IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 921 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22359/2009 Dated 03/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): WRIT PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. PAILY, CHITTINAPPALLY HOUSE, CHENGAL KARA, KANJOOR VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHY, PEECHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOR HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R-4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 921 OF 2010 ================ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T J.Chelameswar, C.J. The unsuccessful petitioner in WP(C) No.22359/2009 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 3rd March, 2010. 2. The writ petition is filed with prayers as follows:- i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, direct further investigation in crime No.39/2001 of Peachy Police Station and entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau Investigation. ii.Issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The substance of the writ petition is that the brother of the petitioner/appellant herein was murdered on 12/2/2001. The partially decomposed body of the brother of the appellant was found near Kuthiran curve of Thrissur-Palakkad N.H. within the jurisdiction of Peechy Police Station on 19/2/2001. An FIR was registered as Crime No.39/2001 on the above mentioned Police Station. Eventually the matter came to be tried by the Additional WA 921/2010 : 2 : Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No.1, Thrissur in Sessions Case No.639/2006. Accused Nos.1,2,4 and 5 were tried for offences under Sections 120B and 302 and Section 201 read with 34 of of the Indian Penal Code. On consideration of the evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court found the accused not to be guilty of the offences. 4. In so far as the third accused is concerned, the case was split up as he was absconding and could not be traced out. The case of the said accused is pending as Sessions Case No.1101/2008 of the same Court. The above mentioned judgment has become final and the judgment is dated 30th June, 2008. It is in the above background the writ petition came to be filed on 4th of August, 2009 before this Court. 5. The substance of the writ petition is that the murder was organized by two named individuals, who are not made parties to the writ petition, who are related to the deceased and the writ petitioner. Various allegations of inefficiency and inaccuracy in the investigation by the investigating process are made in the writ petition. The appellant believes and alleged in WA 921/2010 : 3 : the writ petition that “the police have purposefully colluded with the real accused and stage managed a drama of mock investigation”. By the judgment under appeal, the said writ petition was dismissed. The learned Judge of this Court recorded in the judgment that a very extensive investigation was done into the case and also the learned Judge recorded “from a perusal of the CD, it would appear that the investigation has been done in a proper manner and the investigating agency has done all that it could”. Hence the appeal. 6. The appellant points to various circumstances obtaining in the investigation which according to the appellant indicate that the investigation proceeded in the wrong direction with a view to save the real culprits and also to help the accused to secure acquittal. 7. No doubt that the Sessions Case ended in an acquittal. It is not that in every case where a criminal case ended up in acquittal that it is to be inferred that the investigating agency deliberately sabotaged the investigation. It is possible that in a given case for various reasons, such a new availability of WA 921/2010 : 4 : appropriate evidence or investigation falls short of the requisite standards of efficiency. It is also possible no doubt that in a given case the investigation is deliberately conducted on the wrong lines to sabotage the prosecution case. 8. A learned Judge of this Court on a perusal of the Case Diary and examination of the entire records has recorded a finding that the investigation in the instant case proceeded on proper lines. The incident took place a decade back. If really the appellant is of the opinion that the investigation is not proceeding on the right lines, nothing prevented the appellant to lodge a private complaint under the Cr.PC. The appellant never availed of such a process, instead chose to prefer this writ petition almost a decade after the crime and a year after the acquittal was recorded. 9. Apart from the conduct of the appellant in delaying to approach this Court, in our opinion, no useful purpose would be served by reopening this case at this stage, a decade after the incident as whatever evidence in support of the allegations made by the appellant would either have disappeared by now or the WA 921/2010 : 5 : evidence collected at this stage would be of little value. (Oral evidence collected after a long lapse of time would be highly unreliable in a criminal case). In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp