The police surgeon who heard her body speak

The only one person who seems to have had some serious doubts about the reasons of the mysterious death of the younger child was Palakkad police surgeon Dr P.B. Gujral, who conducted the post-mortem on her body. The postmortem report, which graphically and pictorially described the possible violation the young child was subjected to before her death, remains the starting point for a new team, legal sources say.

Dr Gujral also had suggested that the investigation team rule out the possibility of a murder by ascertaining if the girl of 151 cm height could tie a ligature at a rafter at a height of 247 cm and hang herself.

It is learnt from sources associated with the case that during the trial the surgeon had ruled out any other possibility of anal infection through any means other than that the minor girl had been subjected to repeated episodes of unnatural sexual abuse. This is different from the position the forensic surgeon who conducted postmortem of the elder child had taken during the trial. She had left possibilities for infection other than sexual abuse which came in handy for the defense lawyers.

The court, however, refused to take cognizance

The post-mortem report of the elder girl had said the “anal orifice appeared stretched with multiple mucosal erosions at margins with pustular areas at places.”

The defence lawyer elicited a statement from the forensic surgeon who conducted the postmortem that the injuries in the victim's anus can be due to piles.

The judge should have clarified if it was relevant in the instant case. When the postmortem certificate is proved by the doctor, any contradiction elicited in the cross-examination of the observation of sexual abuse on the basis of lack of corroborative evidence, and dismissed the failure of the investigation team to follow up on the suggestion to measure the crime scene and see if the child could indeed hang herself as of no consequence. The court relied on the deposition of her parents to come to the conclusion that the child committed suicide. should have been clarified in the re-examination by the Public prosecutor and if he failed to do so, then by the judge himself by asking court questions. But it seems to have not been done.

And the court chose to rely on the alternate suggestion and ordered so: “she gave an alternative opinion to the effect that it could be the result of an infection in the region. The opinion given by the doctor after postmortem examination is not the conclusive proof to say that the girl was subjected to anal penetration.”

The court also found no witness to corroborate the charges against the accused.

Legal experts say a new investigation, if it is allowed, should start with ruling out the possibility of homicide, as suggested by the police surgeon. And should it come to a conclusion that the measurements did not match those in the crime scene, then the case can take another turn.