HC directs AIIMS to depute doctor for post-mortem of murder

Clearing the decks for the post- mortem of P Ramkumar, the sole accused in the murder of a woman techie, who allegedly committed suicide in prison, the Madras High Court today directed AIIMS, Delhi to depute a doctor for the procedure on or before September 27.
Justice N Kirubkaran, who was appointed as the third judge by the Chief Justice to decide on the issue following differences of opinion among a two-judge bench, concurred with the view of Justice S Vaidyanathan in this regard and directed AIIMS to depute the doctor on or before September 27.
He rejected the plea of Ramkumar's father that one of the doctors to perform the post-mortem should be of his choice to ensure transparency since it was a custodial death.

The division bench, comprising justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and Vaidyanathan, had referred to the Chief Justice the appeal by the father of Ramkumar, challenging a single judge's order rejecting his plea.
While Justice Ramesh had favoured an independent forensic expert to be present during the autopsy, saying it would fortify the stand of the state about its fairness, Justice Vaidyanathan said an independent person with forensic knowledge would create doubts in the minds of public about the arbitrary nature of the conduct of the state machinery. He had suggested another government doctor on the panel.
Justice T S Sivagnanam had on September 19 turned down the petitioner's plea and appointed a panel of four government doctors to conduct the autopsy on the body of Ramkumar, who died on September 18 after reportedly biting a live wire at Puzhal Central Prison, where he was lodged.

Ramkumar's father had challenged the order and filed the appeal.

The bench had also ordered that the autopsy not be conducted till the decision was taken by the third judge.
(REOPENS LGM 2)
Delivering his order in a packed court hall late this evening after more than three hours of arguments, Justice Kirubakaran said he was directing inclusion of a doctor from AIIMS only to clear the cloud and in an endeavour to do complete justice, without discrediting or casting aspersions on the state's doctors.
Moreover, conducting autopsy was a very serious issue and no third party can have any role even if he was highly qualified, the judge said.

He agreed with the view of Justice Vaidyanathan that an independent person with forensic knowledge would in fact lead to creation of doubt in the minds of the public about the nature of investigation conducted by the state machinery.