Cinna salme student case full order W.P.No.18455 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.17800 of 2022 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. Today (22.07.2022), this petition has been listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” in the Additional List.

W.P.No.18455 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.17800 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Today (22.07.2022), this petition has been listed under the caption
“For Being Mentioned” in the Additional List.
2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 21.07.2022, passed in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6609 of 2022, has been produced before this Court. The said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.07.2022, is extracted hereunder:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to bring to the notice of the High Court the subsequent developments which are sought to be brought to the notice of this Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the grounds pending in the present petition and also bring to the notice of the High Court the subsequent events which shall be taken into consideration by the
High Court in accordance with law.”
3. Whatever submissions made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was again reiterated before this Court by Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. This Court is able to find that at every stage there is a new development and at every stage there is accusation against somebody. First, when this petition came up for hearing before this Court and when the order was passed, the only demand of the petitioner was for second postmortem, as at that time, his allegation is that the first postmortem was done by incompetent doctors. Therefore, taking into consideration of the over all situation, this Court had ordered second postmortem by constituting a special team of experts and the same was monitored by a retired Professor and Director of Forensic Sciences Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.
5. Now, it appears that the said order of this Court dated 18.07.2022, has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Oral mentioning has been made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner before the First Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking a stay of the order dated
18.07.2022 and to stop the second postmortem, which was declined by the
First Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to stay the second postmortem, the second postmortem appears to have been done on 19.07.2022. It is relevant to note that having failed to stall the second postmortem, in all fairness, the petitioner ought to have participated in the second postmortem. Despite the best efforts taken by the respondent police to serve the notice one way or the other, the petitioner has not cooperated. Thereafter, the matter was listed yesterday (21.07.2022) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that similar grounds have been raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and when the Hon’ble Supreme Court was about to dismiss the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition and therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the said petition as withdrawn and gave liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before this Court.
6. On the basis of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner mentioned the matter before this Court making similar accusations and similar demand of conducting third postmortem by including a doctor of his choice. This Court has negatived the said contention of the petitioner in its earlier order itself. However, taking into consideration the over all situation, on the direction of this Court, a SIT has been formed to investigate the case relating to protest. CBCID is separately conducting investigation in respect of the death of the student.
7. Today when the Court posted a specific query to
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether he has any faith in the system, particularly the Courts, the learned counsel submitted that he has full faith in the Courts and that is the reason why he has again came to this Court. However, he once again reiterated that third postmortem has to be conducted with a doctor of his choice. This Court considering the nature and background of the entire case and how Media Trial is being conducted in this case and false news circulated in the social media, this Court is of the view that the reiteration of the earlier demand of the petitioner for inclusion of a doctor of his choice is not made with any bona fide reasons but it is for some other reasons. At every stage, the petitioner is making allegation against everyone. Criminal Justice system cannot be expected to continue as desired by certain sections as it will sabotage the investigation. Taking note of the above situation, this Court has taken a conscious view that the demand of the petitioner to conduct re-postmortem with a doctor of his choice cannot be acceded.
8. However, to find out whether third postmortem will give any fruitful result, this Court has summoned Dr.R.Selvakumar, M.D. Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai – 10 and in the open Court, when question was asked to the Professor with regard to conduct of third postmortem, Dr.R.Selvakumar has stated that in his 25 years of experience he has not come across any case where third postmortem was conducted, he further opined that the body has already been dissected twice and again if it is dissected for the third time it will be difficult to find out any new things. Further, according to him, it will only be a futile exercise. Further when the Court posed a question as to whether experts will be able to give opinion on the basis of analysing the videograph of the earlier two postmortems and the two postmortem certificates issued by the doctors who conducted the postmortem. Dr.R.Selvakumar, is of the firm opinion that such a thing is possible and he further stated that in custodial torture cases, team of doctors from reputed institutions like AIIMS, JIPMER and MMC gave such opinion based on the videograpes. When the Court posed a specific query as to whether any act of sexual assault can be found out from the videograph recordings, Dr.R.Selvakumar has submitted that during the postmortem all parts of the body would have been videographed and it is possible to give an opinion with regard to sexual assault by the experts on analysing the videographs.
9. Considering the above aspects, this Court is of the considered view that again ordering third postmortem is not feasible and it will not serve any useful purpose. However, taking into consideration of the apprehension of the petitioner and to find out any other foul play on the body of the girl, this Court constitutes an Expert Team of Doctors from the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research(JIPMER), Puducherry to analyse the videographs of the two postmortem and the two postmortem certificates and give its final opinion. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection in nominating the doctors from JIPMER, Puducherry to give a final opinion. In such view of the matter, this Court constitute the following Expert Team of
Doctors, viz.,
(1) Dr.Kusa Kumar Shaha,
Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, JIPMER, Puducherry.
(2) Dr.Siddharth Das,
Professor & HOD,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, JIPMER, Puducherry.
(3) Dr.Ambika Prasad Patra,
Additional Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, JIPMER, Puducherry.
The above Expert Team of Doctors are directed to analyse the videographs of the two postmortems and the two postmortem certificates in respect of the death of the girl and give its final opinion to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in a sealed cover within a month.
10. The Investigation Officer is directed to conduct the investigation in a fair manner irrespective of the the final opinion of the Expert Team of Doctors and ensure that no real accused go scot-free.
11. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the postmortem certificate and the videograph of the first postmortem has already been sent in a pen-drive to the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi and the postmortem certificate and the videograph of the second postmortem will be handed over in a pen-drive to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villlupuram today. In such view of the matter, the learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram are directed to handover a copy of the postmortem certificates and a copy of the videographs of the postmortems in a pen-drive to the Investigating Officer in a sealed cover, who will in turn hand over the same along with other records in a sealed cover to the Expert Team of Doctors Constituted by this Court. For the purpose of taking copy of the videograph from the original pen-drive, Mr.G.Thirunavukarasu, Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 is directed to nominate an officer who is an expert in electronic evidence.
12. After the submission of the final opinion by the Expert Team of Doctors to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, the petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram seeking certified copies of the postmortem certificates. As far as the request of the petitioner seeking copy of the videographs of both the postmortem is concerned, same may be considered after final opinion is given by the Expert Committee, later, on merits.
13. The learned State Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.13 of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2022 and submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the same. At this juncture, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time till 12.30 p.m. to get instructions from the petitioner. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up again at 12.30 p.m. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner will receive the body of the girl tomorrow (23.07.2022) between 06.00 am to 07.00 a.m. and peacefully conduct the last rites and funeral on the same day itself i.e on 23.07.2022. The said statement made by Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is recorded.
14. For filing Status Report, post this matter on 29.07.2022.
22.07.2022
kk
Note: Issue order copy today. 
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. kk
W. P.No.18455 of 2022 and
W.M.P.No.17800 of 2022
22.07.2022