Madras High Court Permits Accused to Question Ex-CM Edappadi and VK Sasikala as Witnesses in Kodanad Murder Case.
The Madras High Court has permitted the accused to call former Chief Minister Thiru. Edappadi K. Palaniswami and V.K. Sasikala Natarajan as witnesses in the Kodanad murder case. The Court was reviewing a Criminal Revision that challenged the Sessions Judge’s Order and aimed to overturn part of the Common Order that was dismissed. Justice P. Velmurugan, in a Single Bench, instructed, “… the Sessions Judge must complete the trial according to the law, allowing both sides to present their cases. If the prosecution needs to call more witnesses based on further investigation, the trial should continue accordingly. Once the prosecution finishes examining its witnesses, the petitioners should have the chance to question the eight witnesses listed in the petition, which include (i) Thiru. Edappadi K. Palanisami, (ii) Mrs. V.K. Sasikala Natarajan, (iii) Mrs. Elavarasi, (iv) Mr. N.V. Sudhakaran, (v) Mr. Shankar I.A.S., (vi) Mr. Murali Rambah, IPS Officer, (vii) Mr. Sajeevan, and (viii) Mr. Sunil, for the defense.”
Advocates I. Romeo Roy Alfred and K. Vijayan represented the Petitioners, while Government Advocate S. Vinoth Kumar represented the Respondents. According to the prosecution, in 2017, the complainant was working as a security guard at the Kodanadu Estate Bungalow in Kotagiri, owned by former CM Selvi Dr. J. Jayalalithaa. Around midnight, he was attacked by eight people who used knives to assault him. They choked him, bound his hands and feet, and sprayed an unknown substance on his face, causing him to lose consciousness. When he regained awareness, he saw the attackers fleeing in their vehicles and discovered that the security guard had been murdered, with the body found upside down on a nearby tree.
The bungalow’s windows and door were found damaged. The Complainant alerted the security staff, who then reached out to the division writer. The Complainant quickly went to the hospital and gave a statement to the Police, which resulted in the filing of an FIR under Sections 324, 342, 449, and 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After the investigation, a final report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate and later sent to the Sessions Judge. The Judge partially approved the Petitions, and the accused filed a revision case. The High Court noted that rejecting the examination of witnesses, Mr. Sajeevan and Mr. Sunil, without valid reasons was wrong. The Court stated that the Government could not argue that the number of defense witnesses would delay the case. As a result, the Court granted the Criminal Revision and overturned the previous Order.
Cause Title: Deepu & Ors. v. The State & Ors.
