that, in any event, the lapses amounted to a serious dereliction warranting action.

When DySP Sudhir Kallan responded that he had never committed such an error before, Justice Badharudeen rejected the explanation, remarking:

"That may be so, but this is a grave lapse. It is like saying, 'There was only one wound, but it happened to be on the neck.'"

The officer remained silent.