How a cop’s journal brought pregnant woman’s rapists, murderers to justice

Bhai bachao, bachao,” the young Marwari woman screamed as she was about to be thrown off the bedroom balcony of her fourth floor house. Thulasingam Road, where her house is located is narrow, and the area, Sowcarpet, congested. But curiously enough, when the police asked about the incident the next morning, the neighbours claimed they heard nothing. That did indeed hamper the investigation, but not so much.

The story goes back to more than three decades ago, on June 10, 1987. Around 5 am on that day, even before the city came to life, a young man named Suresh came running to the Elephant Gate police station to report that his sister-in-law Kamala Devi, a 22-year-old pregnant with her second child, committed suicide by jumping off the balcony. Police registered a case under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that deals with unnatural death. And because the death happened within just years of her marriage, the case was referred to the Executive Magistrate, Fort and Tondiarpet, who held an inquest and referred the body for post mortem examination.

The autopsy report quickly put to rest the claim of her having committed suicide. Forensic experts found that Kamala Devi died of asphyxia due to smothering, compression of neck and head injuries. There were injuries on her genitals, too. This gave a curious turn to the case, and evoked a lot of anxiety and uproar among the Marwari community of Sowcarpet. Various women’s organizations, too, expressed concern and took out a rally demanding a fair investigation into the young woman’s mysterious death.

In view of the gravity of the case and the flutter it created among the Marwari community in the neighbourhood, the then city police commissioner specially assigned the case to me. Being the inspector of neighbouring G2 Periampet police station, I had the advantage of visiting the scene of crime immediately after first information came in, even before the case was actually handed over to me for investigation. This initial step, along with the interaction I had with police personnel who were on night rounds proved to be very useful for making further investigation in this case.

On the strength of the post mortem examinationreport, I altered the case into rape and murder. After a thorough, sustained and painstaking investigation, I ferreted out the truth.

Kamala Devi’s husband Ramesh was a 25-year-old doing crockery import business in Kasichetty Street in Sowcarpet along with his younger brother Suresh. The couple was residing in the fourth floor house on Thulasingam Street in Sowcarpet with their three-year-old son. Suresh and two workers – Gumansingh and Bhoparam – too were staying in the rear-side room of the small apartment. Suresh had gotten married about seven months before that, and his wife was with her parents in Rajasthan. Ramesh used to often go on business trips to Singapore; on June 6, 1987, he left for a 10-day trip.

Investigations revealed that Suresh was not in talking terms with his sister-in-law, and used to comment that Kamala was a cranky woman who was always quarrelling with his brother and mother. He used to say that even Ramesh did not like her much, as she did not bring much dowry.

Around the time Ramesh was abroad, Gumansingh and Bhoparam had tried peeping through a hole in the bathroom door while Kamala was bathing. But she noticed this and severely reprimanded them. They apologised profusely and said they would not repeat this. But knowing well that Suresh hated her so much that he used to talk about doing away with her, the two entered into a ghastly plot with him.

The trio, all in their twenties, planned to smother and strangle her, and then throw her off the fourth floor to make it look like either a suicide or an accident. Once they decided to murder her, they also decided to rape her before that.

Around midnight on June 8, a day before the actual murder, Bhoparam opened the grill gate between the rear portion where he stayed and Kamala’s bedroom. But the creaking noise of the gate woke her up. Bhoparam managed the situation by enquiring whether she wanted milk for the son and she replied in the negative. Bhoparam quietly returned to his room where the other two were waiting. They then decided to change the plan.

In this thickly populated neighbourhood, multi-storied houses are situated in a row, quite close to one another. The next midnight, the three climbed on the tiled roof of the neighbouring house and reached the bedroom where Kamala was fast asleep with her three-year-old son by her side.

Even before she realised what was happening, Gumansingh held her tightly and closed her mouth. Overcoming her resistance and struggle, Suresh raped her first. When her son woke up and cried, Bhoparam took him away. After Suresh, Gumansingh, too, raped her. But when it came to his turn, Bhoparam refused, stating that she had served him food like a mother. Something had changed in him, which proved crucial in cracking the case.

Suresh and Gumansingh lifted her to balcony parapet wall and pushed her down, even as Kamala screamed “Bhai bachao, bachao”. This was heard by an elderly woman staying on the fourth floor of the opposite house. However, she was asked to stay quiet by her relatives fearing the ordeal of frequent police inquiry and the never-ending court proceedings – the main handicap faced by investigators while dealing with eyewitnesses. The murderers went to sleep, and the next morning, Suresh informed the Elephant Gate police about the death. After it became clear that it was a case of murder, there were many suspects including her husband Ramesh – though he had left for Singapore a few days before the murder. He was arrested under conspiracy charge. In the absence of any clinching evidence, Bhoparam was taken as an approver, which brought out the truth behind the incident.

Though the two senior counsels, who appeared for the accused, tried to place various hurdles, including attacking the approver, the II Additional Sessions Judge Kanakasababathy, who conducted the trial, was convinced of the gruesome crime committed by the accused. The court convicted and sentenced Suresh and Gumansingh to death, the punishment they deserved, while Ramesh was acquitted as he was in Singapore at the time of the murder. Bhoparam was discharged.

In his judgment delivered On September 21, 1989, a little over two years after the murder, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, paid fulsome compliments for the methodical, sustained and painstaking investigation.

“…this court wishes to place on record the painstaking and untiring investigation done… by the police officers, particularly R Chinnaraj (Inspector of Police), for his promptness in investigation and bringing the culprits before this court without delay, (which) deserves due appreciation. By his untiring efforts, he gave life to this case, which was almost a dead case. Ever since he took up investigation of this case till filing of the charge sheet, he worked very hard, and extended cooperation in producing all documents wanted by the defence counsel during the trial which facilitated the court to give a correct verdict in the case… The court feels that it is yet another stone on his crown. Therefore, he deserves high encomiums and appreciation of this court. This court feels that his good work may be properly recognised by Tamil Nadu Government by awarding suitable reward,” the judge noted.

However, as convinced as the trial court was about the guilt of the accused, the story did not end there.

As per Section 366(1) of the CrPC, in cases where the Court of Session passes sentence of death, theproceedings should be submitted to the jurisdictional High Court, and the sentence should not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

Thus, the referred trial and the criminal appeal preferred by Suresh and Gumansingh against the death sentence went to the High Court. On August 8, 1990, the court allowed the appeal disbelieving the approver’s version, and acquitted both of them. The reversal of the judgment created ripples among the public, particularly within the Marwari community and women’s organisations. The State then preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment. By the time the case was posted for hearing on December 5, 1997, a decade had gone by since the murder. I was then working as the Assistant Commissioner at Tirumangalam in 1997. That November, I received a message that as the investigating officer, I should visit New Delhi and assist the government advocate during the appeal.

I was asked to prepare the English translation of the records, including the deposition of the witnesses, five sets of which were to be sent to the Supreme Court. That became the next challenge. There were only 10 days to go, and to my surprise, the records were found missing or misplaced in the record section of the High Court. The only documents to be found were a docket sheet with FIR and some unimportant papers.

But it had been my practice to maintain copies of case diaries of all the important cases that I investigated, including the deposition of witnesses – a personal habit that became crucial at that critical juncture. (Here, I would like to impress upon young investigators to maintain copies of important case diaries and other court depositions till their appeals and disposal before the Supreme Court; then these files may be sent to the library in the Police Training College for the benefit of trainees.) Then a team of translators was put on the job and the entire records were translated into English in just five days, and the typed sets were sent by air courier to Supreme Court.

During the detailed discussions with advocate on record VG Prakasam, he was astounded to hear by state the numbers of Material Objects and Exhibit (Document) from memory without referring to the file. I explained how this case was a milestone in my career and the pains I took to bring the culprits before law. 

When the appeal came up for hearing before Justice MK Mukherjee and Justice KT Thomas, advocate Prakasam presented the prosecution case against the acquittal dexterously.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the judges set aside the High Court order with a strongly worded observation in their judgment: “The High Court has seriously erred in upsetting the conviction entered by the Sessions Court. The erroneous approach has resulted in miscarriage of justice by allowing the perpetrators of a dastardly crime committed against a helpless young pregnant housewife who was sleeping in her own apartment with her little baby sleeping by her side and during absence of her husband. We strongly feel that the error committed by the High Court must be undone by restoring the conviction passed against A2 and A3… we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madras and restore the conviction passed by the trial court under Sections 302 and 376 r/w 34 of the IPC as against the accused Suresh and Gumansingh, and we sentence them each to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for the second count. Sentences on both the counts to run concurrently.” 

It took 10 long years, but the painstaking efforts and proper follow-up action have resulted in restoration of justice by the apex court in the sensational rape and murder of an innocent, young woman, which gave me an immeasurable sense of professional accomplishment.