“We spent several sleepless nights… we are dying because of those seven persons,” wept 65-year-old Padma, appealing to the police to take action against the wrongdoers, in a recorded video clip. Her son, Santosh, in another clip of over four minutes, was seen crying inconsolably, stating that he and his mother were ending their lives as the ‘gang of seven’ had been harassing them over the past 18 months.
The poignant videos came into public domain after the mother-and-son duo set themselves afire at a lodge in Kamareddy, 25 km from their hometown of Ramayampet in Medak district. Their allegations made many believe that the seven accused cannot escape conviction.
Similar feelings had engulfed the minds of lakhs of viewers three months ago, after watching a selfie video of a middle-aged person named Naga Ramakrishna. He, his wife and twin daughters immolated themselves in their house at Palvancha in Bhadradri Kothagudem district, due to ‘harassment by an MLA’s son’.
Before taking the extreme step, Ramakrishna had recorded a video in which he can be heard saying, “The legislator’s son ordered me to send my wife to his place in Hyderabad if I wanted a solution to my disputes over sharing properties with my family members”. Since he named the legislator’s son (names of accused in cases are being withheld due to legalities) in the video, many feel it is ‘going to be a sure case of conviction’.
Easier said than done
Paradoxically, it is easier said than done though irrefutable evidence is available in the form of video clips. For the general public, this was a tragic case of harassment by a group of seven persons, compelling a mother and son to kill themselves. For the law enforcers, it was about abetment to suicide on the part of the seven.
Legally, this crime attracts Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. Since there were seven persons behind it, Section 34 (common intention) too was added in the FIR. Going by the outcome in many cases of ‘driving a person to commit suicide’, investigators were not that successful in proving the accused as guilty before a court of law.
“A person accusing someone of instigating him or her to suicide in a video is different from establishing it in the court. Mere allegations are not sufficient,” says lawyer L. Prasad Rao. Citing Supreme Court verdicts in different cases, Mr. Rao explains that there has to be ‘mens rea’ (intention) on the part of the accused to provoke the victim to die by suicide in order to be held guilty.
To punish a person under abetment-to-suicide charge, the prosecutor must prove the accused had created circumstances which left the victim with no other alternative but to end their life, the lawyer says. Interestingly, these elements are clearly seen in the two abetment-to-suicide cases of Kamareddy and Palvancha in which selfie video clips emerged as crucial evidence.
“The challenge begins from seizing the mobile phone using which the video was recorded. Unless the investigators scrupulously prove it was not doctored, the evidence cannot be counted on by the courts,” observes an expert heading a forensic science laboratory.
Unwilling to be named, the forensic scientist notes that mobile phones of the victim should be seized under proper panchanama. It is preferable that panches (witnesses) are government employees. Normally, they do not turn hostile in court.
Defence counsels would look out for minute lacunae in the prosecution’s contentions and try to tear through the evidence to secure acquittal of the accused. A certified Customer Application Form (CAF), which will have proof of identity and address of the customer, should be secured from the phone service provider for presentation in court. The CAF details must be corroborated by an authorised employee of the service provider to confirm the phone belonged to the victim, the expert avers.
Authentic or doctored?
That is not enough. Next challenge for the police lies in convincing the court that the video clip is not doctored. For this, the clip should be sent to a qualified forensic science laboratory where experts would ratify authenticity of the video clip, confirming it is not tampered with or doctored. “Investigators must be familiar with all these procedures. Simultaneously, they should take suggestions of their legal advisors to make doubly sure that all seizures, examinations and scientific tests are in compliance with legal provisions,” he notes.
The acquittal of a city-based legislator in a case of hate speech raised questions over the ability of the police to prove a case based on video footage evidence. “Video footage in itself is not complete evidence to secure conviction of an accused. In the legislator’s case, the copy of the judgment is yet to be received for analysis to ascertain where the prosecution failed,” says Mr. Prasad.
Both the Palvancha and Kamareddy abetment-to-suicide cases have the common element of selfie videos. But a dig into allegations made by victim Santosh in the latter case raises the serious issue of invasion of privacy. He, along with his mother, went to Kamareddy and checked into a hotel. Apparently, they had decided by then that death was the only way for them to escape the clutches of the gang of seven and their harassment. Sources close to the family claim that they went to Kamareddy believing that at least the police there would not be influenced by the ‘powerful gang’ in Ramayampet.
A day after six of the seven accused in the case surrendered, Kamareddy police issued a statement giving background of the circumstances that propelled the suicide pact. According to them, seeds for the crime were sown nearly two years ago. It is said that an anonymous person created a Facebook page with a fictitious name. It was reportedly christened ‘Ramayampet gang of thieves’.
On this page, objectionable content making serious allegations against Ramayampet municipal chairman Jitender Goud was being posted. Based on a complaint by Goud’s relative, a case under Information Technology (IT) Act with crime no. 222/2020 was registered. Ramayampet police summoned Santosh suspecting his role in the case. However, investigators did not clarify if he was the only suspect or on what basis they believed his possible complicity in the case.
Santosh’s mobile phone was seized under panchanama to ascertain if the FB page was opened using that phone’s number. After investigation, the phone was returned to Santosh, say the police.
Phone content ‘leak’
But Santosh’s friends and family members have a complete different tale to tell. They maintain that after police seized Santosh’s phone, somehow his personal, private and intimate content stored in the smartphone were leaked. “Please note that Santosh, in his video, clearly said that data relating to his personal matters was stolen from his phone memory card and the accused started harassing him since then,” they say.
Inquiries indicated the memory card contained some content of intimate conversations or moments with a ‘friend’. This content landed in the hands of his once-friends-turned-foes who allegedly began blackmailing both Santosh and his ‘friend’. “They threatened to place his private moments in public domain if he did not settle their monetary disputes as per their terms,” his friends say.
The harassment continued for over 18 months. Santosh claimed in the video clip that he complained about this harassment to local politicians and the police. “All of them belonged to a powerful party, and not even 1% justice was meted out to me 110 days after taking the matter to their notice,” he said in the video.
Now, this raises several questions. Who created that FB page? Did Santosh play any role in it? What did Ramayampet police find in his mobile phone? Do they have technical expertise to scientifically ascertain if Santosh’s phone was used to create that page or post content on it? Why would he allege that data pertaining to his personal matters was stolen from his phone’s memory card?Who stole data from Santosh’s phone and how did his personal life-related content reach his opponents?
While Ramayampet police have to field some queries, their counterparts in Kamareddy need to find answers to all questions by virtue of being investigators. One is not sure how long it would take for them to do so or what answers they would stumble upon in the process.
To ensure that such invasion of privacy through investigators does not recur, police top brass has to step in, spell out their stand and issue a stern warning to field officers.
Those in distress or having suicidal tendencies could seek help and counselling by calling any of the Suicide prevention helplines here:
