

CHENNAI: Holding that the National Human Rights Commission had rightly concluded that P Ramkumar, the suspect in the murder of a software engineer inside the Nungambakkam railway station in 2016, died by suicide inside prison, the Madras High Court dismissed his father’s plea challenging the closure of proceedings.
Ramkumar was arrested for the shocking murder of S Swathi, who was brutally hacked to death inside the railway station. He was remanded in judicial custody at Puzhal Central Prison, where he allegedly died by suicide by biting a live electric wire in September 2016.
Following a complaint, the NHRC initiated proceedings and called for a report from the Chennai city police Commissioner. Based on the report, the commission concluded that Ramkumar had died by suicide and closed the case in May 2020.
Aggrieved by the order, his father Paramasivam filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the NHRC's order on the ground that it had been passed without conducting an independent inquiry, and also sought to direct the commission to undertake a fresh investigation into the circumstances surrounding his son's death.
When the matter came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the NHRC submitted that the complaint had been duly taken cognizance of by the commission, a report had been called for, and an inquiry had been conducted. After considering the report, it was concluded that Ramkumar had died by suicide. After finding that no intervention was required, the complaint was closed, it said.
The State police submitted that the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission had taken suo motu cognizance, but the proceedings were quashed by the High Court in 2024.
The bench observed that the commission considered all materials available, the report of its Investigation Division as well as the report submitted by the police, before concluding that Ramkumar had died by suicide.
The commission had rightly passed the order dropping further proceedings, and there was no error or infirmity in the order warranting interference, said the bench, and dismissed the petition.