IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 33653 OF 2010(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABU BHASKAR, POTTAMETHIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZH DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DITRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.33653 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T This petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to complete investigation of the case relating to the death of petitioner’s paternal uncle, Vasudevan as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 (FIR and inquest report) forthwith. Grievance of petitioner is that body of deceased, Vasudevan was found in a suspicious circumstance on 15.03.2009 but so far no meaningful investigation was conducted and hence the petition seeking the above stated relief. As per direction respondent No.5, Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur has filed a statement where details of investigation so far conducted is stated. It is stated that body of the deceased was found near a rubber plantation on 15.03.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. with a liquor bottle mixed with some poisonous substance nearby which was seized by the police (in the course of investigation) but chemical substance in the body could not be identified so far and hence the case was included in the list of undetected case. While so, petitioner preferred a complaint to the Director General of Police W.P(C) No.33653 of 2010 -: 2 :- raising doubt as to the cause of death. That complaint was forwarded to the Circle Inspector through proper channel and on receipt of that complaint the Circle Inspector, Chengannur conducted detailed enquiry into the matter and submitted a report to the Superintendent of police on 04.06.2009. Enquiry conducted by that officer revealed that Vasudevan was staying with his brother and was suffering from various complaints like Asthma, sugar and heart problem. He was a habitual drunkard, it is said. On 15.03.2009 one Dasan who is the President of the SNDP branch received a telephone call from one Valsala, wife of Divakaran that the deceased was missing from her house between 11.00 p.m. on 14.03.2009 and 7. p.m. on 15.03.2009 (thereafter the body was traced). The medical officer who conducted postmortem examination did not confirm cause of death (pending receipt of chemical examination report). Chemical examination report has not been so far received and the case was reported undetected on 28.04.2009. 2. Learned counsel has pointed out from Ext.P4 that even the query made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act revealed that as on 26.11.2009 report of the chemical examination was not received and in the statement filed W.P(C) No.33653 of 2010 -: 3 :- by respondent No.5 on 21.12.2010 also the same reply is given which meant that no effort has been by the investigating officer to get the report of the chemical examination during the last two years. 3. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor also it is revealed that until now report of chemical examination is not received and it is not stated why the report of the chemical examination is not received so far. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and going through the statement filed by respondent No.5 it appears to me that there must be an earnest effort at the hands of the Investigating Officer to get the chemical examination report and on receipt of such report if there is any suspicious circumstance in the matter, question the medical officer and proceed with the matter further. 4. In the light of the decision in Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 [4] KLT 724 (SC) it is not as if the Magistrate concerned is without power to issue necessary direction in the course of investigation. It is not necessary that petitioner must rush to the High court seeking direction in the matter of investigation. I make it clear if necessary it is open to W.P(C) No.33653 of 2010 -: 4 :- the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate before whom the FIR is lodged for appropriate direction in the matter. Resultantly directing the Investigating Officer to get the chemical examination report at the earliest and proceed with the matter as provided under law and observing that any further direction can be sought for from the learned Magistrate concerned this Writ Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv