The Madras High Court has expressed deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which the postmortem report in the dowry‑related death of 27‑year‑old Rithanya was filed, stating that the report lacked completeness and failed to address key findings relevant to physical abuse allegedly suffered by the deceased prior to her death. The Court, presided over by Justice M Nirmal Kumar, ordered that a comprehensive forensic report be submitted to rectify these deficiencies. The bench conveyed that it was not satisfied with the current documentation, pointing out that the postmortem failed to clearly establish whether physical assault had occurred.
While hearing the matter, Justice Nirmal Kumar observed that the investigating agencies seemed to follow a mechanical, routine approach to evidence gathering. The Court remarked that there appeared to be no dedicated manpower or effort to conduct a thorough investigation, with materials being collected in a perfunctory manner rather than through structured inquiry. The Judge stressed that this was not a routine case and warranted careful examination given the grave circumstances.
The matter before the Court involved bail pleas filed by the accused individuals: Rithanya’s husband, Kavin Kumar, her father‑in‑law Eswaramoorthy, and her mother‑in‑law Sithra Devi, who have been in judicial custody following her death. The Court heard submissions from counsel representing both sides. Senior Advocate John Sathyan, appearing for the accused, denied all allegations of dowry harassment, stating that both families were of equal social and financial standing and that no dowry demands had been made at any point.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar, representing Rithanya’s father, argued that his daughter had endured severe verbal and physical abuse after her marriage. He submitted that it was only upon receiving her voice recordings, sent to him by Rithanya prior to her death, that he realized the grave nature of her trauma. He asserted that her ordeal had compelled her to take her own life. He cautioned the Court against granting bail to the accused, contending that releasing them could result in the destruction of evidence, undermining the investigation.
The judicial process had led to the registration of a case by the Cheyur police under provisions related to suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage. Following this, the accused were booked under statutory sections applicable to cruelty by a husband or his relatives and abetment of suicide. The legal proceedings moved to challenge applications for bail before the High Court, where both sides presented their positions.
At the hearing, the Government Advocate Santhosh informed the Court that the mobile phones of the deceased, her husband, and her father had been sent for forensic examination, and that a detailed forensic report was pending. It was also communicated to the Court that witnesses including relatives, classmates, and friends were being questioned to determine whether any behavioural changes in Rithanya had emerged during her married life.
After considering all submissions, the Court adjourned further proceedings, noting that submission of the comprehensive postmortem report was essential for informed adjudication. The case was deferred for a two‑week interval, with the next hearing scheduled in mid‑August. The Court thus underscored the need for investigative diligence and insisted on enhanced documentation before entertaining further bail arguments.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.