IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 945 of 2009() ------------------------ SC.115/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC III)ERNAKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.547/2007 OF KALADY POLICE STATION) ........ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MANU MATHEW,AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.MATHEW, MAIN HOUSE, VALLIKUNNU DESOM, VALLIKUNNU VILLAGE, KANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.T.D.ROBIN, MR.P.LEAN JOSE, MR.R.ANUP. MR.V.DEEPU. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JOSEPH @ BABY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,NELMELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY C.I.OF POLICE CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION(CRIME NO.547/07) OF KALADY POLICE STATION REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.945 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the son of deceased Rejina. Subsequent to the death of father of the petitioner, Rejina had married first respondent, the sole accused in S.C.No.115/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He is facing trial on the charge for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, Rejina was found hanging in the house of first respondent, where she was living with him and when she was taken to the hospital she was reported dead and the death was suicide. It is on the allegation that first respondent abetted her to commit suicide and also treated her with such cruelty driving her to commit suicide, final report under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure was laid for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a CRMC 945/09 2 direction for further investigation of the case. 2. Though S.C.No.115/2007 is pending before the court in respect of the incident, according to the petitioner, there was no proper investigation in that case and there was absolutely no motive for the deceased to commit suicide and on the other hand, there is sufficient motive for the first respondent to cause her death. Petitioner would contend that because of the death of Rejina, it was the first respondent, who was profited and the Investigating Officer had not properly questioned the witnesses who could have thrown light into the manner in which the death was caused and the person responsible and therefore, in the interest of justice, the case is to be investigated further. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the postmortem report of the deceased Rejina establish that there were several anti- mortem injuries and from the nature of the CRMC 945/09 3 injuries, it is clear that it is not a case of suicide and the Investigating Officer did not probe as to how the anti-mortem injuries were caused and did not question the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy and if a proper investigation was conducted, it would have found that it was not a case of suicide, but homicide. Learned counsel also argued that according to prosecution, two sisters were called by the first respondent, on finding his wife hanging from the roof and it is with the help of those sisters the body was taken to the ground and the said sisters are not witnesses to the case and it is a fatal omission which establishes that investigation was not fair and therefore, interest of justice warrants a further investigation. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, reported that the death was due to hanging and on the basis of investigation, it was revealed that it was not a case of homicide, but suicide and first CRMC 945/09 4 respondent has abetted her to commit suicide and also treated her with such cruelty which compelled her to commit suicide and therefore, there is no reason to direct a further investigation at this stage. 6. On hearing the learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and on going through the materials produced, I do not find this a case to order further investigation and that too at this belated stage. The petition itself was filed much after the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Even though after investigation final report was filed, petitioner did not file any private complaint alleging homicide by the first respondent as now claimed. Though the postmortem certificate showed other anti-mortem injuries, the possibility of causing those injuries, if prosecution case is accepted, cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, based on the anti-mortem injuries alone, it is not proper to direct further investigation. Similarly, petitioner has no case that he has any information CRMC 945/09 5 from the sisters, who are not shown as witnesses, that the incident did not occur as alleged by prosecution and they were purposely suppressed by prosecution. In such circumstances, prayer for further investigation cannot be accepted. At the same time, if, in the case now pending trial, some other material is unveiled with regard to the cause of death, which warrants a further investigation and the Investigating Officer seeks permission for further investigation, learned Sessions Judge is competent to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is dismissed. 1st July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv