1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.7846 OF 2011 Soundarapandian ..Petitioner Vs. State rep. by 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, in crime No.2282 of 2010 Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., O/o.C.B.C.I.D., Madurai, Madurai District. ..Respondents Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in crime No.2282 of 2010 dated 09.07.2010 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner tto transfer the investigation in crime No.2282 of 2010 dated 09.07.2010 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's daughter Pandeeswari aged about 15 years, studied in 10th standard and stayed in Government Adi Dravidar Girls Hostel, Chokkikulam, Madurai was died on 09.07.2010 at 7.00 p.m., stating that she was died due to electric shock. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 further submit that postmortem has been done, wherein, it was stated that she was died due to electrocution and the injuries mentioned therein has revealed that she was subjected to rape and thereafter she was murdered and hence, the petitioner suspecting the death of his daughter. He would further submit that even though a case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the respondent herein has not investigated the matter in a proper direction and hence, he has come forward with the present application for transferring the investigation pending on the file of the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent C.B.C.I.D for investigating the matter in a right direction. 3.The respondent has filed a counter, wherein, it has been stated that the case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and five witnesses have been examined and their statements have also been recorded. Perusal of postmortem certificate would reveal that the death is due to electrocution. In the para 5 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that Pandeeswari had died due to electrocution while placing her hand on the bore well pipe, wherein the electricity supply was leaking. In the counter it was further stated that one Kalaivani was interrogated, who is studying in the same class, but in different section and she was not aware of the death until she was informed by her friend Sukanya through phone. 4.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taken me to the postmortem certificate, wherein antemortem injuries noted on the body were mentioned. The relevant portion is as follows: “1.Multiple burnt marks of varying sizes noted over an area of 9 cms x 5 cms noted on right loin. On dissection, base of the burnt mark is pale, hard and kerotinized with everted margins. 2.Abrasion 5 cms x linear x skin deep noted below the right chest. 3.Abrasion 3 cms x 2 cms noted over right chest.” But, as per para 5 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically mentioned that Pandeeswari had died due to electrocution while placing her hand on the bore well pipe, wherein the electricity supply was leaking. But, there is no burnt injury on the hands. Hence, the suspicious circumstances mentioned by the petitioner is appeared to be genuine. Since the deceased herself has sustained injury on the chest portion as well as in the private parts, the attitude of the respondent that he has investigated the matter and dropped the case would show that the 3rd respondent has not done his investigation in a correct direction. 5.In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, instead of transferring the investigation from the 3rd respondent to the file of the 4th respondent CBCID., I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to appoint https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 a neutral officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, directing him to conduct further investigation in crime No.2282 of 2010 on the file of the Tallakulam Police Station and to file the final report within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, in crime No.2282 of 2010 Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., O/o.C.B.C.I.D., Madurai, Madurai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul akm/23.8.11 /3p-6c/ Crl.O.P(MD)No.7846 of 2011 10.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/