IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8139 of 2008(R) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.81/2007 OF PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION. ................. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SANTHAMMA PRASAD, AGED 44, W/O.VISHNU PRASAD, THALIYATTU, VALAKKUZHY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION, PERUMPATTY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8139 of 2008(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.174 C.R.P.C. TO THE R.DO. TIRUVALLA. EXT.P2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POST- MORTEM CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.8139 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd September, 2010 JUDGMENT Raju, son of the petitioner was found dead in a well on 9/6/2007. Ext.P1 statement of the petitioner was recorded on 10/6/2007. As per Ext.P1 FI statement, on the morning of 9/6/2007 Raju had gone for work and by about 1 a.m Joy came to their house and informed that Raju had met with an accident and is taken to the hospital. It was informed that he was found dead in a well situated in front of the property of Susi. Crime No.81/2007 of Perumpetty Police Station was registered under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure as it was a case of suspicious death. Autopsy on the body was conducted by Assistant Wpc 8139/08 2 Professor of Forensic Medicine and Deputy Police Surgeon, Kottayam Medical College dated 11/6/2007 and prepared Ext.P2 postmortem certificate to the effect that death was due to drowning. Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpetty Police Station submitted Ext.P1 final report stating that the deceased had fallen after consuming liquor accidentally and died. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before Superintendent of Police alleging that the case has not been properly investigated and it is suspected that he was murdered. As no action was taken, this petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing fourth respondent to handover the investigation to Crime Branch. It is contended that postmortem certificate reveals that there are two lacerated wounds Wpc 8139/08 3 on the back of the head which could be caused when the deceased was attacked by the assailants. It is also contended that proper investigation is warranted. 2. The Sub Inspector of Perumpatty Police Station filed a statement narrating the details. It is stated that investigation reveals that on 9/6/2007 at 7 p.m Raju had consumed toddy from toddy shop No.11 at Ezhumattoor. While on his way to the house, fell on the well situated in the property to the east of house of Susamma and it is only a case of accidental death and no further investigation is warranted. Petition shows that mother of the deceased is suspecting foul play for two reasons. Firstly, it is alleged that there are two lacerated wounds on the back of the head. When a person accidentally fell on Wpc 8139/08 4 a well those injuries are possible. Other reason is that dhothi worn by the deceased was found not in the well but away from the well. Investigation revealed that he had consumed liquor. It is likely that before petitioner fell in the well he lost his dhothi. In such circumstances, I find no reason to order investigation as sought for. It is made clear that if report of chemical analysis shows otherwise, petitioner is at liberty to move again so also dismissal of the petition will not prevent the petitioner from filing a complaint before the concerned Magistrate in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. Wpc 8139/08 5