Court exempts Kamal Haasan from appearance at film shoot accident site

Granting the relief to the Makkal Needhi Maiam chief who alleged harassment by police under the pretext of probe, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, however, directed him to appear before the central crime branch (CCB) officer concerned for the purpose of investigation.

He was passing orders on Haasan's petition taken up for urgent hearing after senior counsel Sathish Parasaran made a mention in view of fresh summons by the police directing the actor's presence on Wednesday.

Haasan had on March 3 appeared before the CCB in response to summons and was questioned in connection with February 19 accident in which assistant director Krishna, art assistant Chandran and Madhu, a production assistant, were killed when a crane came crashing down.

In his petition, the actor narrated the sequence of events leading to the mishap and said he and the film director Shankar had a narrow escape as they were only few meters away from the crash site.

Subsequently an FIR was registered against the crane operator and production manager under IPC sections 287 (negligent conduct with respect to machinery), 337 (causing hurt by negligence), 338 (causing grievous hurt), and 304 A (causing death by negligence).

Haasan's counsel said the actor was a law abiding citizen and had appeared before the investigating officer and was questioned for over three hours without any interval.

He answered all questions raised and shared information he knew regarding the accident, the counsel claimed.

However, to his shock and surprise, the CCB issued fresh summons on Monday directing him to be present at 10.30 am on Wednesday for recreation of the accident scene, the petitioner said claiming that it was not maintainable in law and describing it as politically motivated.

The petitioner contended he was only the hero of the movie had no control over the production or over the staff engaged.

Alleging that the second summons had been issued by the CCB with an intention to harass him, Haasan wanted the court to intervene.

Prosecution submitted that Hassan was only a witness and if any exception was given to him, all others would also seek similar relief.

The Judge, however, exempted Hassan from appearance for reconstruction purpose and disposed of the petition.