IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(Crl.).No. 1111 of 2011(Q) --------------------------------------- [CMP.NO.4671/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. E.K.LAKSHMI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. THALAKKODATH VEETTIL KRISHNAN, NAREEKKAMVALLI, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, P.O. NAREEKKAMVALLI, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. TALAKKODATH VEETTIL KRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANNAN PANICKER, NAREEKKAMVALLI, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, P.O.NAREEKKAMVALLI, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM PIN-695 001. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH CIRCLE, KANNUR PIN – 670 002. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR PIN – 670 002. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA, PIN- 670 008. R1 TO R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.MANU. THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CRL.).NO.1111/2011-Q: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 15/06/09 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 15/06/2009 SUBMITTED BY E.K. DAMODARAN, UNCLE OF THE DECEASED RATHEESH BEFORE THE SDM COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 12/11/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT WAS FILED BY POLICE BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR THROUGH THE S.I. OF POLICE, PAYANGADI. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners' son, Ratheesh was found dead in a well near their house at Nareekamvalli on 25.03.2009 at about 11p.m. Somebody informed the fire force about the matter, they came to the scene of occurrence and recovered the body from the well and without waiting for other formalities to be complied by the police, took the deceased to the Pariyaram Medical College Hospital. There, he was declared dead. The Pazhayangadi police registered Crime No.79 of 2009 under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the FIR was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In the meantime as per request of the police, the Lecturer in the Department of Forensic Medicine at Pariyaram conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.04.2009 and came with the finding that death was due to drowning. The Sub Inspector continued investigation. While so, as per the order of the Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range the Circle Inspector took over investigation. He came to the conclusion that it was an accidental death and accordingly submitted a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In the O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 -: 2 :- meantime, petitioners filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging offence under Sec.202 and other offences against a few persons and that matter is pending consideration before learned Magistrate. I am told that the police have submitted a report (in the way they concluded)before the learned Magistrate. At that stage, petitioners have approached this Court with a request for investigation of the case by the CBI. There is also a request to direct learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur not to close Crime No.79 of 2009 of Pazhayangadi Police Station based on the final report submitted by the Circle Inspector. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the death of Ratheesh is shrouded in misterious circumstances which the Investigating Officer was not able to remove. So many suspicious questions remain unanswered. Learned counsel pointed out that the well where the body of deceased was found is situated 150meters away from the house of petitioners and 30meters away from the public road, and there was no possibility of the deceased going near the said well. In spite of some of the local people assembling there and the fire force recovering the body from the well, none informed the parents of the deceased about it. They came to know about the death of deceased only the next day. When the fire force took the body from the water, it was O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 -: 3 :- seen tied on a plastic chair which allegedly belonged to one Madhavi, a nearby fish vendor. Investigating officer has not explained how the body happened to be tied on the plastic chair, which indicated that it was a case of murder. It is also submitted that a motor pump was seen on the body when it was recovered from the well. The fire force did not, on recovery of the body from the well try to get the police to the scene so that inquest could be prepared. Instead they rushed to the medical college hospital with the body. Learned counsel submitted that a few weeks before the incident one Saju @ Sajesh threatened the deceased with dire consequences and even as on the day of the incident, the deceased along with a few others travelled in the Autorikshaw of said Saju to the nearby hospital to visit their friend Suresh, on the way all of them except Ratheesh consumed alcohol and after visiting Suresh, they returned in the same Autorikshaw. Those persons were not questioned or,effectively questioned. No scientific test also was conducted to find the truth. Further grievance is that one Bhaskaran who was conducting a tea shop near the road was not questioned. It is also pointed out that though the medical officer opined cause of death as due to drowning, the report of postmortem examination would reveal that the stomach contained only 100ml of watery fluid mixed with mud particles. In the circumstances, it is prayed O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 -: 4 :- that the investigation by an expert agency, the CBI may be ordered. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector revealed that Ratheesh, along with his friends had consumed liquor and was in an intoxicated mood while they returned from the bar, deceased and Santhosh came near the tea shop of Bhaskaran, found a plastic chair near the house of Madhavi and Santhosh wanted the plastic chair, in his intoxicated mood to be thrown into the nearby well. He collected the plastic chair and proceeded towards the well, at the same time searching for some number in his mobile phone. Santhosh happened to slip and fall into the well. Following that, the deceased came there and slipped into the well. It is pointed out that the incident occurred in the dead of the night. Santhosh somehow managed to escape from the well but Ratheesh remained in the well. Thus the death occurred. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector in the proper manner. It is also pointed out that all relevant witnesses have been questioned and their versions were cross-checked. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the meantime petitioners have filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the matter is pending. O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 -: 5 :- 4. Though, learned counsel for petitioner contended that when the deceased was taken out of the well he was seen tied on a plastic chair, no material in that regard is placed before me. The copy of report of autopsy shows that there were certain antimortem injuries on the neck and other portions of the body of the deceased. Examination of the internal organs revealed that it was almost normal and stomach contained 100ml of watery fluid. Merely for the reason that stomach contained only 100ml of watery fluid, no inference is possible that death was not due to drowning when the medical officer has given the opinion that death was due to drowning and the materials placed before me are not sufficient to draw any other inference. 5. But the complaint made by petitioners which are mentioned in grounds 1 to 18 are required to be examined and cross checked. Having regard to the grievance of petitioner I consider that it is appropriate and necessary that the investigation is verified by the Superintendent of Police, Kannur personally. After such verification he shall submit a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate notwithstanding the final report already filed. In case the Superintendent of Police finds that further investigation is required, he shall follow the procedure for that and after necessary investigation submit further final report. In the meantime if petitioners have filed complaint before the O.P(Crl).No.1111 of 2011 -: 6 :- jurisdictional Magistrate it is open to them to proceed with that complaint. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the Superintendent of Police, Kannur to verify the investigation conducted in Crime No.79 of 2009 of Pazhayangadi Police Station with reference to the complaint of petitioner referred to in the original petition and check whether Investigating Officer has looked into those aspects of the matter as well. He shall take steps for further investigation if found necessary and in either case, submit report before the sub Divisional Magistrate. Petitioner shall give a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the criminal miscellaneous case to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur as early as possible and on receipt of the judgment and copy of the original petition, the Superintendent of Police shall proceed in the matter as above stated. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-