SI’s suicide: Notice issued to govt

​Hyderabad: Justice M S Ramachandra Rao of the High Court at Hyderabad on Friday ordered notice in a writ petition complaining of tardy investigation in the case of U Ramakrishna Reddy, a sub-inspector, who shot himself dead.

His widow Dhanalakshmi Reddy filed the writ petition pointing out that Ramakrishna Reddy had committed suicide on 17 August 2016 by shooting himself to death with his service revolver in the police quarters/accommodation on the premises Kuknoorpally police station in Medak district.

She complained to the court that according to her husband, the DSP Sridhar Goud and Circle Inspector Venkataiah had harassed her late husband to force him to indulge in corrupt practices and collect bribes from people within his jurisdictional limits.

In fact, the petitioner complained that said respondents had specifically instructed her husband to collect money from truck drivers/owners that carry sand loads from one place to another, passing through the jurisdictional limits of the police station.

She named various police officials and said referring to the suicide note, her husband had categorically stated that the named respondents were completely responsible for his death and in brief explained how he was harassed by DSP Siddipet Sridhar Goud, Circle Inspector Togutta Circle Ramanjaneyulu, CI Siddipet Rural Venkataiah, head constable Kuknoorpally police station A Muthyam and Gulam Samdhani, constable Yadav Reddy of the same police station, constables Raju and Nagi Reddy of Gajwel police station.

She contended that her husband, in his suicide note had specifically stated that he had paid an amount of Rs 15 lakh to Sridhar Goud in the last two months and he had been paying a sum of Rs 15 lakh regularly to Circle Inspector of Togutta Circle Ramanjaneyulu.

“Further the investigating officer appointed by the respondent for conducting departmental inquiry into the matter has recklessly made press statements that my husband, under the influence of alcohol, committed suicide, thereby prejudicing and concluding the investigation even before it began.

The said statements issued by the investigating officer and the fact that the investigation is being conducted without initiating any proceedings against the accused officers as per fair inquiry norms clearly raises suspicion with respect to the process of investigation adopted by the respondents in the present case”, she further alleged. The judge granted time to the government to respond to the allegation.

“The present facts give rise to a rare scenario wherein the officers who themselves are involved in the commission of offences acting as investigating authorities and are derailing the investigation process, thereby denying justice to us.