IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2039 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.SUNILKUMAR, MUDIYIL THAZHATHIL, AYIKUNNAM, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 521. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013. 4. SHRI A.ABHILASH, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTA, PIN-690 521. 5. SHRI SHUKKUR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANAD, PIN-690 504. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No.822 of 2010 of Sooranadu police station. That crime was registered on 18.8.2010 on the information given by the petitioner on the said day. Investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector, Sooranadu. While so, allegedly in connection with the same incident and in which one Gopala Pillai and others are said to have sustained injuries, police registered Crime No.820 of 2010 implicating petitioner and others as accused for commission of various offences under the Penal Code. Grievance of petitioner is that while no action was taken by the police in Crime No.822 of 2010, they have submitted final report against petitioner and others in Crime No.820 of 2010. It is alleged that the Assistant Sub Inspector of police and the Head Constable of that station had destroyed the mahazar for scene of occurrence (allegedly in the house of petitioner) in Crime No.822 2 W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 of 2010. Petitioner, in these circumstances approached this Court with a request to direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to handover investigation of Crime No.822 of 2010 to the Crime Branch for investigation by an impartial and honest officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police and to issue direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action against respondent nos.4 and 5 for reluctance in doing their duty and destroying evidence like mahazar for the scene of occurrence in Crime No.822 of 2010. Learned counsel while asserting the allegation made in the petition and requesting to grant reliefs as prayed for, has invited my attention to Exts.P8 and P12 and submitted about the tardy manner in which investigation for name-sake was conducted in Crime No.822 of 2010. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Sub Inspector, after investigation of the case by incorporating section 325 of the Penal Code also has invoked section of offences apart from the section of offences mentioned in the First Information Report in Crime No.822 of 2010 and has submitted a final report in the court concerned on 14.1.2011. 3 W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 2. In Ext.P8 letter, obtained by the wife of petitioner under the Right of Information Act from Sub Inspector of police, Sooranad Police Station, it is stated that no mahazar for the scene of occurrence has been prepared (in Crime No.822 of 2010). In Ext.P12 report, the Circle Inspector addressed to the Superintendent of police, Kollam, he has stated no such incident, as pleaded by petitioner in his FIS, based on which Crime No.822 of 2010 was registered, has occurred and that no further action is required in the matter. 3. I have gone through the CD file in Crime No.822 of 2010 given to me for perusal by learned Public Prosecutor. I find that Sub Inspector has questioned some of the witnesses to the alleged incident in Crime No.822 of 2010 on 18.8.2010. Those witnesses are seen either to have denied or pleaded ignorance about the alleged incident in Crime No.822 of 2010. Thereafter, Sub Inspector questioned petitioner, his mother and wife on 12.1.2011 when they are seem to have stated about the incident in which they sustained injuries (in Crime No.822 of 2010). It is also seen that the Sub Inspector prepared mahazar for the 4 W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 scene of occurrence in Crime No.822 of 2010 on 12.1.2011. Ext.P12, report given by the Circle Inspector to the Superintendent of police is dated 3.11.2010. In other words, it is thereafter that Sub Inspector questioned the wife and mother of petitioner who are also said to have sustained injuries in the incident alleged in Crime No.822 of 2010 and prepared mahazar for the scene of occurrence. Though the Code of Criminal Procedure does not speak about drawing up of a mahazar for scene of occurrence, in a criminal case a mahazar for scene of occurrence has its own value and importance. In a case of this nature where petitioner alleged that the offenders trespassed into his house and assaulted him and others it was incumbent on the officer investigating the case to have, without delay prepared a mahazar for the scene of occurrence. It is true, in Ext.P8 it is stated that no such mahazar was prepared while petitioner asserts that a mahazar was prepared but, it was destroyed by respondent nos.4 and 5. The truth of that allegation is to be ascertained and, whether there was any dereliction of duty on the part of respondent nos.4 and 5. I also 5 W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 find from the memo of witnesses attached to the final report in Crime No.822 of 2010 that witnesses cited by the prosecution included those who denied having seen the incident. On going through the final report in Crime No.822 of 2010 and the connected CD file, I am inclined to think that a further investigation of the case is required (without making any mention as to the correctness of the information collected by Sub Inspector on various dates). 4. Then the next question as to who should be entrusted with the responsibility to conduct further investigation, I stated that it was Sub Inspector who conducted investigation so far and, in Ext.P12 the Circle Inspector has already formed an opinion that no such incident as stated in Crime No.822 of 2010 has occurred. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to direct the Circle Inspector to conduct further investigation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on going through the relevant records I consider that it is appropriate to direct the Dy.S.P., having jurisdiction over the area where the incident allegedly 6 W.P.(C).No.2039 of 2011 occurred, to conduct further investigation in Crime No.822 of 2010. He shall look into all aspects of the matter including the complaint of petitioner as to the alleged drawing up of mahazar for the scene of occurrence in Crime No.822 of 2010 and its alleged destruction by respondent nos.4 and 5. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the Dy.S.P., Karunagappally (having jurisdiction over the area where the incident allegedly occurred) is directed to conduct further investigation in Crime No.822 of 2010 of Sooranadu Police Station and submit final report in the court concerned. Until submission of such final report, proceedings in Crime No.822 of 2010 will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge ami/