According to the plea submitted by the late KM Basheer’s brother, Sriram Venkitaraman intentionally slammed Basheer with his car in order to kill him.

A request for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation has been made to the Kerala High Court by the brother of the late KM Basheer, who was killed in an alleged road rage incident involving IAS official Sreeram Venkitaraman [Abdurahiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.].

The petitioner claimed that his IAS officer friend, who was prominent, intentionally struck his brother, Basheer, with his automobile with the purpose to kill him.

According to the plea, Basheer had acquired evidence, including a video, before his death that demonstrated Venkitaraman’s illicit association with Wafa Firoz, who is listed as the second accused in the aforementioned offence.

The petitioner claimed that when Venkitaraman learned of this, he tried to obtain the material but was unable and instead chose to kill Basheer.

Following Basheer’s death on August 3, 2019, Museum Police in Thiruvananthapuram finished their investigation and submitted a charge sheet to the Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram, where it is still pending.

According to the petitioner, Venkitaraman has received assistance from police officials across.

It was alleged that the police purposefully neglected to do his medical examination and blood test despite the fact that it was obvious he was intoxicated when he was arrested and transported to the district hospital in order to shield him from liability.

Even though the district hospital had sent him to the medical college, the plea claimed that Venkitaraman used his power to break protocol and make sure he was transported to KIMS Hospital for further operations. In a statement to the prosecution, a staff nurse at the KIMS hospital said that the accused intimidated her as she approached to take his blood, according to the plea agreement.

The petitioner also brought forward a number of further inconsistencies, including omissions in the Mahazar report and the time the police claimed to have arrived at the scene.

In addition, the plea said that while Basheer had two cellphones, the police had incorrectly reported in the Mahazar that they had only found one.

The petitioner said that this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has actively assisted the accused in pursuing his ulterior goals and that this assistance has persisted in order to protect the accused from the most atrocious murder.

The accused, a very powerful IAS official in Kerala, “has negatively affected the investigation of the aforementioned crime and also in all likelihood, he may influence the witnesses to weaken the prosecution, which might result in the petitioner and his family being denied justice,” the plea stated.

The petitioner said that as a result, he is forced to ask the High Court to move the probe to the CBI, an organisation outside of Venkitaraman’s sphere of control.

The petitioner is being represented by attorneys PT Sheejeesh, P. Martin Kose, Abdul Rahman A, and T. Varnibha.

Recently, several organisations in the state, including the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, protested the nomination of Venkitaraman as the Alappuzha District Collector.

Social media users extensively shared one such demonstration, which was held by the Kerala Muslim Jamaath. Some of these users opted to associate it with racial stereotypes by asserting that Muslims were opposing the selection of a Hindu Brahmin man as District Collector. This assertion was refuted by several sources.



The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.