Swami Saswathikananda's death: All investigations point to drowning; no further investigation is needed, says High Court

KOCHI: The High Court pointed out that although various teams had investigated the complaints regarding the death of Swami Saswathikananda several times, no supporting facts were found to prove that it was not a case of drowning.

In the first investigation conducted by the police under the leadership of the Aluva CI and examining 56 witnesses, it was found that the death was a case of drowning. After the Swami's relatives approached the High Court, a further investigation was conducted under the leadership of the Ernakulam Rural SP. The final report submitted by the SP to the Fort Kochi Sub-Court on July 28, 2004, also found that the death was a case of drowning.

Swami's relatives and Swami Sivananda approached the High Court seeking a CBI investigation. Although the petition and appeals were rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the state government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the leadership of the Ernakulam Crime Branch SP for further investigation on March 28, 2007. The SIT submitted its report on December 31, 2013, confirming that it was a case of drowning. The conclusion was based on the postmortem and chemical test reports.

Swami's assistant and eyewitness in the case, Sabu, and driver Subhash, were accused of suspicious behaviour, and their lie detector tests were conducted.

A detailed investigation was conducted into the wound on Swami's head, which ruled out the possibility of homicide. The petitioners approached the High Court questioning this report of the Crime Branch. The petitioners also raised Dr. Biju Ramesh's statement during the argument. Biju Ramesh alleged that a person named Priyan had said that Saswathikananda was murdered. The Crime Branch then questioned Priyan. Biju Ramesh's statement was also recorded. However, there was no evidence. The SIT submitted its final report on February 6, 2021, reiterating that it was a case of drowning. The court clarified that no further investigation was required in a case that had undergone so many procedures.