IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 18911 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RETNAMMA, VILAYILVEEDU, KIZHAKKEPPURAM, AYIROOR PO., VARKALA BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.18911 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated 27th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the mother of Shaji, whose body was found hanging on the upstair of the house, being constructed by him, on 6/7/2006, filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint a Senior Police Officer to investigate Crime No.411/2006 of Varkala Police Station registered under the caption “man missing” and subsequently converted under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Deceased Shaji was working in Gulf. He married Lyna and was staying with her and the father-in-law and mother-in-law and their children, since his return from Gulf 1½ years prior to the date Wpc 18911/08 2 of his missing. Sunil, bother-in-law of the deceased Shaji came to the house of the petitioner on 3/7/2006 and informed that Shaji was missing five days earlier to 3/7/2006. Petitioner went to Varkala Police Station and furnished the information of missing of Shaji based on which Crime No.411/2006 was registered under the caption man missing. On 6/7/2006 body was found hanging in decomposed stage in the upstair portion of the building, which was being constructed by Shaji. Petition is filed alleging that there was no proper investigation and though father-in-law and brother-in-law of Shaji had sustained injuries, suspected to be caused in the incident which led to the death of Shaji, no proper investigation was conducted. It was also contended that wife of Shaji had illicit Wpc 18911/08 3 relationship with one Sathishan, while Shaji was in Gulf and on his return, on getting information which was not originally believed by Shaji, he used to quarrel with the wife. Petitioner would contend that it was disclosed to her that some times prior to the date of missing there was quarrel between father-in-law and the wife of Shaji with him and something occurred and Matador Tempo Van owned by Shaji was taken by Sathishan and it is suspected that body was shifted. It is also contended that postmortem certificate shows the contusion of 8x4x0.3 c.m on the right of front of chest 7 cm to the right of midline and 4 c.m above costal margin, which shows that death was not due to hanging. It is also contended that close relatives of the wife of Shaji are influential and closed to leaders of the Wpc 18911/08 4 community and it is in such circumstances, no proper investigation is being conducted. It is therefore contended that, a direction is to be issued to conduct proper investigation by a Senior Police Officer. 2. Though there was a direction to file a statement, two years back no statement was filed by the respondents. 3. Learned Government Pleader made available the case diary. On going through the case diary, I find that proper investigation was not conducted. There are several suspicious circumstances, which warrants a proper investigation. Though Shaji was living along with the wife and in-laws and it was alleged that Shaji was missing five days prior to 3/7/2006, factum of missing was not reported to the police, either by the wife or the Wpc 18911/08 5 in-laws. The fact was not even informed to the mother or other relatives of Shaji. First statement recorded from the wife and father-in- law and brother-in-law show that as stated by the petitioner, petitioner was informed aboubt the missing only on 3/7/2006 by Sunil, brother- in-law of Shaji. Statement recorded shows that according to the wife and in-laws, on the previous night of date of missing, there was an attempt by Shaji to hang himself, after getting the wife hanged and as wife was not willing to join the husband, the fact was informed to the father-in-law. Statement shows that the deceased had allegedly tied rope, which was being used for the well on a fan. It was there, even in the morning. If that be the case, in the normal human conduct, if the husband is missing from the morning of the very next day, Wpc 18911/08 6 the wife and in-laws would definitely doubt whether he committed suicide as there was an attempt earlier. In that case, one would expect them to inform the relatives of the husband of Shaji or to make a thorough search or at least inform the police. But that was not done, what was admittedly done. 4. Though due to decomposed stage of the body, external injuries could not be found out by Dr.Rema who conducted the autopsy, postmortem certificate reveals that there was a contusion of 8x4x0.3 c.m on the right side of front of chest 7 c.m to right of midline and 4 cm above costal margin. How this injury was sustained and whether it is possible, in the case of a suicide by hanging, was not properly considered by the Investigating Officer. It is also seen from the case diary that by the time Wpc 18911/08 7 body of Shaji was found in the decomposed stage, there were injuries on the body of both the father-in-law and brother-in-law. Though explanation was offered by the brother-in-law, that he had fallen while sitting on a stool and sustained injury and treatment record was also procured, it is clear that considering the nature of the incident and conduct of the relatives, a proper investigation should have been carried out. In such circumstances, it is absolutely necessary to direct a proper investigation, irrespective of the finding arrived at by the Investigating Officer, based on the registration of the case under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Writ petition is allowed. Second respondent Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to entrust Wpc 18911/08 8 investigation of Crime No.411 of 2006 of Varakala Police Station to the CBCID with a direction that it shall be properly investigated by a superior police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. All efforts should be made to find out the truth and complete the investigation expeditiously and file a final report before the concerned Magistrate. Investigating Officer is directed to file report before Sub Divisional Magistrate to send the records to the concerned Magistrate including the FIR. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.