Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: Former DGP Caught In The Line Of Fire Granted Permanent Custody Of Cap And Badge Marked As Exhibits In Trial

An Additional Sessions Judge in Chennai granted permanent custody to the officer who was on duty as Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram in May, 1991 when the former Prime Minister was assassinated at Sriperumpadur.

On September 30, 2021, the city civil court in Chennai had permitted the temporary custody of the items upon execution of a bond of Rs 1 lakh so that he could wear the same on his retirement day.

While allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 452 Cr.P.C, the judge, T Chandrasekharan, has allowed the officer to keep the cap and the badge subject to two conditions. Firstly, the officer can retain the items on the condition that CBI takes high-resolution photographs of both items which must be produced before the court with the signature of the petitioner in a time-bound manner, i.e, within three weeks. These high-resolution photographs would be admissible under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Secondly, the petitioner should also abide by the condition that the cap, as well as the badge, must be produced before the court as and when required under exceptional circumstances.

Background

The IPS officer, a recipient of the Prime Minister's Medal for Meritorious Service in 2003 and the President's Medal for Distinguished Service in 2012, was in the line of duty when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated three decades ago. The former DGP sustained severe injuries in the aftermath of the explosion. The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Sanjay Pinto, also submitted that the petitioner still carries the steel pellets in his body as remnants of the explosion.

The officer had lost possession of the cap and the badge because of the explosion. Thereafter, they were collected by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) as part of the evidence from the scene of the crime and had remained in the custody of the trial court since then.

Arguments Raised

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no 'evidentiary value' for the items in the custody of CBI when the trial on the Assassination was concluded 23 years ago, in 1998. The appeals arising out of the said trial court verdict was also exhausted,  submitted the counsel.

Considering the above, there is no point in CBI preserving the materials marked as exhibits in the trial, pointed out the counsel. Moreover, about the 'preservation' of items by the respondent authority, the petitioner contended that he was surprised to see the 'shabby condition' of the article returned to him for retirement which was 'partially bitten by a rodent'.

The petitioner also relied on Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 10 SCC 283 and Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v, State Of Mysore& Anr., 1977 4 SCC 358 to drive home the point that 'a property which has been the subject matter of an offence should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases'.

About the evidentiary value of the article seized by the investigating agency, Mr. Pinto further submitted that the primary target of the bomb blast was Late PM Rajiv Gandhi. It is true that the petitioner suffered collateral damages. When the material belonging to Rajiv Gandhi has been preserved in a Museum at Delhi, there isn't any reasonable explanation for keeping the personal belongings of the IPS officer in custody.

Elaborating upon the sentimental value that the subject matter of the petition encompasses, the counsel argued that the cap and the badge are 'a reminder of the call of duty during his formative years in the service of the nation'.

The petitioner also added that the international conspiracy angle probed by the Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency of CBI (MDMA) did not require the cap and badge of the officer, and preserving photographs admissible under Section 65B of Evidence Act will be adequate, if at all it is required in the future for supplemental charge sheet as envisaged under Section 173(8) of CrPC in the proceedings arising out the Action Taken Report following the final report of the Jain Commissioner of Inquiry.

About retaining the articles belonging to the petitioner, who was also a prosecution witness in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination trial, the respondents relied on the same Sessions Court judgment in a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu for exhibiting the belongings of a few deceased police officers in Tamil Nadu Police Museum. The court declined the above request on the ground that the articles were required to be kept safe in the 'interests of justice' since it might be required for subsequent case proceedings that have not been completed. CBI even went on to argue that the order dated October 21, 2021, must be applied to the facts of this case as well and that the public cause served by exhibiting the belongings of police officers was on a higher footing than the cause espoused by the current petitioner.

However, the petitioner counsel distinguished the above order of the Sessions Court on the grounds that the petition for custody in the instant case was filed by the petitioner himself who had the rightful claim to the property and that the case proceedings that might hold some relevance to the cap and badge had already reached an end.

Advocates Sanjay Pinto, Akhil Bhansali, Vidya Pinto, Vishwanthini and Veera appeared for the petitioner while CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Chander Mohan.

Case Title: Dr Prateep V. Philip, I.P.S. (Retd.) v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai