The all-women Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating allegations of sexual abuse against R Veeramani, the owner of GEM Granites, has received reports from three additional minor girls. This brings the total number of complainants to 15, further broadening the scope of the inquiry into alleged offenses committed against girls who were minors at the time of the incidents.
The team is headed by Additional Commissioner of Police P C Thenmozhi, with Joint Commissioner Disha Mittal, Superintendent of Police Mutharasi and Deputy Commissioner Geethanjali as members. Investigators are examining allegations that videos involving Veeramani and minors were recorded and later used in an attempt to extort crores of rupees. Police have also been examining additional evidence and statements from alleged survivors as the scope of the case has expanded.
The development comes as the SIT, constituted by Chennai Police on September 24, continues to examine the allegations against Veeramani and two others.
The allegations against all three remain under investigation. A special POCSO court rejected the closure report and directed that the investigation be continued. The girl who was allegedly seen in the original video was subsequently traced and her statement was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay has called for action against anyone found to have delayed or suppressed the investigation. The SIT is now tasked with recording the accounts of the new complainants, examining available evidence and determining whether further offences or accused persons need to be added to the case.
Veeramani, 85, is lodged in Chennai’s Puzhal prison following his arrest under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Shanthi, 61, and her husband Mahendra Simman, 63, have also been arrested in connection with the case.
The case had earlier faced an attempt at closure by the police. The expansion of the investigation has also raised questions over the handling of the case at an earlier stage. The question of who authorised the earlier attempt to close the case, and why, remains part of the wider investigation.
