The Kerala Government has directed a new Vigilance investigation in the 2006 suicide of Malaysian civil engineer Lee See Been, whose name has resurfaced in connection with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who was then serving as the Secretary of the Kerala Public Works Department. The new investigation will look into the charges pertaining to the highway project as well as allegations that the previous probe was influenced by outside pressure.
KUMAR V. STATE: The case concerns the Kerala State Transport Project which was a World Bank-funded project to upgrade roads in the state. Lee See Been, the project manager for the PATI-BEL joint venture responsible for upgrading the Main Central Road, died in 2006, and the alleged suicide note written in his name contained allegations against Kumar and public works department functioning. These allegations have not led to a final conviction by a court establishing Kumar’s criminal liability.
What Happened in 2006?
Lee See Been was a Malaysian engineer who was working on the road project in Kerala. The project got into further delays and disputes over payments and other administrative issues. He later went back to Malaysia and committed suicide in November 2006.
In a note purportedly written before his death, Gyanesh Kumar mentioned Gyanesh Kumar who was then the Kerala PWD Secretary. The report states that the note had other allegations, including demands for money, delays in clearing payments and problems faced by the project authorities.
There was a Vigilance enquiry into the allegations at the time. The initial proceedings, however, did not culminate in a reported conclusion of criminal guilt on Kumar. Later, questions were raised on the handling of the original enquiry and why it did not proceed.
Why Has the Case Been Reopened?
The case has once again become the focus of public attention with a complaint being filed before the Kerala Government asking for a fresh probe. Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala has ordered the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to hold a detailed probe.
An attempt has also been made by the Home Department to get hold of the documents pertaining to the initial Vigilance inquiry of 2006. One of the issues to be discussed now is whether the initial inquiry was compromised or manipulated from outside.
The new reference may also go beyond the initial complaints by looking at the proceedings of the previous case, the evidence gathered, and whether the allegations against the individual in question were fully and fairly investigated.
Can a 20-Year-Old Case Be Investigated Again?
The mere passage of time does not preclude the authorities from investigating allegations pertaining to an old case. The legal question is whether the authorities have a legal basis for reopening or reinvestigating a case and the competence of the competent authorities to do so.
If the earlier investigation failed to establish criminal liability to your satisfaction, a subsequent investigation may be appropriate where new information or new allegations emerge or concerns are raised about the adequacy or fairness of the previous investigation.
However, a new investigation cannot be treated as evidence that the suspect has committed the offence. An investigation is set up to gather and analyze evidence to establish if there is enough material to support the case.
What Is the Legal Worth of a Suicide Note?
The suicide note may be evidence, but it does not necessarily prove the truth of all the statements made in the note.
Contents of statement made by person who is dead Indian evidence law prescribes the rules regarding this. In certain situations, a statement as to the cause of a person’s death or the circumstances surrounding it may be relevant.
Where a statement makes a reference to a person, the evidence contained in the statement is to be examined with reference to the circumstances, the truth of the statement and other available evidence. It is not always the case that, by pure reference to a person in the statement, that said person is told that he committed a criminal offence.
In this case, reports describe the document as a “suicide note,” although the claims made within the note are still under investigation. As a result, the new investigation will play a crucial role in revealing what evidence, if any, exists aside from what is stated in the note.
What Can Happen After the Fresh Inquiry?
The Vigilance authorities will consider the existing documents and proofs in relation to the 2006 road project and the previous investigation. Investigators could also look into whether there was any infraction in the grant or management of the project and whether the previous investigation was manipulated.
If the investigation discloses a cognizable offence and there is sufficient evidence, authorities may proceed with the matter as per the law. The authorities may register or proceed with the criminal case and has the right to probe the accused individuals if the evidence warrants.
If the evidence fails to prove any mens rea, then prosecution is unlikely to follow. The only way that the outcome can be known, then, is from the decision to re-open an investigation.
Reopening Investigation Is Not an Admission of Guilt
The resumption of proceedings in the 2006 case is not the same as declaring Gyanesh Kumar to have committed an offence. The Vigilance authorities are in the process of investigating the allegations and there is no news of either a conviction or judicial determination of Kumar’s criminality in this regard.
This means a valuable legal point has been made in the case about investigations. The case can be reopened on a valid legal reason in its old case, especially where there are issues of whether the investigation was a full and proper one. But the investigation’s and the individual’s rights and the question of proof should be separated from the actual matter.
The latest Vigilance investigation will now decide if any prosecution is warranted against the charges relating to the 2006 road project, and how the original probes were conducted.
