Chennai lawyer moves Supreme Court against Madras High Court order handing probe into son's death to local police

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in an appeal against a Madras High Court order which had handed over the investigation into the 2012 death of a law graduate to the local police..A court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which had been probing the case, had in 2017 concluded that the death of the law graduate was not a suicide, but a homicide..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant directed the CBI and the High Court-appointed SIT to file a status report in the case of the death of advocate R Sankarasubbu’s 24-year-old son, S Sathish Kumar. .Kumar had gone missing on June 7, 2011, prompting his father to file a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court after lodging a police complaint. After the body was found, the High Court appointed a special team of doctors to conduct an autopsy. On the opinion of the doctors, the charges were modified to include Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of the High Court then transferred the investigation to the CBI.In March 2012, the CBI filed a status report seeking to close the case as being a suicide. This prompted Sankarasubbu to file an application seeking the formation of an SIT headed a retired Madras High Court judge to probe the matter. The Division Bench then referred the matter to a Full Bench, which called for an SIT to constituted in December 2012.After an investigation, the court-appointed SIT headed by retired CBI Director RK Raghavan came to the conclusion in 2017 that the youngster had actually been murdered. However, the report stated that despite its best efforts, the case of homicide remained "undetected.".In an order passed in February 2021, the Court handed over the task of detecting the untraced offenders to the local police. It also directed the CBI to file its final report before the magistrate, and the SIT to file a final report and hand over all the records of the case to the CB-CID (Metro), Chennai.This order, the petitioner claimed, was in clear conflict with the 2012 order of the High Court which had called for an SIT investigation."Hon'ble High Court...erred in holding that as regards the recommendation of S.I.T for taking penal and departmental action against certain officers, this Court cannot issue a positive direction and the S.I.T did not conduct a civil enquiry to fix responsibility, either departmental or criminal, on the other two investigation agencies for their lapses in the investigation. It failed to appreciate that unless custodial interrogation of Suresh Babu, Inspector, LO. of the case and other accused against whom serious punishments have been recommended by S.I.T. are not permitted, truth will not come out as which is evident from the report of S.I.T. The impugned judgment in the respectful submissions of the petitioner clearly amounts to diluting the report of SIT," the plea stated..Considering the sensitivity of the matter which has not only affected the petitioner but the entire lawyers' fraternity in the State, the High Court was well within its Constitutional power to revive the SIT, the petitioner argued."Needless to say, it is evident from the report of SIT that there was bigger motive behind petitioner's son murder than merely a simple murder and there has been attempt by the officers named by the SIT to destroy the evidence and to change the case from murder to suicide.".Senior Advocate R Basant and advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari appeared for the petitioner.