CHENNAI, Dec 10: The Chandralekha acid attack case took an interesting twist on Wednesday with the Madras High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct further investigation in the case with regard to the involvement of Surla, who has been dropped from the case by the agency.

Justice M Karpagavinayagam, who gave the direction, instructed the CBI to confirm at whose instance the attack took place, the motive and the background of the incident.

The judge was passing orders on a petition from Chandralekha praying for further probe in the case. She contended that the CBI had not done a thorough job of the affair. After perusing the case diary, the judge observed that unless materials are collected by the CBI, either by getting Surla to make another statement under Section 164 CrPC stating why he accepted the guilt or if the CBI collected some independent material showing his confession statements were false, the CBI cannot conclude that he was not involved.

If the aspects contained in the confession statement made by Surla before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, on November 15, 1995, are not investigated by the CBI, the entire object of the Supreme Court referring the investigation to the CBI would be lost and the real culprits would escape from the clutches of law, she asserted.

Saying that the CBI had merely accounted for his statement that he had confessed guilt at the instance of one inspector Rajamani, Karpagavinayagam said that the CBI should have looked into the truth behind the inspector's motive in asking Surla to admit guilt. Instead, the CBI has hastily concluded that the proceedings against Surla be dropped, he noted.

In the counter-affidavit filed in the IV additional sessions court opposing bail to Surla and others, the CBI had stated on September 23, 1997, that Surla had played a major role in the scheme of conspiracy to attack Chandralekha. But, on October 10, 1997, the CBI in its charge-sheet dropped the name of Surla. It is not known what prompted the CBI to change the stand, Karpagavinayagam held.

While acknowledging the CBI's good work in unearthing the involvement of the other accused, he rued that the main aim was ``miserably missed''. Referring to the existence of some statements like Surla's first confession before the Magistrate and the other before the additional sessions judge admitting to having colluded in the plan, the judge said, that it could, therefore, not be said that there is no prima facie material against Surla.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.