IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3065 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.501/2004 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ........... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VEERAVUMMA, W/O. LATE HAMSA, VELLAKKAVIL VEEDU, P.O. THIRUVEGAPPURAM, VIA PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.M.GEORGE THOMAS MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D, PALAKKAD. 3. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P. RAVEENDRA BABU. R3 BY ADV. MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C).No. 3065 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the widow of deceased Hamsa whose body was found on the railway track 20 ft. away from Pattambi-Perumudiyoor railway line. Crime No.501/2004 was registered under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When that is being investigated, petitioner filed W.P(C) 24250/2006 under Article 226 of Constitution of India for entrusting the investigation to CBCID contending that the case is not being properly investigated. When it was brought to the notice of this court that the deceased was last seen with two persons speaking Hindi and Tamil and they were not traced out, under Ext.P3 judgment this court directed that further investigation is to be conducted by the CBCID. Pursuant to the said direction investigation was taken over by the CBCID. When that investigation was in progress, petitioner again approached this court by filing W.P.(C) 34028/2007 contending that the case is not being properly investigated and necessary directions are to be issued. Under Ext.P4 judgment W.P.(C)3065/2009 2 this court found that the final report is not submitted and at that stage no direction is to be issued except a direction to expedite the filing of the final report. The final report was filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate on 28.6.2008. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to handover the investigation to the third respondent CBI. On 4.2.2009 when the fact that much before the filing of Writ Petition a final report was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 28.6.2008 was brought to the notice, a direction was issued to make available the final report. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the final report along with the Case Diary. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and and learned counsel appearing for third respondent and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the very grievance of the petitioner, the widow of the deceased, is that the investigation is not proper. It is pointed out that even when the earlier Writ Petitions were filed, it was pointed out that the deceased was last seen with two persons speaking Hindi and Tamil and though it is assumed by the Investigating Officer that they cheated the deceased and out of that disappointment the W.P.(C)3065/2009 3 deceased committed suicide, even the whereabouts of those persons speaking Hindi and Tamil were not traced out and therefore the conclusion that it is a case of suicide and that too because of the cheating has no basis and as this angle was not explored by the Investigating Officer the final report submitted without proper investigation cannot be accepted and therefore further investigation is to be ordered. 5. The Case Diary made available by the Public Prosecutor reveals that the whereabouts of the two persons with whom the deceased was last seen, were not identified or traced out. Therefore there is no data available with the Investigating Officer as to what was the transaction of the deceased with them, much less any material to show that it is in respect of any gold transaction as concluded in the final report. Apart from stating that the two persons could not be traced out, the Case Diary does not satisfactorily explain the reason why they could not be traced out. In such circumstance, it is clear that the final report is not the end product of a proper investigation. When it is a case of suspicious death, where the widow was constantly raising suspicion with regard to the death contending that it is not a case of suicide but homicide, Investigating Officer should have W.P.(C)3065/2009 4 properly investigated the case. It is more so when the deceased was found with two unidentified Tamil and Hindi speaking persons. In such circumstance, second respondent is directed to conduct further investigation, especially on the whereabouts of the two persons with whom the deceased was last seen, as well as their relationship/transaction with the deceased and what transpired, if they were together with the deceased and to submit a final report thereafter. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006