TN's politically sensitive Kodanadu case adjourned to Sep 2

The district sessions court, which is hearing the sensational Kodanadu heist and murder case, on Friday adjourned it for September 2 following argument by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam lawyers that the case cannot be taken up as another case is pending in Madras high court in this regard.

As the key accused Sayan, who has reportedly given a confessional statement with regard to the incident, was produced before the judge C Sanjai Baba on Friday afternoon, the lawyers cited a case in the high court, for speedy and day-to-day trial and objected to further proceedings.

Om Bahadur, watchman of Kodanadu Estate, belonging to late chief minister Jayalalithaa, was found handing dead from a tree with his throat slit and another watchman nearby with serious injuries. One of the rooms of the guest house inside was found broken open on the night of April 24 in 2017 and the police had registered a burglary and murder case.

Hearing the argument on Friday, Sanjai Baba adjourned the case for September 2 for three days of continuous hearing.

The police had interrogated Sayan for three hours some 10 days ago and were expected to produce his statement on Friday morning before the judge, amid speculation among political parties and general public that the accused would name senior AIADMK leaders for their involvement in the case.

The AIADMK had objected to taking up the case again and submitted a memorandum to the Tamil Nadu governor.

The Tamil Nadu government had on Tuesday told the Madras high court that the investigation in the case relating to Kodanadu Estate heist and murder case was not conducted properly to book the 'real' culprits in the matter.

The probe was conducted in a hurried manner to hush up the truth, Advocate-General R Shanmugasundaram said when a criminal original petition from Ravi alias Anubav Ravi (52), also joint secretary of the Coimbatore unit of the Amma Peravai, came up for hearing before Justice M Nirmal Kumar.

The petitioner alleged that the state was now re-opening the case and to conduct re-investigation, which is not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code.