Semmaram Encounter Killings Fact Finding Report2

Tamil Research Institution (TRI)
The fact finding team, in the absence of any statement or information from any State
representatives, including the officials at the medical college, refers and accepts the
statements made by the forensic science expert Dr. Prof. P. Chandrasekaran. According to
him, who has handled thousands of cases, states with all his experience, that it was a cold
blooded murder. He explains in details that the people were tortured and killed by shooting
from close range and bodies were dragged to the alleged spot. He also referred to the gutka
and supari packets around the body for which the finger prints should have been taken. With
no thorough and immediate investigation in the case, all these evidences now stand lost and
eventually aiding the police version. (Refer to Annexure – 3)
At 5:00 PM, the fact finding team arrived at Kabilathirtham in Lower Tirupati to meet Dr. M.
Kantha Rao the DIG of APRS-STF. At the gate to the compound of the DFO/ DIG even after
stating that the fact finding team has come to meet the DIG, the policeman stated that the
DIG was away and hence not available in his office. However, the fact finding team made
entry by stating that they would meet any other officer of the APRS-STF if the DIG was
unavailable after showing the prior intimation sent to their higher officers. To the surprise of
the fact finding team, the official car of the DIG was in the campus adjacent to his office and
it was correctly proved that he was very much present in his office but claimed to be absent.
When the same policeman at the entrance gate was told about this on the way back, he
mentioned that he had been strictly ordered to state this reason to anyone who tries to meet
the DIG. DIG’s office is an office-cum-residence arrangement.
The DIG was not willing to meet the fact finding team. The fact finding team waited for
another 10 minutes at the door steps explaining the purpose of their visit to DIG’s
subordinates. After a lot of persuasions, the DIG met the fact finding team for nearly 20
minutes. DIG Dr. M. Kantha Rao, whom the fact finding team met in his office-cum-residence
in a compound shared with the District Forest Office, invoked an oral order of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court of the previous day, which had asked senior police officials not to make
public statements to the media on this incident. In the fact finding team’s view, which it
conveyed to the DIG, this was a deliberate and self-defeating misreading of the High Court’s
order. This refusal to speak to the team simply meant that its members were forced to
conclude that the police had no case to make, and so feared a discussion on it that they
would rather let it go by default.
The DIG during the conversation repeatedly claimed that he is humanitarian in his approach
and valued human rights and as a doctor he knew the value of human life also. He appeared
tensed, mumbling in his talks and stated that he was just a link in the chain and not an
authority by himself by which it is assumed that he meant carrying out the instructions of his
superiors. The DIG kept referring to a newspaper clipping dated 14 th March 2015 which
mentions about trainings to be organised for educating labourers from north-western districts
of Tamil Nadu. (Refer to Annexure 10). He cited this particular article when comments were
7
www.tamilri.com