Onchiyam case: Prosecution uses call data to rebut defence arguments

Updated - November 16, 2021 08:53 pm IST

Published - November 07, 2013 01:20 pm IST - Kozhikode:

The prosecution in the T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case, on Wednesday, ripped apart the arguments of the defence counsels, including the deposition of M.K. Pradeepan aka Lambu Pradeepan (31st accused) that he was not at Chokli after the killing of the Revolutionary Marxist Party leader on May 4, 2012.

Special prosecutor P. Kumarankutty, who continued with his final arguments before R. Narayana Pisharadi, judge, Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), said the call detail records of the mobile phone of Pradeepan revealed that he was at Chokli at 10.45 p.m. after a hired gang hacked Chandrasekharan to death at Onchiyam at 10.15 p.m. The accused had 3G roaming facility in his mobile.

Mr. Kumarankutty also pointed out that the identity of Pradeepan had also been revealed at the taxi stand at Chokli at around 4 p.m. on the same day. He was then seen in the company of the prime accused, including N.K. Sunil Kumar aka Kodi Suni (third accused) who allegedly assaulted three leaders of the Rashtriya Sweyamsevak Sangh. Pradeepan was known in the area as ‘Maramvettukaran’ (woodcutter). Pradeepan and he had confirmed this in the trial court as well.

The special prosecutor also said that M.K. Ravindran aka Padayankandi Ravindran, member of the Orkatteri local committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] and named 31st accused in the case, had handed over an invitation card pertaining to his housewarming party to Chandrasekharan in the presence of C. Rejith, (27th accused) and P.M. Rameesh aka Kuttu ( 28th accused) at his flower shop for the purpose of identifying the RMP leader.

This he had done though both Ravindran and Chandrasekharan had not been on speaking terms as Chandrasekharan had left the CPI(M) and formed the RMP. K.K. Rema, wife of Chandrasekharan, had also testified that her husband wondered why Ravindran had invited him to his housewarming, Mr. Kumarankutty said. He said none of the 10 defence witness could negate the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in the trial court against the accused.

The defence counsel failed to prove the disruption of power supply at Orkatteri and Vallikkad between 9 and 9.30 p.m. on May 4, 2012. Orkatteri town came under the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) Orkatteri town feeder, and two eyewitnesses had earlier deposed that they had seen the accused under street lights on the day Chandrasekharan was killed.

Likewise, the examination of K. Valsan, secretary of the Eranmala grama panchayat, did not prove that the prosecution witness, E.K. Shijil, was a local leader of the RMP. It was illegal to produce in the trial court the election document stating that T.P. Rameshan aka Dineshan, a prosecution witness, was a polling agent at Vallikkad booth during the three-tier local body election. All documents pertaining the election was kept in the safe custody of the District Collector, Mr. Kumarankutty said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.