IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3248 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LALITH G PANICKER, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, MADATHUM BHAGOM THEKARA MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEAD OF POLICE DEPARTMENT), LAW & ORDER, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRB, ALAPPUZHA-688 001 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 7. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689622. 8. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VRISHA VADASSERIKARA MURI, KORALLISSERI VILLAGE, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689622. 9. INDIRA AMMA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VRISHA VADASSERIKARA MURI, KORALLISSERI VILLAGE, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689622. 10. LATHEESH @ MURALI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VRISHA VADASSERIKARA MURI, KORALLISSERI VILLAGE, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689622. BY P.P.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's daughter, Geethanjali was married to respondent No.9 on 6.2.2002. He was employed abroad. While so, he came on leave sometime in October, 2006 and returned to his work place on January 13, 2007. On January 15, 2007, Geethanjali suffered burn injuries at the matrimonial home at about 7.30 P.M. She was taken to the hospital. She succumbed to the injuries after about two hours of sustaining burn injuries. Her father gave first information regarding the alleged incident on January 16, 2007 at about 2 A.M., where he stated about her parents-in-law quarrelling with her. Police registered Crime No.14 of 2007 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and later in the course of investigation altered the Section to Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 2 :- implicating mother-in-law of the deceased. At that stage petitioner filed W.P No.8458 of 2007 in this Court contending that investigation is not proceeding in the correct line and requesting that investigation may be entrusted to better hands. In the mean time, investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Alappuzha. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition by Ext.P5, judgment dated March 28, 2007 observing that Investigating Officer (DYSP, DCRB) would conduct a proper, efficient and expeditious investigation and come to appropriate conclusion and report them to the court concerned. After investigation the DYSP submitted final report against mother-in-law of the deceased for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. Learned Magistrate committed the case for trial and now the case is pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur as S.C.No.726 of 2008. It is in the mean time that petitioner has filed this writ petition on 31.1.2011 contending that the investigation conducted by the DYSP is not proper and is without questioning the most crucial eye W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 3 :- witness in the case, son of the deceased. Petitioner alleged that the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased are also involved in the incident and that it is a case of bride burning and not one of suicide as propounded by the DYSP, DCRB. Petitioner, therefore, prayed for re- investigation and a direction to the 2nd respondent to entrust re-investigation to a higher police official with direction to the 2nd respondent to supervise such investigation and a further direction to the Investigating Officer to incorporate offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel contended that it was not proper that the most crucial witness was not questioned by the Investigating Officer. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that investigation was conducted in the correct line and that no interference at this stage is required. It is pointed out that 14 of the prosecution witnesses are already examined. 2. Main contention advanced by petitioner is that it is a case of bride burning. Mother-in-law of the deceased on the date of incident pushed the latter, the latter fell down and W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 4 :- became unconscious. Under the impression that she is died, mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire to her. This, according to the learned counsel for petitioner was witnessed by the son of the deceased, but, he was not questioned. 3. It is not disputed that son of the deceased was aged only 21/2 years at the time of the incident. I have gone through the case diary and found the statement of one Laila, who claims to have witnessed the incident. She stated that on the fateful day immediately before the incident she had seen the deceased talking over mobile phone from the courtyard of the house. Later the deceased got inside the room and closed it. The witness was under the impression that deceased did so as she thought that her mother-in-law who was standing on the near by road seen her talking over the mobile phone. After sometime the witness heard a hue and cry from the house of the deceased and smoke coming from the room. She rushed to the spot and peeping into the room through the window found the deceased in flames and when the witness called the deceased, the latter said “I am to die”. The witness noticed W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 5 :- that the room was locked from inside. Local people gathered there, broke open the door and put off the flames with water. Later, deceased was taken to the hospital. The witness stated that the mother-in-law used to scold the deceased and on account of the mental agony arising from that, the deceased committed suicide. I have also gone through the statement of the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination that cause of death is due to burns and that “probability of suicide is more in this case”. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that the local police had questioned the relatives, friends and neighbours of the deceased of whom, some gave statement implicating the mother-in-law of the deceased for scolding the deceased at times. It is also submitted that after the DYSP, DCRB took up investigation, that officer questioned all the witnesses again and they stuck to their stand. 5. Now the grievance is regarding non questioning of the son of the deceased. It is not disputed that when petitioner filed W.P.No.8458 of 2007, son of the deceased was W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 6 :- under the care and custody of petitioner. I have gone through the copy of Writ Petition No.8458 of 2007 and, I do not find any statement there, that son of the deceased, then aged 21/2 years had told petitioner that he had seen the mother-in-law pouring kerosene and setting fire to the deceased. Instead what is stated in ground 3 of the petition is only that had the Investigating Officer questioned son of the deceased, that may have brought out the truth. Had any such disclosure been made by the son aged 21/2 years, then petitioner would have normally mentioned that in W.P.No.8458 of 2007. I must also bear in mind the fruitfulness of re-investigation for the purpose of questioning of son of the deceased who at the time of incident was aged only 21/2 years and since then had been in the custody and care of the petitioner atleast for sometime. 6. I have gone through the relevant records in CD file and the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find reason to direct a re-investigation of the case for the reasons W.P.(C). No.3248 of 2011 -: 7 :- stated above and also since 14 of the prosecution witnesses are already examined. Resultantly this writ petition fails and is dismissed. I make it clear that whatever finding or observation contained in this judgment shall not influence learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the matter of appreciation of evidence and disposal of the case. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt