Kodanad case: Why Palaniswami is rattled

50-Kodanad-estate Spot of bother: The Kodanad tea estate | Bhanu Prakash Chandra

On August 18, as the legislative assembly was preparing to debate the revised budget estimates for the current fiscal year, opposition leader Edappadi K. Palaniswami brandished a poster condemning the DMK government. When Speaker M. Appavu denied him time to speak, AIADMK legislators led by Palaniswami raised slogans and walked out of the assembly. “The government is trying to foist false charges upon me and my partymen in the Kodanad murder case, even though the investigation in the case is over,” he told journalists outside the assembly.

Palaniswami was referring to the break-in at former chief minister J. Jayalalithaa’s 800-acre tea estate in Kodanad in April 2017, which had resulted in the death of a security guard. It had happened when Palaniswami was chief minister, and he had told the assembly the day after the incident that it was a case of robbery gone wrong. “The men, while fleeing the place, were caught by the security guard. They killed him,” he had said.

There is no political motive or vendetta. There is no need for anyone to express fear over this. The government will adhere to the law in the Kodanad case and bring the culprits to book- M.K. Stalin, chief minister, Tamil Nadu

The charge-sheet against the 10 accused in the case was filed in September 2017. Palaniswami now alleges that the DMK government is trying to implicate him and party colleagues by reopening the investigation into the case.

Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, however, said bringing out the truth in the case was one of the poll promises of the DMK. “There is no political motive or vendetta,” he said. “There is no need for anyone to express fear over this. The government will adhere to the law in the Kodanad case and bring the culprits to book.”

Palaniswami appeared unusually nervous as he talked to journalists outside the assembly. AIADMK members boycotted the assembly the following day as well, and they submitted a memorandum to the governor against what they perceived as Stalin’s efforts to implicate party leaders in the case. Three days later, AIADMK spokesperson and former minister D. Jayakumar told journalists that the matter was sub judice and that it could not be discussed in the assembly.

On August 24, three of the ten accused petitioned the Madras High Court seeking the re-examination of several witnesses, including Palaniswami and former AIADMK general secretary V.K. Sasikala. The petition said that only 41 of 103 witnesses in the case were examined during trial. It also cast aspersions on the investigators, and said they had failed to properly inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of S. Kanagaraj, Jayalalithaa’s former driver and the main accused in the case. Kanagaraj was killed in a road accident days after the break-in.

Another plea was filed the same day by a prosecution witness, who wanted a speedy trial and a stay on further investigation. The advocate general opposed the plea, saying the police had received “certain confidential information” and that further investigation was “absolutely necessary”.

The investigation into the case and developments related to it have for long been mired in mystery and controversy. Kanagaraj, who hails from Edappadi (Palaniswami’s home town near Salem), is alleged to have planned the robbery. According to the police, he was driving drunk when his motorcycle jumped lanes and rammed into a car near Salem. Kanagaraj’s brother S. Dhanapal, however, soon alleged that his brother was murdered. “I reached the spot within four hours, but there were no blood stains or tyre marks there,” he said.

Dhanapal has petitioned the DMK government to inquire into the accident. “The political connections behind my brother’s death will have to be probed,” he told THE WEEK. “Why should Palaniswami get rattled when the matter is pending in court?”

A day after Kanagaraj’s death, another accused in the case, Sayan of Madukkarai near Coimbatore, and his family also met with an accident in Palakkad in Kerala. Sayan’s wife and three-year-old daughter died on the spot, while he suffered grievous injuries. He was later arrested.

A few weeks after that, a computer operator called Dinesh Kumar, who was in charge of CCTV cameras at the Kodanad estate, was found hanging in his house in Ooty. The family said Kumar did not have any reason to kill himself, and that the lungi with which he allegedly hung himself was not his. The police, however, allegedly closed the case in a hurry, saying Kumar had eyesight issues that prevented him from working. Interestingly, all CCTV cameras were switched off on the day of the break-in. The investigators, however, allegedly ignored the matter.

After the charge-sheet was filed and the accused were put on trial, Sayan contacted Ashish Rawat, superintendent of police in Nilgiris district. He was reportedly questioned for more than three hours. He also moved court saying that he wanted to furnish “secret information” regarding the case to the police. Sayan was in custody till the first week of July this year; he was later granted bail by the Madras High Court. It was after these developments that the police petitioned the district court seeking permission to carry out further inquiries in the case.

Under present circumstances, though, the case cannot be reopened. But the police can ask the court’s permission to file an additional charge-sheet. Also, the law can allow Sayan to become approver in the case.

According to Aspire Swaminathan, former secretary of the AIADMK’s IT wing, who has been tweeting on the developments in the case, Palaniswami and the AIADMK have reasons to worry. “Three new witnesses; two have agreed to turn approvers; 17 new documents have now surfaced,” he tweeted recently. “Maybe the final nail in the coffin.”

TAGS