The case relating to the death of Sister Abhaya in mysterious circumstances in a convent in Kottayam in 1992 took a surprising turn on Monday with a special court here indicting a former State police investigator for destroying crucial evidence related to the sensational murder inquiry.
Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), J. Nazar, found that, prima facie, there was sufficient material on record to proceed against K.T. Michael, former SP, Crime Branch (CB)-Kottayam, on the charges of destruction of evidence and conspiracy.
Mr. Michael headed the local unit of the CB when it probed Abhaya’s death in 1993. The agency later dismissed the case as suicide.
On the order of the High Court, the CBI had conducted an enquiry into the destruction of eight material objects collected by the local police at the time of holding an inquest into the death of Abhaya at the convent on March 27, 1992. They included Abhaya’s diary, clothes and footwear worn by her at the time of her death.
The agency refuted the charge that Varghese P. Thomas, the first CBI officer to investigate the case in 1993, was responsible for the serious lapse.
Instead, it said that it had a serious suspicion about the involvement of Mr. Michael, but it had obtained no consistent proof to prove his involvement in the destruction of evidence case.
The CBI said that DySP K. Samuel, who was Mr. Michael’s subordinate, had taken the evidence from the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) court and had not returned it “to screen the real culprits from being punished”.
Mr. Michael and Mr. Samuel held closed-door meetings to discuss the progress of the probe.
The CBI said there was no evidence that Mr. Samuel had used the objects for investigation or shown it to any witnesses for identification purposes.
Moreover, the CBI accused Mr. Michael of having a close relationship with the convent.
It said a sister from the convent had gone to Mr. Michael’s home to report that Abhaya was missing.
The agency said it was Mr. Michael who informed the local police about her disappearance.
N. Chandrasekharan Nair, counsel for Mr. Michael, said he would challenge the order in court. He reiterated his client’s stance that the CBI officer who first probed the case in 1993 was responsible for the loss of evidence.
There was clear-cut evidence on record that Mr. Samuel had returned the materials to the court.
Civil rights activist Jomon Puthenpurackal had moved the HC for the enquiry.
