Forensic experts and advocates have raised concerns over the failure to send swab samples of B. Ajith Kumar, the victim in the Sivaganga custodial killing, to the Forensic Science Laboratory for studying the substances used by the police to inflict torture on him.
R.M. Arun Swaminathan, a counsel for one of the petitioners, said one of the major discrepancies was not collecting or sending the swab samples collected from the body parts to the laboratory. As witnesses have revealed that the police had used chilli powder and ganja on the victim, only when the swab tests are analysed could this be proven in court, he pointed out.
“The external appearance section in the post mortem certificate under the sub-section natural orifices (mouth, nostrils and ears) notes that dried blood stains noted over both ear and brown colour fluid noted over both nostrils and right angle of mouth,” he stated.
In the ‘specimens collected and handed over’ section of the post-mortem report, it only was mentioned that viscera was sent for chemical analysis, dissected organs for histopathological analysis, and blood for chemical analysis. It also said the x-ray reports were handed over to radiology department of the Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai and the air-dried clothing and videography pen-drive were given to the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupuvanam.
A State Forensic Officer, requesting anonymity, said this was a gross violation of the guidelines of the court and the National Human Rights Commission. As usage of chilli powder could be seen as a heinous offence and one of the torture techniques employed by the police personnel, it was essential to prove the intensity to which the victim was tortured, he said.
Also, in the Santhosh vs Madurai District Collector judgment, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had ordered: “A copy of the autopsy report as well as the video should be simultaneously given to the legal heir or representatives of the family of the deceased. This alone will enable them to take recourse to legal remedies immediately. If after receipt of the autopsy report, the legal heir/representatives of the deceased family give in writing that they intend to move to the High Court, the body shall be preserved in the mortuary for at least 48 hours. If the body is disposed of either by cremation or otherwise in the meanwhile, the very purpose of holding a second post mortem will be rendered infructuous.” The court also said the hasty cremation in the Hathras gang rape case led to controversy.
Mr. Swaminathan pointing to the judgment said the police took the body for cremation even before the autopsy report was given to the family. “Even if we want to redo the post-mortem based on our queries, how will that be possible without the body?” he questioned. When the court goes through the video of the post-mortem and finds out about the swab samples, it should question the same, he added.
“And if the samples have not been collected, that is again a violation,” he added. Noting that the report stated that the heart was covered in a fatty layer, Mr. Swaminathan said: “As there is a chance that this could be claimed as a reason for the death, photographs of organs that should have been attached to the post-mortem report are also missing.”
He added that the court should appoint a forensic expert to fill the gaps in the report.
