The post-mortem examination of Ramkumar was postponed yet again on Tuesday as a Division Bench hearing the case had a “difference of opinion.”
The Bench of Justices Huluvadi G. Ramesh and S. Vaidyanathan differed in their views on whether or not to permit the presence of an independent forensic expert of petitioner’s choice during the autopsy.
The issue pertains to an appeal moved by Ramkumar’s father R. Paramasivan assailing the order of a single judge denying permission for the presence of a doctor of his choice in the autopsy panel.
When the plea came up for hearing, Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh was of the opinion that an independent expert of the petitioner’s choice could be allowed to be present during the examination as it would be in no way prejudicial to the case of the prosecution and would in effect fortify the stand of the State about its fairness.
However, Justice S. Vadiyanathan opined that if such a plea were to be allowed, it would, in fact, lead to doubts in the minds of the public about the arbitrary nature of the conduct of the State machinery.
The judge suggested induction of one more government doctor of the petitioner’s choice to the panel constituted by the government.
Recording the difference of opinion, the Bench directed the High Court Registry to place the plea before the Chief Justice to finalise the name of the third judge who will independently come to a decision, based on the merits of the case.
The court also directed the authorities not to conduct autopsy till a decision is taken by the third judge.
During an hour-long argument, the Additional Advocate General C. Manishankar vehemently opposed the appellant’s plea, contending that the government had nominated reputable doctors to conduct the autopsy. After the post-mortem examination, if the appellant has any doubts, he can challenge the report.
“On mere apprehension, the appellant cannot seek a doctor of his own choice,” he said. But appellant’s counsel Shankara Subbu insisted on the presence of an independent expert, claiming that Ramkumar’s death must be treated as a custodial death, which warrants the presence of an independent person of his choice.
When the AAG said that the government would agree to permit the presence of a doctor of appellant’s choice if he could select a government doctor instead of a private practitioner, the appellant refused the offer and said, “This is a matter of instilling confidence in the family of the deceased. A government doctor can be easily influenced by the government..”
