(R9 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2011 vide order dated 16.08.2011)(R10 to R17 were impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2011 vide order dated 06.07.2015.)Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take steps forregistering FIR with regard to the illegal confinement, torture, violation ofHuman Rights and Malicious Prosecution in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file ofthe learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudiof the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani, Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, by the police personnel such as the Thoothukudi Rural DeputySuperintendent of Police Mr.Moorthy, the then Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Soosai Micheal the then Sub Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Vallinayagam Mr.Nagasankaran and Mr.Whether this woman appearing before thiscourt is, in fact, Mrs.Manimegalai or not is the basic issue in thesepetitions.There are three petitioners in these Criminal Original Petitions.Muthu @ Mookan, a resident of Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk, TuticorinDistrict.Her mother was Mrs.Kannimariyal.They were residing at PerurVillage in Srivaiakundam Taluk.When Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was hardly three years old, Mrs.Kannimariyal deserted her husband - Mr.Muthu @ Mookan, along with her female child.Thereafter, she developed intimacy withone Dhanraj of Thirupparankundram and shifted to Thiruppur.Dhanraj wasdoing painting work in Thiruppur and Kannimariyal was working in a privatecompany as a daily wager.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was put in a school in Pattukottai, but, she later discontinued.Thereafter, she also joined aprivate banyan company in Thiruppur known as, ?JJ Company?.In course of time, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha had fallen in love with one Anandan of Thiruppur, who was also working in the same Company.Without the knowledge of her mother and Mr.Dhanraj, she married Mr.Hardly for 7 days, shelived with Mr.Anandan as his wife and then, she deserted him and came down toPerur Village.She stayed in Perur Village at the house of oneMr.Shanmugaraj, who was her mother's sister's husband, for few days andthereafter, left Perur Village for Thiruppur.But, she did not turn up inThiruppur.Her mother also, in the meanwhile, passed away.Her husbandMr.The body was highly decomposed and identity could not be made out.Inquest was held on the body and thereafter, it was sent forpostmortem.One Dr.Subbiah, an Assistant Surgeon, attached to Srivaikundam Government hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2002 at 4.30 p.m. He found that the body was half burnt and therewere also injuries on the body.Clotted blood was found on the earth nearthe dead body.But, there was no bloodstain on the body.Hyoid bone wasintact.All the internal organs were also intact.Around the neck, therewas a ligature mark indicating that the deceased would have been strangulatedby using the ligature.The uterus contained a foetus of 6 to 8 weeks old.The Doctor finally opined that the externalinjuries found on the body would have been caused by a weapon, like knife andthat the deceased would have died due to cumulative effect of all theinjuries including constriction of neck.Based on the above, the Inspector of Police, altered the caseinto one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.During the course ofinvestigation, he examined few persons from Perur Village.The photograph ofthe body taken was shown to the relatives of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The body had already been buried.From and out of the photographs, the relatives andthe villagers could not make out the identity of the deceased.However, aclose relative of the deceased, by name, Shanmugaraj, told the police thatthe cloth materials found on the body were like that of the dress materialsof Manimegalai @ Mekala.Therefore, the Investigating Officer had suspectedthat the body would have been that of Manimegalai @ Mekala.Then, during thecourse of investigation, the Investigating Officer went to Thiruppur,examined her husband Mr.Anandan and collected a photograph of Manimegalai.Even Mr.Anandan was not in a position to say about the whereabouts ofManimegalai @ Mekala, because he himself was not informed of by Manimegalai @ Mekala before leaving Thiruppur.The photograph of Manimegalai @ Mekala collected by the Investigating Officer was then forwarded to the Forensic Labat Chennai for superimposition examination with the skull of the dead body.The report revealed that in the superimposition examination, it was confirmedthat the skull was that of the person in the photograph, thereby indicatingthat Mrs.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was the one, who was done to death.The accused 1 to 3 gave confessions in thepresence of the Village Administrative Officer concerned.Out of thedisclosure statement made by the 2nd accused, a knife was recovered.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the fouraccused.According to the final report, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha hadsold the house belonging to her mother - Kannimariyal to the first accused -Mr.A sum of Rs.10,000/- was due from the first accused toMrs.The final report further proceededto say that on 25.03.2002, by seducing Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, the 2nd accused asked her to come to his house.Accordingly, on 04.04.2002, she came to the house of the second accused.He took Manimegalai at 8.00 p.m. from Ayathurai bus stand to Tuticorin.The accused 3 and 4 were alreadywaiting in Tuticorin bus stand.His wife is the sister of the mother of Mrs.Manimegalai.According to him, Manimegalai came to his house, stayed there for a few daysand then left for Thiruppur.But, thereafter, she was not found.He hasalso spoken about the land dealing between Manimegalai and the first accused.She had further stated that between 24.03.2002 to 25.03.2002, Manimegalai was staying with him at his house at Perur and from 25.03.2002 onwards, she wasfound missing.During the course of investigation by the MurappanaduInspector of Police, when the photograph of Manimegalai was shown to him, heidentified the same as that of Manimegalai.But, he was not able to identifythe dead body, as it was fully beyond recognition.He had further deposedthat the dress materials found near the dead body looked like that of thedress materials belonging to Manimegalai.3.9. P.W.6, one Pechimuthu is the Village Administrative Officer, whohas spoken about the recovery of material objects from the place ofoccurrence, like bloodstained earth, sample earth, Plastic Can, brokensyringe etc., on 05.04.2002 by the Inspector of Police of Murappanadu PoliceStation. P.W.7, one Abdul Khader, was the Village Administrative Officer ofMurappanadu.According to him, on 22.05.2004, at 7.00 a.m., atGnanamadankulam, the accused 1 to 3 were arrested by the Inspector of Police.It was only duringher visit in the month of February 2011, she came to know that it was made toappear to the public by the police, that she was murdered and that themurderers were the accused in the case.Then, on the advice of thevillagers, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha appeared before the DistrictCollector, Tuticorin on 11.02.2011 and made a representation.In the saidrepresentation, she wanted action to be taken in this regard.But theDistrict Collector did not take any prompt action to ascertain the truth ofthe matter.He simply referred the said complaint to the Superintendent ofPolice, Tuticorin District.The then Superintendent of Police, TuticorinDistrict also did not take any prompt action in that regard.In the reportnow submitted by the Superintendent of Police before this court, it is statedthat the said representation of the woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai@ Mekala @ Punitha forwarded to the Superintendent of Police was in turnhanded over to the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station.TheInspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station also did not take any promptaction to find out the truth.The District Collector, Tuticorin was directedto depute a responsible Officer to be present before this Court.The District Revenue Officer,Tuticorin was also present.The District Revenue Officer submitted that itis true that a woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala W/o.Anandan appeared before the District Collector, Tuticorin on 10.02.2011 and presenteda representation that she is Manimegalai @ Mekala, who is stated to have beenkilled, for which, the accused in this case were all tried and acquitted.He has further stated that thereafter, he did not see CW1at all anywhere.He has also identified CW1 in Court.He has also identified CW1 asMrs.In order to make the process accurate, 3Dphotographs of the missing person is developed and overlaying of the same isdone with the virtual model of the skull.As per the scheme framed in the Stateof Tamil Nadu, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is the maximum amount, which could be awarded to the victim of a crime in a case of death.Having regard to thesaid legal position and having taken note of the judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the petitioners and all the other attendantcircumstances, I am of the view that directing the Government to pay a sum ofRs.4 lakhs for each accused as compensation would meet the ends of justice.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed ofin the following terms:I am satisfied that though belated, justice isdone to the aggrieved at least now.As Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of theNation preached, ?Truth is a powerful weapon which unfailingly triumphs.? Inthis case, at last, truth has triumphed.1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department Secretariat, Chennai.2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.3.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Shastri Bhavan Chennai.4.The Additional Director General of Police (CBCID), Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai.5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.6.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.Narayanan, the then police constables of Murappanadu Police Station Mr.Issac and Mr.Franklin, the thenSub Inspector of Srivaigundam Police Station Mr.Directing the respondent No.3 to entrust the investigation to anefficient officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police underthe direct supervisionj of the respondent No.3 to investigate the violationof Human Rights of 1) Koilpillai son of Vedhamani 2) K.Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, 3) Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar, and 4) Dhasan.Directing the respondent No.5 to initiate departmental proceedingsagainst the then Village Administrative Officer of Murappanadu Villagenamely, M.Abdul Kadhar, who is P.W.7 in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudifor given false evidence, by considering the representation dated 22.03.2011preferred by the petitioner.Directing the respondent No.1 to pay fair and just amount ofcompensation to the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani,K.Balasubramanian son of Koilpillai and other victims namely Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar and Dhasan for falsely implicating and for malicious prosecution inS.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learnred Additional Sessions Judge cumFast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi.Directing the respondent No.5 to pay a relief amount under Serial No.8Annexure I, Rule 12(4) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Rules, 1995 to the affected victims whose names are shown inprayer (b) pending the investigation.This is an unprecedented case where a living woman [Mrs.Manimegalai] has been driven from pillar to post for over a period of four years toestablish that she is alive and that the judicial declaration made by a courtof session in a judgment that she was murdered on 04.04.2002 is inconsistentwith her living body and soul.They are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.259 of 2005, on the file of thelearned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II,Tuticorin.The 4th accused, in the case, is one Mr.Dhasan.There were fourcharges framed in this case.The first charge was under Section 120(B) IPCagainst all the four accused.The third charge was underSection 201 IPC against the accused 2 to 4 and the 4th charge was underSection 302 read with Section 109 IPC against the first accused.The TrialCourt, by judgment dated 20.02.2007, acquitted all the four accused.Thatacquittal has become final.Now, the petitioners have come up with theseCriminal Original Petitions seeking various directions, including a directionfor registration of a criminal case against the police officials, whoinvestigated the case and filed final report, for payment of compensation andfor other reliefs.The background facts of these petitions would be as follows: One Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha is the daughter of one Mr.Anandan went in search of her to various places, including Perur Village,but could not succeed.Finally, on the complaint of Mr.Anandan, a case inCrime No.154 of 2002 was registered on the file of Srivaikundam PoliceStation for woman Missing.During the course of investigation of the case inCrime No.154 of 2012, the whereabouts of Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha could not be located.While so, a half burnt dead body of a woman with injuries, agedabout 20 ? 25 years, was found near NaaluKani Bridge at Vellakulam Village,within the jurisdiction of Murappanadu Police Station.On the complaint ofone Mr.He preserved the skull for the purpose of superimposition in future.Theviscera was sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there was nopoison detected in the body.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, on account of the said transaction.Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was repeatedly pressurising the first accused to pay the said amount.In order to get rid off Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha, according to the final report, all the four accused, on 03.04.2002,at about 9.00 p.m., at the house of the first accused, hatched a conspiracyto do away with the deceased.Thus, according to the final report, all thefour accused are liable to be punished for the offence punishable underSection 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.Then, all of them, took Manimegalai in abus proceeding to Tirunelveli.When the bus reached Muruganpur Village, theaccused 2 to 4 got down from the bus along with Manimegalai and took her toVellakulam near the bridge.It is further alleged that the 4th accused strangulated her byconstricting her neck by a ligature.The 3rd accused closed her mouth toprevent her from making any alarm.The 2nd accused administered injection tomake her unconscious.Then, the 2nd accused cut the neck of Manimegalai with knife.Thus, according to the final report, the accused 2 to 4 committedmurder of Manimegalai, out of common intention and thus, they were liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with Secction 34 IPC.The final reportfurther proceeded to say that after the deceased had breathed her lost, theaccused 2 to 4, with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence, pouredpetrol on the body of Manimegalai and set fire.Then, the body was pushedinto a bush near the bridge.Thus, according to the final report, theaccused had committed offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.So far as the first accused is concerned, according to the final report, he hadconspired to kill the deceased along with others and thus, he was liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed above.When the accused were questioned in respect ofthe charges, they denied the same as false.In order to prove the charges,before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16witnesses were examined, 22 documents were exhibited and 10 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 ? Mr.Muthurajan had spoken about the fact that the dead body of a woman aged about 20-25 years was found nearthe bridge and that he gave complaint to the police.He had further statedthat the body was found in a half burnt condition and there were injuries onthe body.P.W.2, a villager from Vellakulam, has also stated that the deadbody was found near the bridge on the crucial date.P.W.3 one Mr.Perumal,who was examined to speak about the fact that the said woman was found in the company of three men at Murugapuram bus stop, had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.4 was alsoexamined to speak about the same facts, but he also turned hostile and thus,he had also not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.3.8. P.W.5 ? Mr.Shanmugaraj was the star witness for the prosecution inthe case.On such arrest, all the three accused gave independent confessions.The 2ndaccused gave a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that he had concealeda knife in his hand bag.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, hetook out the knife from his bag and handed over the same to the Inspector ofPolice.It was recovered by the Inspector of Police under a mahazar.3.10. P.W.8, one Radharamani, was the scientific Assistant, RegionalForensic Sciences Lab at Tirunelveli.According to him, on 05.04.2002, on therequest of the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, he visitedthe scene of occurrence, where the dead body was found and he assisted the Inspector of Police for recovery of the said material objects.But, he couldnot extend any more help to the police for further investigation.P.W.9, oneGeetha, the Head Clerk of the learned Magistrate Court, has spoken to thefact that she forwarded the skull produced before the Court to the ForensicLab for superimposition examination.P.W.10, one Suresh, has spoken to thefact that he was a Constable, working in the Dog Squad of Tuticorin Districtand he had brought one sniffer dog to the place of occurrence, where the deadbody was found, but, the dog could not render any help for the detection ofthe culprits.P.W.11 is the Constable, who assisted the Doctor, when thebody was subjected to autopsy.P.W.12 - Dr.Subbiah has deposed that on 05.04.2002, he conducted autopsy on the dead body, opined that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries found and that the dead body washalf burnt with petrol.P.W.13 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached toMurappanadu Police Station, who had spoken about his handing over the FirstInformation Report and the other documents to the authorities concerned.P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who had spoken extensively about theinvestigation done by him and the report received by him from the ForensicLab. P.W.15 was the then Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation.He had spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.154 of2002 for 'woman missing'.P.W.16 was the Investigating Officer, who made furtherinvestigation.He had also spoken about the arrest of the accused and therecovery of the knife.He had finally spoken about the final report filed.When the above materials were put to the accused under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to markany documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Courtgave a specific finding in paragraph No.30 of the judgment that the dead bodyfound near the bridge was that of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.The trialCourt also gave a finding that the death of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punithawas caused by mechanical violence.Thus, according to the trial Court, ithad been clearly proved that Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was murdered.The trial Court, in its judgment from Paragraph No.31 onwards,proceeded to discuss the evidence in respect of the complicity of the fouraccused in the murder.The trial Court did not give much weightage for therecovery of the knife at the instance of the 2nd accused.While so, to the shell shock ofthe villagers, during first week of February 2011, a woman appeared in theVillage and claimed herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Mr.Shanmugaraj, her mother's sister's husband had already died.Thevillagers were surprised to see the said woman coming alive.According to him, the petitioners herein toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court and therefore, heclosed it, he claimed.In those circumstances, the petitioners haveapproached this Court with these petitions claiming various reliefs includingthe relief of compensation and for registration of a case against the erringofficials.Though these Criminal Original Petitions were filed in the year2011, and though they were admitted as early as on 28.11.2011, these twopetitions have been kept pending on the file of this Court, approximately,for four years, for which, I take the blame.R.Alagumani, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners made a mention before me on 01.07.2015 that thesepetitions had been pending on the file of this Court for four years withoutany disposal and he wanted to have early disposal.By then, theSecretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, had not filed anycounter.Therefore, they were directed to file counter.On 06.07.2015, Mr.Ashwin M.Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,Tuticorin, was present before this Court.He further stated with the reference to the records that by the proceedingsof the District Collector in Na.No.C2/9628/11 dated 14.02.2011, the saidrepresentation was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, fornecessary action.Ashwin M. Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,submitted that the said representation was entrusted to one Mr.P.K.Ravi, theInspector of Police, who had not taken any action, since the petitioners toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court.She was accompaniedby her cousin Mr.Veilmuthu Stalin.Before this Court, she said that she isreally Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.She further stated that when she was three years old, her mother deserted her father Mr.Muthu and left forThiruppur.She further narrated her stay at Thiruppur, her marriage withAnandan and her returning to the Village Perur for some time and then leavingfor Chennai.She vividly spoke before this Court that she confined herselfin Chennai until 2011 , as she had converted to Islam and married oneShajaghan.She further told that she has got two children also.Veilmuthu Stalin also identified her as Manimegalai @ Mekala.When thephotograph which was used for superimposition was shown to her, she identified the person in the said photograph as herself.The Superintendentof Police, Tuticorin, further submitted that the biological father ofManimegalai @ Mekala by name Muthu had been located in Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk.He further submitted that he was prepared to hold adetailed enquiry and to submit a further report, after ascertaining whetherthe woman in question is really Manimegalai @ Mekala.This Court, therefore,directed the Superintendent of Police to cause the appearance of the womanbefore the Dean, Government Medical College at Madurai for taking bloodsamples for the purpose of DNA examination.Similarly, the Superintendent ofPolice was directed to cause the appearance of Mr.Muthu, before the Dean,Government Medical College Hospital at Tuticorin, for taking blood samplesfor the purpose of DNA examination.He was further directed to produce theblood samples before the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai forconducting DNA examination.While so, on 07.07.2015, he made a request before this Court to modify the order since the DNA examination could beconducted at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai itself.Accordingly, this Court modified the earlier order, by order dated 07.07.2015and directed the DNA examination to be conducted at the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory, Madurai.The matter was, thus, adjourned.As directed by this Court, the blood samples were taken from bothand they were subjected to DNA examination.Muthu @ Mookan is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The Superintendentof Police then submitted a detailed report before this Court on 14.07.2015,wherein he has vividly spoken about the details of the enquiry conducted byhim and the report of the Deputy Director of Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory on conducting DNA examination.In Paragraph Nos.14, 15 & 16, he has reported as follows;"14.I humbly submit that on 11.07.2015, I obtained the DNA result fromthe Deputy Director of regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai.Theresult states that "From the DNA typing results of the above blood samples,it is found that in the absence of identical twins, Mr.Muthu @ Mookan is thebiological father of Ms.Mekala @ Manimekala @ Mumtazbegum.15.I humbly submit that based on the enquiry conducted by me, thestatements of the witnesses and by the Paternity test report, it reveals thatTmt.Mumtaz Begum, W/o.Shahjahan who is claiming herself as Mekala @ Manimekala, is in fact Mekala @ Menimekala, the daughter of Mookkan and Kannimarial of Perur Village.16.I humbly submit that the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu P.S.conducted the investigation in the Murappanadu P.S. Crime No.147/2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302, 201 IPC on scientific evidence.The trial Courthas also given a specific finding that the prosecution had proved that thedead body found near the bridge was that of Mekala @ Manimekala.The above said facts clearly establish that the action has been bonafide.The policehad no motive to falsely implicate the above petitioners in the aforesaidcase.Today, when the matter was taken up, the Superintendent of Policewas present.The woman, claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala, D/o.Muthu and W/o.Anandan, her biological father Mr.Muthu and her husband Mr.Anandan were present.It will appear as though Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha was murdered, however, these accused were acquitted for want ofevidence.The parties were affordedopportunity to cross examine them if they wanted.At Thiruppur her mothermarried CW3 ? Mr.Dhanraj, through whom she has got a son.She has further stated that she married Anandan (CW4) at Thiruppur and then, she lived withhim hardly for a weeks time.She has further stated that she came to Perurand then after having stayed there for few days, she left for Chennai.InChennai, she married one Shajakan, after conversion to Islam and she has gottwo children now.She has stated that she has changed her name as Mumtaz Begum.She has further stated that when she came down to Perur in the year 2011, she came to know about the case and then she made a representation to the District Collector.She has also admitted that on 06.07.2015 bloodsamples were taken from her by a team of Doctors at Government Medical College, Madurai for the purpose of DNA examination as directed by thiscourt.She identified CW3 and other relatives, who were present before thisCourt.CW2 - Muthu @ Mookan, who is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala, has stated that he married Kannimariyal and CW1 was born to them out of the said wedlock.He has further stated that when the child was hardlythree years old, his wife deserted him and thereafter, her whereabouts wasnot known.He has further stated that he is not in a position to identifywhether CW1 - Manimegalai @ Mekala is his daughter or not, because aftershe was taken by her mother at the age of three years, he had no occasion tosee her at all.He has also admitted that on 07.07.2015 he gave bloodsamples at the Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin for DNAexamination as directed by this court.According to him, when CW1 was hardly three years old, her mother came to Thirupparamkundram along with CW1 and developed intimacy with him and then he took her to Thiruppur.Out of the intimacybetween him and Kannimariyal, a son was born.He has further stated that CW1 was put in a school at Thanajvur and then in Pattukkottai.He has furtherstated that without his knowledge, CW1 married Mr.He has further stated that after one week of the marriage, Anandan came and told himthat Manimegalai @ Mekala was found missing.The search made for her proved futile.Thereafter, he had no occasion to see Manimegalai @ Mekala at all.He has identified her in Court as Manimegalai @ Mekala, his adopted daughter.Anandan, who married Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has stated that CW1 was his wife.He has identified her in open Court.He hasfurther stated that the marital life lasted hardly for a week's time andthereafter, she disappeared.He has further stated that he went in search ofher to various places including Perur.Since he was not able to locate her,he made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation, on whose complaint the case in Crime No.154 of 2002 was registeredfor woman missing.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Ashwin Kotnis.He hasstated about the enquiry held by him as directed by this court and hisreport.As I have already extracted, in his report, he has categoricallystated that CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has further stated that the deadbody which was found near the bridge is that of some other woman andregarding her death, investigation needs to be reopened and conducted now.The oral evidences of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the expert opinion, based on DNA examination conducted by a team of three experts at the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Madurai.In this case, a peculiar question has arisen for the first time asto what is the weightage that could be given to the superimpositionexamination often conducted in this State, at the behest of the Police, whenthe identity of the deceased in any case could not be ascertained by thewitnesses.It is a common knowledge that as and when a dead body is beyond recognition, resort is made to send the skeletal remains of the dead bodyfor superimposition.In this regard, I may say that forensic anthropology isbest conceptualized, more broadly, as a field of forensic assessment of humanskeletonised remains and their environments.[vide W.M. Krogman and M.Y. Iscan - The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Springfield, 1986 - 2ndEdition].This assessment includes both the identification of the victim'sphysical characteristics and cause and manner of the death from the skeleton.The most important application of forensic anthropology is the identificationof the human being from the skeletal remains.The photographic supra-projection is a forensic process where the photographs or video shots of amissing person are compared with the skull that is found.It is done byprojecting both the photographs on top of each other.But, this method wasnot found to be accurate.But, here,in this case, he had taken every possible efforts to identify the skull bysending the same for superimposition.It may be questioned that as to why DNA examination was not conducted then, in order to conclusively prove that the dead body was that ofManimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.From the evidences placed before this Court, it could be culledout that CW1 was not even aware of her father Mr.Muthu, who was present before this Court, would say that he was not in a position toidentify whether CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala or not.Thus, neither thefather is able to identify his daughter nor the daughter is able to identifyher father.Anandan, who originally preferred complaint to the police inrespect of missing of Manimegalai @ Mekala, was all along under theimpression that Mr.Dhanraj was her father.Therefore, the investigatingofficer, who conducted the investigation on earlier occasion, was notinformed of that the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala is Mr.It is only on the direction of this Court, the Superintendent of Police hastaken efforts to collect these facts and to bring to light that Mr.TheDeputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Dharmalingam, District Crime Branch,Tuticorin, shall take up the case forthwith for investigation, conduct athorough investigation in respect of the dead body, which was found on05.04.2002 on the road leading to Vallakulam Village.The InvestigatingOfficer shall ascertain as to whose dead body was that and bring to book theperpetrators of the crime.(v) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, shall pay Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to each accused in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.II, Tuticorin, namely, Mr.Koilpillai, Mr.Balasubramanian,Mr.Kurunthan @ Jeyakumar and Mr.Dhasan, by means of demand drafts drawn in their respective name within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.(vi) These Original Petitions shall stand dismissed in respect of allthe other reliefs sought for.Before concluding, I would like to mention that this is the rarestcase, where a woman, who was declared dead has come alive before the Court seeking justice.This episode, in my considered opinion, will be an eye-opener for the police in this State that in the matter of investigation, theyshould be extra cautious leaving no stone unturned.I am only hopeful thatin the days to come, learning a lesson from this episode, the policedepartment in the State, will try to use all possible scientific means andmethods to unearth the truth in the matter of investigation, instead ofadopting simply the conventional method of investigation relying only ontestimonies of human beings.As the saying goes, men may lie but not thecircumstances.Similarly, the science shall never fail.Before parting with this case, I would like to place on record myappreciation for the excellent service rendered by Mr.Ashwin Kotnis, theSuperintendent of Police, Tuticorin, who, within a short span of time, asdirected by this Court, had taken all efforts to secure the witnesses so asto find out the truth, to get the report of the DNA expert and to submit afair report before this Court within the time frame.I also appreciate theteam of officers, namely,(i) Mrs.T.Vanitha Rani, Inspector of Police, AllWomen Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District, (ii) Mr.F.BernadXavier, Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, (iii) Mr.Hariharan,Inspector, Special Branch, (iv) Mr.Kandasamy, Sub Inspector of Police, SipcotPolice Station and (v) Mr.P.Arunsakthikumar, IPS, Assistant Superintendent ofPolice, who were in the team who shared the burden with the Superintendent ofPolice to collect all the necessary facts within the time frame.R.Alagumani andMr.E.Athisaya Kumar, the learned counsel, for having taken up the cause ofthese poor people to this Court.Similarly, I appreciate Mr.Had this woman, Mrs.Manimegalai not gone to the DistrictCollector, the travesty of justice declaring her dead would have beenperpetuated .But, for these petitions filed by the petitioners, this mockerywould not have been corrected.7.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station,Thoothukudi District.8.The Inspector of Police, Srivaigundam Police Station,Thoothukudi District.9.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.10.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code