IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12807 of 2008 Between: Emmadi Srinivasa Reddy S/o.late Chenna Reddy R/o.Warasiguda Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P through the Secretary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The District Superintendent of Police Subedari Hanumakonda Warangal District 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Jangoan Warangal District 4 The Station House Officer Narmetta Warangal District 5 The Inspector of Police Jangaon Warangal District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting the investigation in a fair manner/as per law in Cr No.68/08 on the file of the 4th respondent as illegal contrary to judicial precedent and law in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12807 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting investigation as per law in Cr.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, his brother one Emmadi Damodar Reddy died under suspicious circumstances on 10-06-2008 and a case in Cr.No.68 of 2008 was registered by the 4th respondent under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that his brother Damodar Reddy was murdered and the police are not investigating the case properly as required under law. Hence, this writ petition. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter stating that on 10- 06-2008 the sister-in-law of the petitioner lodged a complaint stating that her husband was murdered and she had suspicion over the death of her husband. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2008 was registered by the 4th respondent under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined as many as 12 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and visited the scene of offence at Narmetta and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground. Later, he secured the presence of panchas and in their presence, examined the scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama and photographed the scene and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the dead body for post-mortem examination. The medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to “Mechanical Asphyxia due to hanging” and noted some ante-mortem injuries other than ligature mark on the body of the deceased. A questionnaire was also sent to the Medical Officer seeking clarification with regard to the injuries and also the cause of the death. In the questionnaire, it was clearly stated by the Medical officer that “as no other external injuries were found and based on his post-mortem examination, this hanging is suicidal”. None of the panch witnesses confessed about the commission of offence as alleged by the petitioner herein. The investigation was conducted on proper lines and the final report would be filed shortly before the Magistrate concerned. All the allegations made in the affidavit are false and concocted and invented for the purpose of filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the ante- mortem injuries as noticed by the police as well as the medical officer were not properly explained and therefore, the respondents may be directed to conduct enquiry afresh in respect of the ante-mortem injuries purported to have been suffered by the deceased. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents contended that the investigation was conducted on proper lines and that the charge-sheet would be filed shortly before the Magistrate concerned. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsel on either side. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondents could have made some more scientific investigation into the ante-mortem injuries purported to have been suffered by the deceased. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry afresh into the ante-mortem injuries purported to have been suffered by the deceased. Till such time, the final report shall not be placed before the learned Magistrate concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-11-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}