Bathroom break that broke the case

CHENNAI: In the two years he was in jail, both his parents passed away. He could not even see his mother for the last time before the final rites. His wife struggled alone with two kids hoping against hope that her husband would get a bail at least.

All because a sub-inspector with Perumbakkam station was upset that M Yuvaraj (28) had raised his voice against him during a routine vehicle check two years ago.

It has been a week since his release. Yuvaraj leaves home every day at 6 am and travels 30 km to Chintadripet where he works as a butcher. “I have to earn money. I will work hard. My wife has struggled a lot in the last two years,” he told DT Next.

Yuvaraj wants to get justice for what he went through but is not sure whether he will have the energy. His wife, Rebekah, works as a domestic help.

They have never had time to sit and discuss the injustice meted out to the family. “Isn’t it the way of life of the poor? There is not much one can do about it,” Yuvaraj said.

According to the prosecution’s case, on December 24, 2021, around 10 pm, two persons – V Balamurugan (35) of Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and Yuvaraj were caught with 30 kg of ganja in an Andhra-registered car at Chitlapakkam.

In the stand, Yuvaraj had a different story to tell though.

According to his deposition, on December 18, he had an argument with sub-inspector Thirunavukarasu. A week later, around 2 am on Dec 25, Thirunavukkarasu barged into his house and took him away.

Yuvaraj was not taken to the station but was kept in a police booth until daybreak and was remanded during the day. Six months later, his father died.

“We were able to get him parole for that. But, when his mother died, it was a Friday. The next two days, it was a holiday for courts and we couldn’t move to petition them. The body too could not be kept for long. So, the last rites were done without him,” Yuvaraj’s counsel, R Rajaganapathy told DT Next.

Since the foisted case was a commercial quantity, Yuvaraj could never get bail. “We thought of approaching the High Court for the second time, but then the trial started and we thought we would fight it out there,” Rajaganapathy said.

During the trial, counsels of both accused pointed out several chinks in the prosecution’s case including the non-establishment of the ownership of the car in which the ganja was seized, and the delay of over 3 months in producing the seized contraband before the court. But, it was Thirunavukkarasu’s embarrassing reply that seemed to be the final nail in the prosecution’s case.

At the trial, the counsel reiterated Yuvaraj’s version of events about him being picked up for arguing with the SI. To substantiate the argument, newspaper clippings and TV news clips showing the arrest of only the first accused, Balamurugan were submitted, while the prosecution’s case was that both were caught with ganja in the car.

For this, Special Judge J Juliet Pushpa noted that newspaper reports and TV news items cannot be believed as gospel truth. But, Thirunavukarasu’s cross-examination by Yuvaraj’s counsel made the court curious.

When SI Thirunavukkarasu was questioned whether they (police) had given information about the seizure of contraband from the accused to the media, the SI said yes.

When advocate Rajaganapathy asked about Yuvaraj’s absence in the photos that were released to the media, the SI said, “He (Yuvaraj) was on a bathroom break at the time. So, his photo was not included in the media release,” he told in open court.

Judge Pushpa of Special Court (for exclusive trial of cases under the NDPS Act) noted that his reply about the accused going to the washroom creates a doubt over the prosecution’s case. “On scrutinising the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the recovery and arrest of the accused,” the court held and acquitted Balamurugan and Yuvaraj.

Yuvaraj has got back to his butcher job. “I didn’t even know the Andhra man (the other accused) in the case,” he said.

“May be, my client had a short fuse and he might have gone overboard with the sub-inspector, but, foisting a fake case is inhuman,” Rajaganapathy said.