THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Vigilance director Jacob Thomas has reported to the government that there were serious lapses in the police probe into the rape and murder of a law student at Perumbavur, which could weaken the prosecution case against the accused. However, state police chief Loknath Behera rejected his contentions. While the issue kicked off a row over the authority of the Vigilance to review a police probe, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau sources said that the probe was initiated on the basis of a petition alleging lapses in the police investigation.
In the report submitted to additional chief secretary (Home) Nalini Netto in January, the Vigilance director pointed out that there was lapse right from the initial stages of the probe till the gathering of scientific evidence. The available evidence did not confirm that there was only one accused in the case. Former Vigilance Ernakulam SP T. Narayanan had conducted the probe. The home secretary had forwarded the report to state police chief Loknath Behera seeking his remarks. Mr. Behera maintained that there was sufficient evidence against the accused Ameerul Islam. He also questioned the authority of the Vigilance to review a police investigation. ADGP south-zone B. Sandhya, who led the probe, was also learnt to have rejected the Vigilance findings.
Meanwhile, sources familiar with the case told DC that the failure of the investigation team in confirming the identity of a set of fingerprints and a hair recovered from the murder spot may weaken the case against Ameerul. "The initial investigation team had recovered from the spot the fingerprint and hair samples. Since the identity of the hair and fingerprint could not be confirmed yet, it would be difficult to charge the case against Ameerul alone," said the source. The Vigilance report regarding the lapse in the entire probe in the case would be an embarrassment to the LDF government as it had accused former state police chief T.P. Senkumar of the lapses in the initial probe and even cited it as a reason to sack him. Earlier the police had also given a reply to a query under the Right to Information Act that there were no lapses in the initial probe, which also contradicted the government's stand.
