IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5838 of 2010(Q) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BIJU, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL VEEDU, MAILACKAL WARD, KALAYANADU-VALACODU, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.5838 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.176 of 2009 of Punalur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. That case was registered on the first information given by the petitioner alleging that on 24.02.2009 two named persons and six other identifiable persons attacked him with deadly weapons. The Sub Inspector of that Station registered the case Ext.P4, being the FIR. Since according to the petitioner investigation was not proceeding in the correct line he filed Ext.P5, petition before learned Magistrate requesting learned Magistrate to monitor the investigation. Learned Magistrate called for a report regarding the present stage of investigation. The Circle Inspector who had taken over investigation of the case filed report dated 27.01.2010. In that report he stated that the two persons named by petitioner in the first information statement are not involved in the incident. It is also stated that no clue could be obtained as to W.P(C) No.5838 of 2010 -: 2 :- the identity of the other persons involved in the incident, investigation is proceeding in the correct line and if in the course of further investigation direct or indirect involvement of accused 1 and 2 named by petitioner is revealed, appropriate action would be taken against them. Petitioner has approached this Court with a request to hand over investigation of the case to the Crime Branch. Learned counsel contended that though the incident occurred on 24.09.2009 until now the investigating agency was not able to ascertain who are the accused involved in the case while concluding that accused 1 and 2 are not involved in the case. According to the learned counsel the Circle Inspector has ruled out involvement of accused 1 and 2 for flimsy reasons such as that petitioner has not disclosed the names of accused 1 and 2 to the Medical Officer while the latter was examining him immediately after the incident and local witnesses including a relative of petitioner (Anirudhan) who is running a tailoring shop near the place of occurrence stated that accused 1 and 2 are not involved in the incident. 2. The Circle Inspector has filed a statement referring to the investigation conducted so far which is in tune with Ext.P3, report referred above. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that W.P(C) No.5838 of 2010 -: 3 :- investigation is proceeding in the correct line and at this stage change of hands is not necessary. 3. I have gone through the statement filed by the Circle Inspector who is presently investigating the case. Though it is the version of the Circle Inspector that witnesses in and around the locality including a relative of petitioner (Anirudhan) have given statement ruling out involvement of accused 1 and 2, the said Anirudhan has filed an affidavit in this Court that in connection with the incident he was not questioned by any police Officer. Truth of that statement in the affidavit has to be ascertained. Investigating Officer has stated that accused No.1 is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram for the last 20 years and engaged in document writing. But it is not clear whether Investigating Officer has checked up with the office of the Sub Registrar concerned whether on 24.09.2009 accused No.1 has prepared or signed any document so that his presence at Thiruvananthapuram on that day could be ensured. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, the Circle Inspector would say that he is the local committee member of a political party and President of the local Library. 4. The mere fact that petitioner, even if the statement W.P(C) No.5838 of 2010 -: 4 :- came from him at a time when he had been inflicted with so many injuries did not disclose name of assailants to the Medical Officer cannot by itself be a ground to rule out involvement of any of the assailants. Various factors may have prevented petitioner from not mentioning the name of assailants at that time. It is also the position of law that even if the name of any assailant is mentioned, it is not obligatory for the Medical Officer to record it. It would appear that the Circle Inspector has not investigated the matter in the proper line. Investigation by another agency is required. 5. Then the question is whether the matter is to be entrusted to the Crime Branch. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that an Officer superior in rank to the Circle Inspector having jurisdiction over the area can be entrusted with the investigation. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: (i) It is directed that investigation of the case shall be conducted by an Officer superior in rank to the Circle Inspector having jurisdiction over the area where the incident occurred. That W.P(C) No.5838 of 2010 -: 5 :- Officer shall conduct investigation having regard to the grievance of petitioner and the alleged involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 notwithstanding the opinion the Circle Inspector has formed. The Officer shall investigate into all aspects of the matter and find whether accused Nos.1 and 2 are involved in the case and also trace out the other assailants if any involved in the incident. (ii) The Additional Director General of Police, Crimes, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to issue necessary orders in the above line within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which shall be made available by the petitioner to that Officer. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv