1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.251 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Abdul Hameed ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State represented through The Home Secretary Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 2. The Director General of Police O/o. The Director General of Police Beach Road Chennai 3. The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District Pudukottai 4. The Inspector of Police Karambakudi Police Station Pudukottai District 5. The Superintendent of Police CB CID Office No.3, SIDCO Electronic Complex I Floor, Guindy Chennai – 32 ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the third respondent to withdraw the case in Crime Number 306 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent No.4 and entrust the same to the respondent No.5 for fair investigation and to file the final report within a time frame fixed by this Court. *** For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased person seeking direction to withdraw the investigation in Crime Number 306 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent No.4 and to entrust the same to the respondent No.5 for fair investigation and to file a final report within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the de-facto complainant in a case, in which, his son, namely, Sahul Hameed, aged about 19 years, who was studying second year E.E.E at Sudharshan Engineering College near Sathyamangalam, Pudukottai District, was found injured in a private bus, namely, SVS Transport, which is plying in between Pudukkottai and Pattukkottai, on 26/27.08.2010 and who died subsequently due to the injuries. He would further submit in his argument that the case was registered in Crime No. 306 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner and it has not been altered from Section 174 of Cr.P.C., into Section 302 of I.P.C., even though, the postmortem certificate has been received by the respondent. He would further submit in his argument that the son of the petitioner, namely, Sahul Hameed, ought to have been murdered by certain enemies when he was traveling in the bus and no serious steps were taken by the fourth respondent police to nab the accused. He would further submit in his argument that many representations made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police and other higher officers were of no avail and the road roko held by an association was also defused by giving promises that the culprits would be arrested soon, but it was not done by the fourth respondent so far. He would further submit in his argument that the injury sustained by the deceased, Sahul Hameed, on his head was the cause for his death as per the postmortem certificate and the said external injuries sustained on his face and below his right eye were not considered or suspected by the fourth respondent police to probe further on the said line. He would also submit in his argument that the conductor of the bus, who was at his responsibility to admit the injured person in a hospital did not perform his duty and the said lethargy on the part of the conductor and driver of the said bus have not been properly grilled by the fourth respondent police. He would further submit that no direct witnesses have been examined by the fourth respondent police so far when the deceased, Sahul Hameed, boarded the bus at Sudharshan Engineering College bus stop at Sathyamangalam. He would further submit that the laxity on the part of the fourth respondent police may leave the culprits scat free from the clutches of law and therefore, it is better to withdraw the case from the file of the fourth respondent for handing over the same to the fifth respondent, who is an efficient investigating agency. Therefore, he would request the Court to allow the Petition accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the fourth respondent is seriously investigating the case and had examined the several witnesses and had recorded their statement and there is no clue available for causing assault against the dead person, since the deceased person was not having any enemies. He would further submit in his argument that the deceased person would have sustained injuries in the bus while he was traveling on the roof top of the bus and by hitting on the tree branches when the bus was crossing such tress and thereafter, he ought to have boarded the bus and the injuries ought to have been sustained by him in the said incident. He would further submit in his argument that the fourth respondent will seriously investigate the matter further and file the charge sheet as early as possible within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Therefore, he would request the Court that there is no necessity for transfer of the investigation from the file of the fourth respondent to fifth respondent. He has also produced the CD file for the perusal of this Court. 5. No doubt, it is true that unfortunate incident of the death of Sahul Hameed had happened on 27.08.2010 due the injuries sustained by him when he was traveling in the bus belonging to SVS Roadways plying in between Pudukkottai and Pattukkottai. The petitioner and his son belonged to Karambakudi, which is situated in between Pudukkottai and Pattukottai. The bus belonging to SVS Roadways, was plying from Pudukkottai and when it reached Sathyamangalam Sudharshan Engineering College stop, on 26.08.2010, by 09.00 p.m., the deceased, Sahul Hameed was said to have boarded the bus and he was traveling in the said bus and he had got a ticket to Karamakudi and the conductor of the bus gave a ticket, but mistakenly punch the ticket to Neyveli and gave the said ticket to him. As per evidence so far collected, the deceased person was traveling in the foot board. Therefore, it cannot be said the deceased person was traveling on the roof top of the bus so as to sustain the injuries. The statement of the conductor would go to show that thereafter he did not notice the deceased Sahul Hameed, but he found him at Pattukottai lying on the back seat of the bus without alighting at Karambakudi and when he asked to buy ticket he was murmuring and he thought that he was in an intoxication and therefore, he did not ask him for further ticket. Thereafter, the bus was intercepted by the petitioner and other relatives and they have scolded the conductor and took the said Sahul Hameed in an unconscious state in a Sumo car for giving him treatment. Therefore, it could be prima facie seen that the said Sahul Hameed had sustained injuries as noted in the postmortem certificate in between the bus stop of Sathyamangalam and Karambakudi and that is why he did not alight Karambakudi Station and he had travelled further to Pattukottai and from there, he was returning to Pudukkottai in the same bus. In the said circumstances, the fourth respondent police examined the witnesses, who were traveling in the bus in the return journey from Pattukkottai. The fourth respondent police have not examined any co-passenger who travelled along with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 deceased, Sahul Hameed, from Sathyamangalam bus stop to Karambakudi. The deceased, Sahul Hameed, would have sustained the injuries as mentioned in the postmortem in between said two points. The fourth respondent police has not evinced any interest to examine such persons and to find out the truth for getting a break through in the investigation. It has been put forth by the petitioner that serious steps were taken for the fourth respondent police to investigate in a faster manner and to bring the culprits to the police. But, so far no break through has been achieved and the case registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is still in a static condition. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court feels that the investigation done by the fourth respondent police is not up to the satisfaction. The injuries sustained on the face and head of the deceased person do not appear to be the injuries sustained in the course of an accident or in any other common incidental happenings. The brain was affected by the head injury and there is an incised wound below the right eye and also oblique nail marks found around his face and therefore, this Court suspect that there could be a scuffle in between the deceased and other persons and the injury could have been caused on his head. Therefore, it has become necessary for the investigating agency to examine the co-passengers who travelled along with the deceased in the bus from the point of Sathyamangalam to Karamakudi and to get a break through of the case. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to transfer the investigating agency from the file of the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent. 7. Accordingly, the investigation in Crime No. 306 of 2010 on the file of the fourth respondent is transferred to the file of the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is directed to investigate the case and to file the final report as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The Home Secretary Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 2. The Director General of Police O/o. The Director General of Police Beach Road Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 3. The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District Pudukottai 4. The Inspector of Police Karambakudi Police Station Pudukottai District 5. The Superintendent of Police CB CID Office No.3, SIDCO Electronic Complex I Floor, Guindy Chennai – 32 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Madurai +One CC to Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, Advocate, SR.No.3132 vsg rl/8c – 28.01.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.251 of 2011 24.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/