Why Kochi Mini Cooper crash accused Suhail’s hairdo in custody caused a hullabaloo

Kochi: His long curls were part of his social-media persona. But when Suhail Sajeev, the 19-year-old prime accused in the Kochi Mini Cooper crash that killed three youths, appeared before the court with closely cropped hair, the dramatic makeover triggered a controversy of its own.

Was it simply a haircut inside the Kakkanad Borstal School, where he is lodged as a remand prisoner, or could the change have implications for witness identification? The questions have put prison procedures, allegations of preferential treatment and the role of legal advisers under scrutiny.

Suhail, accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the fatal crash as he was allegedly drunk at the time of driving, had sported long, styled hair in photographs that circulated widely after the accident. The Instagram photos and videos of him posted by his mother too feature his long hair.

His drastically altered appearance became public when he was brought out to the court while considering the custody application by the police, prompting allegations that the makeover could make identification by the witnesses more difficult. Besides Suhail, other accused persons also cut their hair in a similar manner.

Police suspect possible legal advice
Police sources said investigators suspect that the accused may have received legal advice regarding the change in appearance. They are examining the circumstances surrounding the haircut, including whether it could have been intended to complicate witness identification.

“We need to establish how the decision was taken and whether anyone advised or facilitated the change. Often lawyers advise their clients to trim hair and shave their beard prior to appearing before the court. Here, the haircut itself does not prove an attempt to mislead witnesses, but the circumstances surrounding it need to be examined,” a police officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The allegation that the makeover was intended to derail a test identification parade has fuelled public criticism on social media. However, the motive remains unestablished. Police sources said that a change in hairstyle does not, by itself, prove an attempt to obstruct the investigation or establish that witness identification has been compromised.

Trimmer, barber and Rule 477: Conflicting explanations
The controversy deepened as questions emerged over how Suhail and the other accused were allowed to have their hair cropped while lodged at the Borstal School.

Prisons Department sources initially maintained that Suhail had voluntarily used an electric trimmer available to inmates. “A remand prisoner is not usually compelled to have his hair cut, except when a prison medical officer certifies in writing that close cropping is medically necessary. In this case, the accused youths volunteered to cut the hair themselves," a prison officer had told on Thursday when Suhail’s new look became news. The officer also said electric trimmers were provided to them for personal grooming, without the need to bring in outside personnel.

However, as criticism mounted, officials defended the practice as part of routine personal hygiene and refused to comment further.

“This is purely a matter of personal hygiene. The institution has a sanctioned capacity of 66 inmates, but more than 100 are currently accommodated here. Grooming is a routine process, and we cannot treat one inmate differently from the others or invite allegations of preferential treatment,” a senior prison officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

However, there are allegations that a barber had been brought into the facility on Wednesday morning to crop the hair of Suhail and the other accused. The conflicting reports have raised questions about who arranged the haircut and why.

The controversy has also brought Rule 477 of the Kerala Prison Manual, Rule 292 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, and the historical reference to Rule 738 of the Kerala Prison Rules, 1958, into focus.

The provisions cited in the controversy concern the regulation of prisoners' appearance and grooming. Jail officials said that they followed Rule 447, which mandates that shaving the face of male prisoners must be done once a week, and haircutting must be done once a month.

Also, shaving and hair-cutting conducted in this manner must not be of such a nature that it brings about a change in their visible physical appearance, causing difficulty in identifying the prisoner.

The central question remains whether the haircut was voluntary, who facilitated it and whether the procedure complied with the rules applicable to a remand prisoner.

What does the haircut mean for the case?
The controversy has raised questions about whether the change in appearance could affect witness identification. However, the haircut alone cannot establish an attempt to confuse witnesses, and its significance would depend on the circumstances of any identification procedure and the other evidence available to investigators.

“Here the accused persons’ faces are identifiable to the witnesses. We don't think a haircut would make it difficult for the witnesses to identify them. Moreover, there is other evidence,” said a senior officer.

For a case involving three deaths, the questions surrounding a 19-year-old accused’s haircut may appear secondary to the crash itself. But the controversy has drawn attention to a basic issue: whether the rules governing a remand prisoner's treatment were followed, regardless of the allegations he faces.