The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Satish Kumar, has declined to transfer the investigation into the dowry death of 27-year-old Rithanya to another agency. Instead, the court directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Tiruppur to personally monitor the probe to ensure that it is carried out fairly and transparently. The court observed that a substantial portion of the investigation had already been completed, and transferring the case at this stage would not serve any useful purpose.
The petition was filed by Rithanya’s father, Annadhurai Ramasamy, who had sought that the matter be handed over to the Crime Branch–CID, the Central Bureau of Investigation, or a Special Investigation Team under the supervision of a retired judge. He alleged serious lapses in the investigation, claiming that the police had failed to invoke provisions relating to sexual harassment and other relevant laws such as the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. He also pointed out that vital digital evidence, including phone data, was being overlooked and that there was an undue delay in gathering evidence. According to him, the accused were being shielded due to political influence.
The state, however, denied these allegations. It informed the court that forensic analysis of audio recordings recovered from the phones of both Rithanya and her husband was already in progress. The prosecution further assured that once the forensic process was complete, additional charges, if warranted, would be added to the chargesheet to be filed before the Magistrate.
Rithanya had been married to Kavin Kumar for about three months before her death. In her final audio messages to her father, she narrated instances of harassment, both mental and physical, inflicted by her husband and in-laws. Following her death, the Cheyur police registered a case under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which covers the death of a woman within seven years of marriage. Her husband and father-in-law were subsequently arrested under provisions relating to cruelty by a husband or relative and abetment to suicide.
The High Court, while refusing the plea for transfer, highlighted that shifting the investigation to another agency at this stage would only delay proceedings, given the progress already made. To address the petitioner’s concerns about bias and efficiency, the court ordered that the Superintendent of Police should directly oversee the probe. The monitoring by a senior officer, the court reasoned, would ensure accountability and transparency in the investigation.
The case will now proceed with the SP supervising the investigation, and further updates will be placed before the court in due course. The decision reflects the court’s attempt to strike a balance between addressing the concerns of the victim’s family and ensuring that the investigative process continues without unnecessary disruption.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.