At the heart of the debate over the probe into the alleged suicide of Deputy Superintendent of Police M.K. Ganapathy case is whether or not the officer’s last interview, given to a TV channel hours before his death, has to be considered a ‘dying declaration’.
Not just the political establishment, even legal experts in the State are divided over the issue.
In the interview, Ganapathy had accused Bengaluru Development Minister K.J. George and IPS officers A.M. Prasad and Pronab Mohanty of harassment.
So, what constitutes a dying declaration, acceptable as evidence under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872? It is a statement made by a conscious person who knows that death is imminent, detailing the circumstances that led to the person’s death, explain legal experts.
However, even with multiple Supreme Court judgments and case law regarding dying declaration, the case of Ganapathy’s interview is unique and open to interpretations, said a senior advocate for the government. The argument over the issue will be critical not only in this case, but also as precedence, another advocate said.
The government’s legal team seems to be dismissing the interview, saying it had no requisite elements to be considered a dying declaration — indication of imminent death, cause of death, and proximity of circumstances leading to death. The government’s legal team argues that during the interview, there was no indication of imminent death and the charges of harassment Ganapathy made in the interview were incidents that dated back many years and were not in proximity to his death.
‘Govt. nitpicking’
C.H. Hanumantharaya, a leading criminal lawyer, however, argued that the government, in an attempt to defend those named in the interview, was nitpicking. “It is a very superfluous argument to say there was no indication of death. It is clear from circumstances that Ganapathy gave the interview in contemplation of death and we have no business to not believe the inference he drew out of a set of circumstances leading him to that situation, unless decided by a court as non-reliable. The interview is unambiguously a dying declaration,” he argued.
Another leading criminal lawyer, C.V. Nagesh, who is set to represent Mr. George, said that in the interview, Ganapathy only held responsible the three he named “for whatever happens to him” and not for his death. “This clearly indicates he was making that statement saying they were responsible if anything happens to him from a third party. There is no indication of a suicide in his statement,” he argued.
Meanwhile, Janata Dal (S) leader H.D. Kumaraswamy demanded that an FIR be registered in the case based on the complaint lodged by Ganapathy’s wife, Pavana, and book the three named on the charge of abetment.
