Date: 01 Jul 2010


J. Mohanraj vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary Department Of Home New Delhi And 3 Others on 24/11/1999 /////////// ORDER/////////// K. G. Balakrishnan, C.J. //////////// 1. The petitioner is a retired police officer. He joined the police department of Tamil Nadu in October 1976 and from 1985 onwards, he was working as the inspector of Police in Central Bureau of Investigation till 1988, While he was working as Inspector of Police, Law and Order, at Esplanade Police Station, Chennai, the murder of late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi took place on 21.5.1991 and according to the petitioner, he was also included in the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) of the Central Bureau of Investigation, which was entrusted with the investigation of the murder case relating to the death of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The Special Investigation Team was headed by the fourth respondent Thiru Karthigeyan and his team was exclusively given the possession of a building named "Malligai" at Greenways Road, Madras. According to the petitioner, a phone bearing number, 107 was installer and sufficient publication was given to the public that if any person knows any thing on the incident, he may pass on the information to the S.I.T. and one Prabhakara Rao was put in charge of the phone. According to the petitioner, the said Prabhakara Rao did not know Tamil and the people, who wanted to give any information or clue regarding the murder, could not give any information. The petitioner would also allege that one Anglo-Indian lady came all the way from Kodungaiyur to give information about one Sivarajan, who master-minded the murder of late Rajiv Gandhi. According to the petitioner, the officials, did not take this lady very seriously and her statements were not recorded. According to the petitioner, Sivarajan was staying very close to the residence of that Anglo Indian lady. The petitioner has also alleged that one camera was recovered from the scene of occurrence and the same was used by one photographer by name Haribabu, who was engaged by the L.T.T.E. to take photographs of the scene. While taking photographs, he died and the police rec overed the camera along with a roll of film for development and the film was developed in the Forensic Laboratory of Tamil Nadu State. One Dr.Chandrasekaran was the Director of the Forensic Laboratory. He developed the films and the same along with the prints were handed over to S.I.T. officials. Some of the photographs were published in certain newspapers of Tamil Nadu and the S.I.T. officials gave permission for the same and these led to the escape of Sivarajan from his hide-out. The petitioner also relies on an article in the "Frontline" and published in the Hindu dated 19th September, 1994 titled as "Shri Rajiv Gandhi Assassination". In the article, it was alleged that one Nixon Suren was arrested by the police and was interrogated but he was let off on the assumption that he had nothing to do with the assassination. It was alleged in the article that Suren had smuggled explosives into Tamil Nadu and he claimed that he was personally involved in the a ssassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. It is also contended that one Darryl Peter was killed along with Shri Rajiv Gandhi in the incident and his wife was one Bhavani, who was employed in a Central Government office. When Bhavani came to know of the occurrence, she immediately left India without obtaining permission from the Department. But no investigation was conducted by S.I.T. and Bhavani had written a letter to S.I.T. from United States of 'America to one Meshak wherein she desired to give information to the fourth respondent. Meshak produced the letter to S.I.T. officials and the letter was brought to the notice of the fourth respondent by the petitioner himself and the fourth respondent replied that he would send S.I.T. officials, who are in United States of America, with direction to enquire about Bhavani. But no such enquiry was conducted. The petitioner also alleges that Bhavani' herself wrote a tetter to the fourth respondent and she had also enclosed a letter to Mr.L alit Chandrasekhar, son of Mrs. Maragatham Chandrasekhar. According to the petitioner, Mrs. Maragatham Chandrasekhar was the then Parliamentary candidate of Sriperumbudur constituency and Shri Rajiv Gandhi came to address public meeting at Sriperumbudur and during the course of investigation, Mr.Lalit Chandrasekhar stated to the police that Mrs. Maragatham Chandrasekhar was injured in the place and he got her admitted in the Apollo Hospital. But later on, it was found by S.I.T. officials that Mrs. Maragatham Chandrasekhar was admitted in the Apollo Hospital by some other persons and not Mr. Lalit Chandrasekhar. Mr.Lalit Chandrasekhar also got himself admitted in Kilpauk Hospital along with two other friends and then, all of a sudden, Mr. Lalit Chandrasekhar left the hospital without the knowledge of his two friends. The petitioner also alleges that there was a proposal to conduct raid at seven places but later this proposal was cancelled and the reason for calling off the ra id was not known. According to the petitioner, Sivarajan and Dhanu reached the place of occurrence in a green colour Maruti van. But no investigation was conducted as to whom this green colour Maruti van belonged to. Some other allegations are also made by the petitioner. As they are not relevant, their narration is not necessary. //////////// 2. The petitioner prays that there should be a further investigation by a multi-disciplinary monitoring agency in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case and the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction in the nature of writ directing the third and fourth respondents to enquire into the facts and circumstances to establish the truth in connection with the death of Rajiv Gandhi. ///////////// 3. We heard the petitioner's counsel. It may be noted that Shri Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case was investigated by the Special Investigation Team and after a prolonged investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge. The trial was conducted by the Special Judge and after a long period, some of the accused were found guilty. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge was challenged by them before the Supreme Court and the matter was heard elaborately by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, and the conviction in respect of the accused Nalini (first accused), Santhan alias Raviraj (second accused), Murugan alias Thas (third accused), Robert Payas (ninth accused), Jayakumar (10th accused), Ravichandra alias Ravi (16th accused) and Perarivalan alias Arivu (18th accused) was confirmed and the four accused namely Nalini (first accused), Santhan (second accused), Murugan (third accused) and Arivu (18th accused) were imposed with capital punishment. As regards the investigation of this case, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: - ///////////// "631. We would also like to record our appreciation for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case. Under the stewardship of Mr.D.R. Karthikeyan, SIT did assiduous work and was able to solve the crime within a short time. Investigation was meticulous, loose ends tied to bring out a clear picture of conspiracy and the part played by each of the conspirators. Members of SIT performed their job with dedication and determination. They succeeded in their mission but their only regret perhaps was that they could not capture Sivarasan alive........." //////////// 4. The present petitioner, who was admittedly a member of the Special Investigation Team, did not raise any objection regarding the nature of the investigation nor did he pinpoint the defects. According to the petitioner, various irregularities had been committed by the investigating agency. As a police officer, he should have brought these facts to the notice of the higher authorities. The petitioner has not stated that he ever made any such attempt to bring these facts to the notice of the higher authorities and that he failed in such attempts. After completion of the enquiry and trial, the petitioner seems to have raised these objections only to serve his personal interest. As regards Rajiv Gandhi assassination, a Special Commission was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice Jain. The Jain Commission was functioning during the course of the investigation. The claim of the petitioner that there must be further investigation of the case, after the trial had been compl eted, is only to be rejected. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any new facts have been discovered, which would create a serious impact on the whole investigation conducted by the Special Investigation Team. The allegations contained in the writ petition are based on mere surmises and conjectures. Therefore the prayer asked for by the petitioner cannot be, granted and the writ petition is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence the petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 24105 of 1999 is dismissed. ///////////// RAJIV CASES REFUSE TO DIE .SRILANKA SAYS KP IS INVOLVED IN RG CASE.OUR GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION ARE MAINTAINING THUNDERING SILENCE.I THINK THAT IS WHY USA AND SRILANKA ARE TAKING OUR COUNTRY FOR RIDE. //////////// 000000000