IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9589 of 2009 Between: P. Venkat Rao S/o. Nageshwar Rao R/o. Peespadu, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Director General of Police, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 Additional Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4 Station House Officer, Kotapalli Police Station, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the police in making proper enquiry into the death of the petitioner’s wife Smt P.Swarnalatha, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Peespadu Village, Guntur District. He claimed to have shifted his family along with his wife to Supaka Village, Kotapally Mandal, Adilabad District two years ago. On 22.12.2008, his wife left the house to the agricultural fields. She has not returned home for two days but on the third day, her dead body was found in Pranahitha River. After conducting panchanama and post mortem, the police registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death). The petitioner suspected involvement of four persons by names, 1) Kurma Venkata Swamy Goud, Ex-Sarpanch, Venchapally, 2) Domakonda Punnam, Son of Sri D.Narayana, 3) Mondaiah, Son of Sri Babu and 4) Sirimala Srinu, Son of Sri Mallaiah, who are residents of Venchapally, as responsible for his wife’s death. Though he gave a complaint on 24.12.2008 to the police, they have not taken any step to interrogate the suspects and they failed to carry on proper investigation into the involvement of the said suspects. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 24.12.2008 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kotapalli, stating that he found his wife’s dead body in Pranahitha River and requested to conduct panchanama on the dead body before handing over the same to him; that based on the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2008 and that the said Officer visited the scene of offence at Pranahitha River, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and shifted the same to the Government Civil Hospital, Chennur for post mortem. It is further stated that the predecessor of the answering respondent suspected four persons and the interrogation revealed that the deceased along with one of the suspects - G.Mondi was crossing Pranahitha River and both of them fell in the river accidentally. It is also stated that while the petitioner’s wife died on the spot, G.Mondi survived. The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, gave the opinion that the death was caused due to drowning. A careful perusal of the averments in the counter affidavit reveals that no proper investigation appeared to have been done in ascertaining whether the said four persons are responsible for the death of the wife of the petitioner. No report is produced before this Court showing the details of investigation and the information elicited from the four suspects, who were allegedly interrogated by the predecessor of respondent No.4. It is the duty of the police to rule out the involvement of any person in the death of the deceased before coming to the final conclusion. Even if the cause of death is not in dispute, there may be a chance of the deceased being killed by being pushed in the river by any of the suspects. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the police to hold proper investigation. If it is eventually found that all or any of the suspects were involved in the death of the wife of the petitioner, the police have to take appropriate action in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to take action in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure for re-investigation. He shall ensure that fresh investigation is completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and an appropriate report is filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate after completion of investigation. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.12495 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th JUNE, 2009. kvni