Six reports were submitted, say Dy.SPs
The State Special Branch (Intelligence wing of State police) had warned of a possible attack on Revolutionary Marxist Party leader T. P. Chandrasekharan in six Intelligence reports sent to the Home Department, three Dy.SPs told the Special Additional District and Sessions Court (Marad Cases), here on Saturday.
The Dy.SPs who deposed before R. Narayana Pisharadi were Special Branch CIDs from Vadakara Rural P. Sunilkumar, Prajeesh Thottathil, and V. K. Abdul Khader.
The prosecution witnesses also produced the reports prepared on April 6, 2009; March 23, 2010; October 15, 2010; October 25, 2010; November 11, 2010; and March 17, 2012 before the court.
The report sent on March 17, 2012 mentioned that a few leaders of the CPI(M) of Kozhikode district committee had directed local leaders of the party at Onchiyam to finish off Chandrasekharan. The case related to a gang allegedly hired by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) hacking to death the Revolutionary Marxist Party leader at Onchiyam on May 4, 2012.
A report sent on March 23, 2010, stated that CPI(M) activists from Panur, Chekiyad, and Kariyad regions would reach Onchiyam for killing Chandrasekharan. The third report sent on October 15, 2010, spoke of the possibility of transporting weapons from Mahe.
The report sent on October 25, 2010, mentioned a rumour within CPI(M) circles that Chandrasekharan would be killed so as to prevent the growth of RMP, the dissident group formed by him. The report sent on November 11, 2010, said that assailants from Kannur had come twice to murder Chandrasekharan but they had failed to execute the plan. Chandrasekharan should be given police protection, the report said.
Another report spoke about the possibility of attack on RMP leaders N. Venu and P. Jayarajan along with Chandrasekharan. The police officers also informed the court that five reports were sent when CPI (M) Polit Bureau had been handling the portfolio of Home.
One of the reports had been sent when the present Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan was in charge. However the defence counsels said that these reports were prepared by officers with political motives and they had been directed to do so at the instance of Mr. Radhakrishnan.
But all the witnesses refuted these allegations in court.