IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 26321 OF 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, PARUTHI PAZHANIVILA VEEDU, NEDUVANVILA, MURIYANKARA DESOM PARASSALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL0, KURAVANKOAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA CIRCLE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. RAJEEV @ JOY, S/O. RAJAN, R.V.NIVAS, NAKRANCHIRA, PALOLI DESOM, VEERANAKAVU, P.O., KATTAKADA. 4. SAJU S/O. KUTTAN, NEERKUZHI MEKKUMKARA VEEDU, KADUKKANINNAVILA, NEAR MALAPPURAMCODE JUNCTION, KARODE VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. JOY SHAJI, S/O. SUNDARA BAI, PALAVILA VEEDU, VADALIKIUTTOM, SOUTH OF CSI CHURCH, KOLADI, KUZHUTHURA P.O., VILAVAMCODE TALUK, K.K.DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 6. KUBENDRAN, S/O. RAMUTHERAR, DOOR NO.2/42, NEAR PACHIYAMMON KOVIL STREET, NEAR SIKKAMMAL, THILAKKAR THILAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT TAMILNADU. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO. 26321 OF 2008 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.150/2007 PREPARED BY PARASSALA, POLICE DATED 6.4.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.7.2007 IN W.P. (C)NO.14441/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2007 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 18.10.2007 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT –II, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2008 BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26321 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime case registered over the theft of a motor vehicle, a lorry. The vehicle belonging to him was stolen, on the night of 29.3.2007, was the case of the complainant/petitioner. Previously, the petitioner had approached this court filing a writ petition complaining that the crime registered over his complaint regarding the theft of the vehicle was not properly investigated. This court had issued some directions including a direction to the Superintendent of Police, to monitor and supervise the investigation of the crime by the Circle Inspector of Police, Parassala Circle. Pursuant to the direction so issued, during the course of the investigation, respondents 3 to 6 in the present petition had been apprehended by the police. Those respondents are alleged to have committed the theft of the vehicle. Though the arrest of those respondents was W.P.(C)No.26321 of 2008 :: 2 :: made, the grievance of the petitioner is that no effective steps were taken by the police, despite the directions issued by this court, to recover the stolen vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that after the arrest and production of respondents 3 to 6 before the magistrate court, the police had obtained their custody, but on the very next day, the 6th respondent was produced back before the court stating that he suffered from epilepsy. Effective custodial interrogation of the 6th respondent, according to the petitioner, would have yielded information where the stolen vehicle was secreted. Petitioner very much doubts the veracity of the statement made by the police (investigating agency) as to the 6th respondent having had episodes of epilepsy. Though the police has filed final report indicting respondents 3 to 6 as the accused, who had committed theft of the vehicle, in view of the non-recovery of the stolen article, according to the counsel, it may be difficult to establish the indictment levelled against them. W.P.(C)No.26321 of 2008 :: 3 :: 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 6th respondent was returned the very next day after getting his custody from the court, since he suffered from epilepsy. A certificate from the doctor who examined that accused was also produced to state why his custodial interrogation was not proper in view of his serious ailment. 3. Whatever be the ground for returning the 6th respondent the next day after getting him for custodial interrogation it cannot be given too much significance. It is not a decisive factor in considering the prosecution case against respondents 3 to 6, when final report is already filed by the police. Likewise, the recovery of the stolen article may not be decisive, if there are other materials to bring home the guilt of the accused/indictees. Those are all matters to be considered by the learned magistrate. For the sole reason that the investigating agency has failed to recover the stolen article it may not be possible to conclude that there was no effective investigation, that too after directions had been given in the W.P.(C)No.26321 of 2008 :: 4 :: previous writ petition. Since the police has already filed a report, indicting respondents 3 to 6 as the culprits involved in the crime, whether or not they are guilty of the offences charged against them is a matter to be decided after trial. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no direction need be issued for further investigation of the crime. Writ petition is, therefore, closed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//