IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2006 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 1994 of 2004() ------------------------- [CRIME NO.111/2004 OF KOIPPURAM POLICE STATION] PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ SATHEESH, KANANIKKUNATHIL VEEDU, KURUVAMKUZHY, PULLAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: STATE: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2006 O R D E R The petitioner is the son of a person who met with his death on 23/05/2004. The said person was, without any dispute, suffering from tuberculosis, even prior to the date of the incident in this case, that is 11/04/2004. The deceased, who allegedly suffered the injuries on 11/04/2004 was admitted to the hospital on the same day. While he was in the hospital, he expired on 23/05/2004. Even before the deceased met with his death, the investigation into the crime was completed and the final report was filed under Section 143, 147,148,324,427 read with 149 I.P.C. 2. After the death of the deceased on 23/05/2004, on the complaint made by the relatives of the deceased, further investigation was conducted. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper further investigation has been conducted. He has accordingly come to this court with the prayer for issue of appropriate directions for the efficient conduct of the investigation. 3. The respondents have filed statements. Case diary has been placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the records. I may cautiously state that I do not intend to express any final opinion Crl.M.C.No.1994/04 2 on any disputed questions. It appears from the case records that at the time of admission on 11/04/2004, the deceased was not suffering from any particular ailment though he was a tuberculosis patient. The wound certificate, which is available in the case diary in this case shows that he had suffered certain minor injuries. The case sheet is not made available for my perusal. The postmortem report shows that the death of the deceased was caused on account of pneumonia. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination as well as some forensic experts have been questioned. Further investigation is almost complete. Report has not been filed after such further investigation, in view of the pendency of this Crl.M.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am certainly of the opinion that investigation must be continued by a senior police officer, who must pointedly consider the question afresh whether the death of the deceased was caused on account of the injury suffered in the light of explanation 1 to Section 299 I.P.C which reads as follows: “Explanation 1.- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.” 5. I am satisfied in these circumstances that in the interests of justice, specific directions must be issued to the second respondent, Superintendent of Police to continue the investigation personally or by Crl.M.C.No.1994/04 3 deputing a competent Deputy Superintendent of Police under his charge to pointly consider the question whether the death of the deceased can be said to be caused on account of the injury suffered in the light of the explanation 1 to Section 299 I.P.C. If investigation is handed over to any such Deputy Superintendent of Police, he shall conduct further investigation under the direct supervision and control of the second respondent. The witnesses concerned - the doctor, who issued the wound certificate, the doctor, who treated the deceased, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination as well as the experts in forensic science shall be questioned pointedly with reference to the wound certificate, the case sheet and the postmortem certificate to come to a competent conclusion on the question whether the death can be said to have been caused because of the injury suffered in the light of the explanation 1 to Section 299 I.P.C. After completing such investigation, further report must be filed as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of four months from this date. When such final report is filed, needless to say, the learned Magistrate/court must also consider the question pointedly in the light of explanation 1 to Section 299 I.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C is accordingly allowed to the above extent (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.1994/04 4 Crl.M.C.No.1994/04 5 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006