IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12642 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIDDIQUE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADER, DILSHAD MANZIL, NEAR PANAYANNARKAVU, VADAKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN- 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE-PIN- 695 001. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN -695 001. 4. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM-PIN- 691 001. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-PIN- 691 001. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(CRIME BRANCH), KOLLAM-PIN-691 001. R1 TO R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12642 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.512 of 2011 of Chavara Police Station. His case is that on 05.04.2011 he was assaulted by the accused person with an iron rod with intend to cause his death. The Chavara police on 06.04.2011 registered a case for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 427, 506(ii) and 308 r/w.Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). Grievance of petitioner is that the fifth respondent who is investigating the case is insisting on petitioner to settle the case with the accused and is attempting to delete Sec.308 of the IPC from the FIR and incorporate a minor offence. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P5, representation to the Director General of Police seeking a fair investigation of the case since he felt that fifth respondent may not conduct a fair investigation. It is prayed in this proceeding that second respondent may be directed to entrust investigation of the case to the sixth respondent or, direct second respondent to entrust investigation to any superior officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the course of investigation it was revealed that W.P(C).No.12642 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner sustained the head injury while falling down in the course of the incident and thereon the sections of offence were altered to Secs.143, 147 and 323 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC 2. I have gone through the CD file made available to me by learned counsel for perusal. It is seen that statement of petitioner was recorded at Anandapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.04.2011 and the case was registered by the Additional Sub Inspector, Chavara on the same day at 2p.m. It is also seen that the same day the Additional Sub Inspector has prepared a report that only offences under Secs.143, 147 and 323 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC are made out. On going through the case diary it is seen that Additional Sub Inspector is said to have questioned a good number of witnesses on 06.04.2011 itself and they are said to have stated that petitioner suffered injury on the head by falling on the ground. It would appear that Additional Sub Inspector without conducting proper investigation has come to the conclusion on 06.04.2011 itself that no offence under Sec.427, 506(ii) and 308 of the IPC are made out. It appears that there was some haste on the part of the Additional Sub Inspector in forming the conclusion that only offences under Secs.143, 147 and 323 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC are W.P(C).No.12642 of 2011 -: 3 :- involved. I must bear in mind that in the first information statement, petitioner has a definite case that he was assaulted with an iron rod. Whether that claim of petitioner is correct or not, of course is a different matter. But the officer concerned must have conducted a proper investigation before concluding either way regarding commission of offence under Sec.308 of the IPC is involved. I am inclined to think that investigation has to go to some other officer. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed. It is directed that investigation of Crime No.512 of 2011 of Chavara Police Station shall be conducted by an officer senior in rank to the Additional Sub Inspector. I make it clear that I have not made any opinion on the merit of case pleaded by petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Kollam shall issue necessary orders entrusting investigation of the case to an officer senior in rank to the Additional Sub Inspector within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment which shall be made available by the petitioner. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-