IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25099 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SUKUMARI, W/O.LATE SOMAN, KARIKKAKATHIL VEEDU, KARIYAM, EDATHARA.P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.T.PRASAD, SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, KOLLAM - 1. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL PO , KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI.SUJITH, S/O.RAJAN, KARIYAM LAKSHAM VEEDU, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. 6. SRI.SABU, S/O.LALAN, KOORAMKUZHI VEEDU, KARIYAM, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. 7. SRI.ANUROOP, S/O.BAHULEYAN, SHEELA MANDIRAM, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. 8. SRI.SHYNU, S/O.SOMALETHA, PODIYANAMKUZHI VEEDU, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25099/2011 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.557/2011 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.06.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT OF EXT.P2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25099 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 Order The petitioner is the mother of a person who died due to drowning. The deceased was aged about 25 years. He was also stated to be deaf and dumb. The incident took place on 8.5.2011. It is alleged that respondents 5 to 8 had gone to the petitioner's house and called petitioner's son. He accompanied the respondents. At about 4 PM on 8.5.2001 the petitioner was informed that her son died due to drowning in the pond of Edathara Durga Devi Temple. The petitioner herself says that when she reached the hospital, she was informed that her son died due to drowning. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem certificate in this case has been made available for perusal in which the doctor has opined that the death was due to drowning. In the postmortem certificate the doctor noted an abrasion 1.5x0.3 cm on the outer aspect of left forearm, 6 cm above wrist and multiple small abrasions over an area 2x1 cm on the back of right index finger, 3 cm above its tip. Those abrasions cannot have any bearing on the death which was WPC 25099/11 2 caused due to drowning. 2. The petitioner contends that her son died not due to drowning but due to assault by respondents 5 to 8. It is even alleged that respondents have pushed her son down to the pond. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 5 and 6 left the place and so that would be a strong circumstance to hold that they are responsible for the death of petitioner's son. But the investigation report reveals that respondents 5 and 6 are working in Gujarat. It is not a case they went there for the first time. The investigation has not been completed so far. So many witnesses were already questioned by the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that so far nothing suspicious could be found out. It is also stated that the investigation is not completed. Hence, no further direction is required to be issued at this stage. The Investigating Officer will complete the investigation at the earliest. After the final report is filed, if the petitioner is aggrieved, she can move the court again. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 25099/11 3 WPC 25099/11 4