On Monday, the judge who was hearing the case of three Villupuram girls who were found dead few days back made a vague observation, and that triggered a chain of speculation in the media on the forensic report. “The first autopsy report itself is clear and is in favour of the petitioner,” said Justice R Mala of the Madras High Court while listening to the plea filed by Tamilarasan, father of 19-year-old Monisha who was one among three girls.
The judge’s remark, coupled with an incomplete reading of the post-mortem report soon gave way to reports that the three girls from SVS College whose dead bodies were found in a well had not died due to drowning.
Vikatan, a Tamil magazine published an article which read, “Autopsy report reveals murder, not suicide by three students of SVS College.” The article claimed that the autopsy reports of the three students of Villupuram’s SVS College who had reportedly committed suicide state that they were murdered.
The confusion over what the post mortem report stemmed from the fact that the report said no water had been found in the lungs.
The post-mortem reports of all the three do not state any reason for the death, as its normal with such reports. “The observations of the lungs are: oedematous, soft and heavy. A cross-section revealed that there was a bloody froth fluid, all consistent with fluid ingestion. Why should media conclude about the cause of death when the post-mortem report does not state it? Are they subject matter experts?” asked a senior journalist who has been covering medical issues for many years.
But the mystery over the reports however did not end there.
On Monday, the Madras High Court had adjourned a petition for re-post mortem by Elumalai, father of another victim Saranya.
Monisha’s father Tamilarasan lawyer S. Rajnikanth on Tuesday told the court that there was “carelessness” in the post-mortem. He claimed that the body contained about 50 contusions and internal organs had been removed during the first autopsy, which is why the second autopsy could not establish the cause of death. He added that Monisha’s body was embalmed without the permission of her parents, which according to him made a proper second post-mortem difficult.
The advocate claimed that if Saranya’s body was sent for re-autopsy, then the reason for the death could be established as her internal organs were intact.
However, Justice R. Mala dismissed the case adding that Saranya’s body must have decomposed and the parent’s did not object the first autopsy earlier and allowed her body to be buried on January 24, 2016.
Talking to the media on Tuesday, Elumalai said, “We had asked the district administration on January 24 to conduct the autopsy in any of the government hospitals in Chennai, the authorities had assured that they will allow re-autopsy in government hospitals in Chennai but they did not do anything.”
Elumalai has appealed again for a re-autopsy of Saranya’s body, but the date for hearing of the case is yet to be decided.