Thiruvananthapuram, Oct 14 A disputed claim about how Jayamadhavan Nair was taken to hospital, forensic evidence and a will bearing a signature that investigators say was forged became key leads in the Kerala Crime Branch’s probe into his death nine years ago in Karamana here.
Nine years after Jayamadhavan died, the Crime Branch on Tuesday arrested his former caretaker, Raveendran Nair, 60, for allegedly murdering him to gain control of family properties worth more than Rs 30 crore.
Jayamadhavan’s death was the last in a series of seven deaths among members of the Koodathil family over about 26 years. The circumstances surrounding the deaths had attracted suspicion, and complaints about the family’s properties led to renewed scrutiny.
The investigation into Jayamadhavan’s death, initially treated as a case of unnatural death in 2017, gathered momentum when medical findings began to contradict Raveendran’s version of events.
He had told police that Jayamadhavan had fallen from his bed at home on April 2, 2017, and that he had arranged to take him to the Medical College Hospital in an autorickshaw.
However, the post-mortem examination raised questions about the circumstances of the death. The head injuries were suspected to be inconsistent with an accidental fall, prompting investigators to seek a detailed scientific assessment.
The Crime Branch approached the biomechanics department at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Calicut, to examine the injuries. The assessment supported the suspicion that Jayamadhavan’s head injury had not been caused by falling from the bed.
Forensic experts also found bloodstains on the bed and recovered a blood-stained piece of wood from the house. The findings added to the suspicion that the death was the result of a violent assault rather than an accident, a senior police officer told PTI here.
Investigators then revisited the account of how Jayamadhavan had been taken to hospital. The autorickshaw driver’s statements did not match Raveendran’s version, and the driver reportedly told investigators that he had not transported the deceased as claimed.
The probe further revealed that Raveendran had allegedly offered the driver Rs 5 lakh to support the autorickshaw account, sources said.
Police subsequently traced a car belonging to Anil, another accused in the case, and subjected it to a detailed forensic examination. Bloodstains were allegedly found inside the vehicle, which investigators suspect was used to transport Jayamadhavan to hospital.
The blood evidence, the medical findings and the contradictions in the statements formed part of the body of evidence examined by the Crime Branch.
The investigation also focused on documents relating to the family’s property. Police suspected that Raveendran had arranged a forged will in an attempt to acquire Jayamadhavan’s assets.
A forensic examination of the document confirmed that the signature attributed to Jayamadhavan was not his, the officer said.
Investigators suspect that the prospect of Jayamadhavan getting married may have threatened the alleged plan to take over the property. Jayamadhavan was unmarried, and police believe Raveendran feared that a marriage would bring additional claimants to the family wealth and undermine the disputed will, the officer added.
Raveendran had worked in the legal field, a background that investigators believe may have helped him understand the documents and property arrangements involved.
The Crime Branch said he continued to deny the allegations despite the forensic findings and contradictions in his statements. Investigators therefore sought a Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling test, commonly referred to as brain mapping.
The test was conducted at a forensic science laboratory in Madiwala, Bengaluru, in 2025. It involves recording electrical activity in the brain through electrodes fitted to a cap while the person is presented with questions or information related to an incident.
According to police sources, the findings from the test strengthened the suspicion about Raveendran’s role. Investigators considered the report alongside other evidence before making the arrest.
The test results, however, form only one part of the investigation and are distinct from the physical and documentary evidence gathered by the police.
The case also brought renewed scrutiny to the deaths of seven members of the Koodathil family over a period of around 26 years, culminating in Jayamadhavan’s death in 2017. Questions surrounding the family’s property and ownership documents subsequently added another dimension to the investigation.
The case has drawn comparisons with the Koodathayi murders in Kozhikode, where six family members were allegedly killed using cyanide between 2002 and 2016. In that case, the prime accused, Jolly Joseph, was suspected of acting to gain control of family property.
However, the investigation into Jayamadhavan’s death remains a distinct case. The circumstances of the other deaths in the Koodathil family have not all been established as murders, and their connection, if any, to the present case requires separate evidence.
The police have registered the present case as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigators are continuing to examine other aspects of the case, including the alleged property fraud, and have not ruled out further developments.
Keralam Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala congratulated the state police on solving the case.
(PTI News)
