IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 30149 OF 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GOMATHI, W/O.GOPALAN, PUNNOLIL VEEDU, ELANIMEL NORTH, ENAKKADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.U.R.HARSHAKUMAR SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTNEDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s son, Binu was found dead in a paddy field on 09.08.2010. The Manner police registered crime No.388 of 2010 and started investigation. Petitioner says that investigation is nothing but and eye wash meant to save the real culprits. The first formation statement was given by none other than the brother of a suspected culprit and claiming himself to be related to the deceased. Petitioner says that the first informant is not in any way related to the deceased and that the attempt is to mislead investigation and save the real culprits. Petitioner gave Exts.P2 and P3 to the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police seeking proper investigation but that did not yield result and hence this petition. Petitioner prayed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to constitute a special team to investigate the case or entrust the investigation to the State Crime Branch. 2. As directed by this Court respondent No.5, Circle Inspector of Police has filed a statement where details of investigation so far conducted is stated. It is stated that W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010 -: 2 :- witnesses related to the deceased apart from others also were questioned and investigation conducted so far revealed that deceased had illicit abkari business with certain persons and that one Sabu had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased. While so apprehending that the excise officials might apprehend the deceased he had been to some other place and later returned from that place. Thereafter deceased was found missing. There was a search for the deceased and the search team included the suspected persons as well. While so the body of the deceased was found in the paddy filed. The body was subjected to postmortem examination by the medical officer who opined that there is no antimortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Chemical examination (of the Viscera) indicated that cause of death is drowning. It was further revealed that pheonothiazenes derivatives were found in the viscera. On further questing, the doctor who conducted postmortem examination opined that if a person consumes drugs in sufficient quantity to affect his body function, it is possible that the person may die of drowning if he falls into water even if he is a swimmer. Respondent No.5 has summed up his findings as a result of investigation in page 5 of the statement and concluded that as W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010 -: 3 :- part of investigation the main suspects may be subjected for polygraph and brain mapping tests. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the said observations itself would reveal that involvement of the said persons is suspected by the investigating officer but nothing further has been done. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that if body of the deceased was found in the paddy field, mud particles must have been seen in the viscera. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation has proceeded on the correct line and as seen from the report, investigation is not concluded, it is still on and at this stage there is no necessity to change hands so far as investigation is concerned. 4. I have gone through the statement of respondent No.5 and seen the steps taken by him in the course of investigation. I am not persuaded to think that as matters now stand that there should be a change of investigation. I must also bear in mind that any investigation cannot be to the full satisfaction of all concerned. Investigating Officer is concerned with proving the crime and he has to take all steps necessary for the purpose. Respondent No.5 states that polygraph or brain mapping test of the suspect is required. If it is so, it is for him to W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010 -: 4 :- take appropriate steps in the matter as per law and he shall do so. 5. I also make it clear that if any further direction or monitoring of investigation is required it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court as and when circumstances required that. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv