abhishek_sharma wrote:The Kerala police officers who ‘framed’ ISRO scientists — and got away
Shortly after being exonerated by a Kerala court in the 1994 ISRO spy case, scientist D Sasikumaran had sought action against the three police officials who had allegedly framed him and others, including his ISRO colleague Nambi Narayanan.
“I had approached the chief secretary and the DGP. Unfortunately, our system does not have the conviction to punish the guilty,” Sasikumaran told The Indian Express. “No probe is being held into why and how they framed the scientists.” The government last year ruled out action against the three police officers.
While Narayanan has been fighting for justice all through, Sasikumaran had so far been silent in public. Now an engineering consultant in Thiruvananthapuram, Sasikumaran said the case ruined the two scientists and damaged ISRO’s reputation. “I can’t explain the trauma my family went through. Even for a murder case, it is imperative to prove that a person lived. There was no crime, but we were targeted as criminals. We have a ludicrous system.”
CASE & CLOSURE
The police had made out a case that Narayanan and Sasikumaran had passed on secret documents to other countries, especially Pakistan. They accused Chandrasekhar of Russia’s space agency, Bangalore contractor S K Sharma, and inspector general Raman Srivastava of passing on secrets of the Aeronautical Defence Establishment, Bangalore. They alleged that Chandrasekhar, Sasikumaran and two women from the Maldives, Mariyam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan, had met secretly to exchange papers and money.
In 1996, the CBI submitted its closure report in the chief judicial magistrate’s court in Kochi, concluding that the allegations of espionage were unproved and false. The court agreed and all six accused were discharged.
The CBI pointed out lapses by Kerala police officers Siby Mathews, K K Joshwa and S Vijayan, who probed the case. In a report to the Kerala government, it called for “necessary action as deemed fit”. In June last year, the home secretary issued an order saying it was not proper or legal to take action against the officials after 15 years. The government decided no action need be taken.
Congress leader K Muraleedharan has now urged Chief Minister Oommen Chandy to review the decision. Muraleedharan’s father, the late K Karunakaran, had been forced to quit as chief minister in 1995 during a campaign mounted by a section of the press and rivals within the Congress.
Muraleedharan wrote to Chandy, “Exonerating those who worked against the Congress government led by Karunakaran was shocking... By forging false cases, the police officials committed treason.” He plans to place the demand before the party central leadership.
The CBI had also submitted a report to the Union Home Ministry about the role of some Intelligence Bureau officials. Of the three police oficers, Mathew was serving as DGP (fire forces and rescue) when he opted for VRS in 2011, with a year left in service. The LDF government then made him state chief information commissioner.
Joshwa retired as an SP early this year. S Vijayan retired last year, also as an SP. He was with the National Investigating Agency for a brief period. This is what the CBI report said about the three:
Siby Mathew
DIG who headed the special investigation team
The CBI report said Mathew had indiscriminately ordered the arrest of the scientists and others without conducting a thorough interrogation or adequately verifying their disclosures. It said Mathew and his team had not recovered any evidence from the ISRO or the money allegedly paid to the accused by their foreign contacts. “It is unfortunate that he allowed the doubts and suspicions in the mass media and the public mind to linger on without conducting proper verification,” the report said.
When he handed over the case to the CBI, Mathew suggested that Narayanan’s office and house be searched; that investments made by the accused with a person in Kochi be verified; that “the brigadier” also known as “Coatwala” be identified; and that the nature of documents allegedly secreted out be established. The CBI blamed him for having failed to probe these aspects at his own level during the 20 days for which he had investigated the case.
Sasikumaran’s house was searched seven days after his arrest, the CBI noted. Besides, Mathew had not updated the media about his probe; the CBI report said he “deliberately and intentionally” allowed rumours to circulate, causing embarrassment to IG Srivastava. Srivastava’s name had widely been discussed in the media as the possible “brigadier”. When Congress leaders led by A K Antony and Chandy demanded Karunakaran’s resignation as chief minister, it was mainly on the allegation that he was protecting Srivastava.
An SP in Mathew’s team recorded that squadron leader K L Bhasin was “the brigadier” who had accompanied Maldivians Rasheeda and Hassan to Army Club in Bangalore. This should have ruled out Srivastava as that person. Despite the SP having fixed the identity of the brigadier, Mathew called for further investigation into this aspect when he handed over the case.
In his statement to the CBI under section 161 of the CrPC, Mathew said a photograph of Bhasin had been shown to Hassan who identified him as the person with whom she and Rasheeda had gone to the club in Bangalore. However, this fact was not recorded in his probe.
Narayanan, in a petition to the National Human Rights Commission, alleged that false news had been leaked to the press primarily by Mathew. “While many newspapers quoted Mathew as the source of information, Time magazine, in its issue dated December 26, 1994, quoted Mathew,” he said.
A year after the court accepted the CBI report, Mathew claimed the police had collected sufficient evidence to chargesheet the accused and the CBI was entrusted the case for conducting investigations all over India and abroad, and because of the sensitive nature of the issues involved. In an explanation to the chief secretary, Mathew said the CBI’s allegations were the result of bias.
S Vijayan
Circle inspector, special branch (intelligence)
Rasheeda’s visa was about to expire. To seek an extension, she went along with Fauziya Hassan to Vijayan on October 13, 1994. Vijayan reportedly advised Rasheeda to get an air ticket home, and she bought one for October 17. When she approached him again, Vijayan reportedly seized the ticket and questioned the women. “In fact she (Rasheeda) was chased by police party led by Vijayan at least from the middle of October, obstructing her from leaving India,” reads the judgment of the chief judicial magistrate’s court in Kochi.
In the meantime, the IB informed the police it had no evidence to suspect Rasheeda of any offence. But since her return had been prevented, Rasheeda ended up overstaying in India without a visa. On October 20, Vijayan lodged a complaint with the local police and registered an offence under section 7 of the Foreigners Order read with section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The CBI report said the seizure of the ticket was not shown even after registration of the case, and noted that Vijayan had obstructed Rasheeda’s return to the Maldives.
A court entrusted Vijayan with the custody of Rasheeda from November 3 to 14, but he surrendered her custody to IB officials. The CBI said this was in contravention of the court order and he was liable for dereliction and abrogation of legal duties.
The CBI report said Rasheeda told Vijayan about her contacts with Sasikumaran and with the Russian agency’s Chandrasekhar, but the inspector did not question them to bring out the truth. It said Vijayan failed also to put on record his deduction that the Maldivian women had come for spy work, and that he did not collect information about any particular kind of espionage. He lodged a report with the local police saying the women had committed crimes prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
The only reason for alleging spy activity was that Rasheeda had contacted Sasikumaran and made a lot of entries in her diary. Had the calls been verified and the diary entries translated from her language, it could have confirmed that the women had little to do with espionage, the CBI report said.
About the name of IG Srivastava being dragged in, the CBI noted that Vijayan had shown Srivastava’s photo to Rasheeda but did not put it on record. It said there was no rationale for showing the photo only to Rasheeda.
K K Joshwa
DSP, crime branch, 1994
Joshwa was a member of the special team headed by DIG Mathew. He recorded that the Maldivian women came to India to collect information for some foreign agents, contacted Sasikumaran and Chandrasekhar and collected valuable information for other countries. He did not, however, record the women’s statements, the CBI report said. He did not mention what valuable information was passed on to foreign countries and did not take steps to recover any documents or search the premises of Sasikumaran and Chandrasekhar, it said.
The accused had alleged that they were mentally and physically tortured in police custody. The CBI noted that Narayanan and Chandrasekhar had been given medical treatment during police custody but Joshwa suppressed this from the case diaries and records. Also, searches in the houses of the accused to recover incriminating documents were delayed. Though Narayanan was arrested on November 30, 1994, his house was not searched until the case was handed over to the CBI on December 4, 1994.
The IB officials
Though IB officials took custody of the accused for questioning, their revelations were not communicated to the state police. Rasheeda, Chandrasekhar and Narayanan were reportedly tortured by IB officials. After questioning Narayanan and S K Sharma, the IB did not prepare interrogation reports “as they did not toe the line suggested by the IB”, says the CBI report.
The interrogation reports for the other four accused were unsigned and undated, due to which the identity of the IB officials concerned could not be ascertained. The interrogation of three of the accused was videographed and produced in the High Court, but neither joint director Mathew John nor deputy director R B Sreekumar could identify the officer who videographed the questioning.
The IB officials did not verify the statements of the accused, which the CBI said could have cleared the air and saved the reputation of the scientists. The IB did not share with the Kerala police the basis of their allegations against IG Srivastava.
The CBI found the IB’s interrogation reports incoherent and full of contradictions. The reports did not give the exact nature of the documents allegedly secreted out; they rather stated they were drawings/documents of Viking and cryogenic engines. The interrogation report for Sasikumaran said it was Narayanan who had taken out documents from ISRO installations, but IB officials informed Kerala police that nothing was likely to be recovered from the premises of the accused.
The CBI said joint director John reported to the IB director that the disclosures made by the accused were a mixture of truth, half-truth and untruth, which, according to CBI, showed that even senior officials suspected the allegations.
The CBI said the IB men acted unprofessionally and were privy to the arrest of innocent persons. It said John and Sreekumar had failed in their duty to conduct the probe in an objective and fair manner
