1 wp-3585-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3585 OF 2010 Smt Surekha Dilip Ambekar ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents ...... Mr Archit Skhalkar & Nihar Ghag, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for State. Mr J. K.Sawant, Police Inspector present. Mr P.N. Jadhav, P.I. Boriwali P.S.present. CORAM:­ A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:­ 11th February, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. According to the petitioner, the local police have wrongly registered the case as A.D.R. No. 37/2007. Instead, they ought to have registered the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the petitioner was last seen in the company with the three persons; and in all probability, those three persons are responsible for 2 wp-3585-10 the death of his brother, deceased Sadanand. However, the investigation conducted, by more than one officer at different stages in this case, including reinvestigation ordered by Human Rights Commission, does not support the plea of the petitioner. The statements of witnesses including that of the father of the deceased indicates that after the marriage, the deceased along with other friends consumed liquor and left on his own. The circumstances, in which he fell down from the bridge, are not forthcoming, as no eye­witness is available. The argument of the petitioner proceeds on the premise that no belonging was found on the person of deceased nor mobile of the deceased was recovered from the spot. The fact that neither belonging nor mobile were recovered from the spot by itself does not mean that the three persons were responsible for the death of the deceased. Besides the re­ investigation, in view of the complaints made up to the level of Home Minister, investigation was also done by the Crime Branch of Mumbai. Even the said investigation does not take the matter any further, as no incriminating material is forthcoming. 3. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the deceased may have fallen down from the bridge from the height of about 25 feet and succumbed to the injuries. The area is notorious for drug addicts. However, the mobile of the deceased was later on 3 wp-3585-10 recovered during the investigation from a Sandwich vendor of that area who has accepted that he had taken away the mobile on the assumption that the deceased was under the influence of drug in semi conscious condition without realizing that he had suffered fatal injuries after falling from the bridge. As aforesaid, the investigation has been handled at different level by the officers including under the supervision of a Deputy Commissioner of Police. Besides, the investigation was also done by the Crime Branch. But, no fruitful material could be gathered. As more than one agencies were involved in the investigation and inspite of that no incriminating material has been recovered. Thus, understood, it is not possible to proceed on the assumption that it was a case of homicidal death and not accidental death. 4. Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us that the three persons, who in the opinion of the petitioner are suspects. However, no material has come on record during the investigation that there was any previous family enmity or dispute between them inter se. On the other hand, the father of the deceased in his statement stated that his son deceased Sadanand after reaching the marriage hall joined company of the three persons to consume liquor. That presupposes that the relations between all the four persons were cordial. The argument of the petitioner that the three persons are very powerful and have 4 wp-3585-10 misled the investigation, cannot be countenanced, especially, when more than one officer at different stage was involved to investigate the offence in question. The investigation, in our opinion, has been thoroughly conducted by the concerned agencies for which no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)