IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 22359 of 2009(Q) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, CHENGAL KARA, KANJOOR VADAKUM BHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHY, PEECHY POLICE STATION, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY FOR HOMES, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.A.SALIM R4 BY ADV. MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON 03/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 22359 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to conduct further investigation in Crime No.39 of 2001 of Peachy Police Station and entrust the investigation to C.B.I. 2. According to the petitioner, his brother Johnson was brutally murdered at the instance of his relatives one, Cheriachan and two, Johnachan. These two persons were engaged in spices business. They adopted questionable means and became rich very soon. Johnson, the brother of the petitioner was their driver cum salesman for a long time. According to the petitioner, the dispute arose between his brother and the other two regarding some cash transaction. It is pointed out that as a result of the said dispute, Johnson was implicated in a false criminal case. The petitioner says WPC.22359/2009. 2 that Johnson has openly declared that he would disclose the illegal activities of Johnachan and Cheriyachan. It is stated that Johnson had become a sore in the eye for them and they wanted to eliminate him. 3. On 12.2.2001 the butchered body of the brother of the petitioner was found near Kuthiran curve of Thrissur-Palakkad N.H. The body was decomposed. Initially the body could not be identified. F.I.R. was registered as Crime No. 39 of 2001 under the caption unnatural death. It is stated that two months thereafter some police men attached to Chalakudy Police Station came to meet the wife of the deceased and told her that her husband had been murdered. She identified the under cloths of her husband and the body was then identified as that of Johnson. 4. It is pointed out that there was a pre-planned move to scuttle the investigation and the persons concerned ensured that no proper investigation was done. A false story regarding the antecedents of Johnson was spread and he was defamed. The police had colluded with the real culprits WPC.22359/2009. 3 and helped them to escape. The police version is that three persons were nabbed under suspicious circumstances from Chalakudy and during interrogation they confessed to the murder of Johnson. Attention is drawn to the fact that the weapon used by the assailants is not seen recovered and a false story that it has been thrown into a river has been made up. The cloth which was used to cover the body, according to the police was stolen from a house near Aishwarta Nagar, Aluva KSRTC Quarters. The attesters to the various mahazars were not creditworthy persons and are suspicious persons. To say the least, according to the petitioner, the investigating agency has ensured that the real culprits are not apprehended and it cooked up a story. Trial became a mockery. So many allegations are made in the petition. Ultimately it is stated that there has been no proper investigation and that has caused considerable prejudice to the family of the deceased. 5. Attention is drawn to the judgment in the Sessions Case relating to the incident, in which the learned WPC.22359/2009. 4 Judge had observed that “the possibility of others involving in the incident cannot be ruled out.” It is therefore contended that the court which tried the case itself was not satisfied with the investigation and was of the opinion that the real culprits have not been brought to book. Based on these circumstances that a further investigation by the CBI is sought. 6. As directed by this court, the second respondent C.I. of Police who conducted the investigation has filed a statement. 7. It is pointed out by him that Crime No.39 of 2001 under the caption unnatural death was registered by Peechy police on the complaint of one Chackochan on 19.1.2001. An unidentified body was seen near Kuthiran Sree Dharmasastha Temple within Peechi Police station. At the time of discovery of the body, it was in a decomposed stage and seven days old. The postmortem examination revealed that it was a case of murder, and therefore the charge was framed to be one under Section 302 IPC. WPC.22359/2009. 5 8. It so happened that during the investigation of Crime No.192 of 2001 under Section 41(b)(d) 12 of the Cr.P.C. registered at Chalakudy Police Station the Sub Inspector of Police arrested two persons, namely Shahul Hameed and Laiju Jacob. When they were interrogated, it had come out that one Johnson, Laiju, Hari, Biju and Sudharsan are their friends and they were indulging in stealing vehicles and other illegal activities. The money so got were shared between them. When Johnson's behaviour became irritating to them and that they suspected that Johnson might inform the police, they planned to do away with him. On 12.2.2001 it is stated that Johnson was called to Aluva and he was then taken in a car. Then he was stabbed to death. The weapon used to murder Johnson, according to the accused, had been thrown into a river. Finally after investigation charge was laid for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. It is pointed out that proper investigation was done and the investigating agency has done all that it WPC.22359/2009. 6 could. It had not left any stone unturned. 9. The Case Dairy was made available for perusal. It shows that extensive investigation has been done. It is significant to notice that wife of late Johnson was examined before court and she had no case that the case put forward by the prosecution is untrue. Several witnesses were questioned and several documents were seized. The investigating agency was unable to recover the weapon said to have been used for the commission of the offence as that had been thrown into a river. Much criticism is levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding this aspect and it is contended that it is so stated deliberately to avoid recovery of weapon. 10. One must notice that the acts are said to have taken place in various places. He was taken from Aluva, murdered at a different place and the body was dumped in yet another place. This type of murder is not very uncommon. The planned murderers take recourse to methods to remain unidentified. In this case also the same WPC.22359/2009. 7 thing was done and the criticism levelled by the petitioner that this could not have been so, may not be correct. This court has come across several such instances where a person is taken from one place, murdered in another place and the body was dumped in another place making the investigation extremely difficult. 11. It is true that at a much later stage, the wife of the deceased has made a statement that she suspects involvement of more persons. But what is interesting is that she too had no case that Cheriyachan and Johnachan as claimed by the petitioner have any role to play in the incident. The finding of the investigating agency that Johnson had connections with a few others, who are indulged in vehicle theft is not denied by the wife of the deceased at the time of giving evidence before the Sessions Court or at a later stage while giving further statement. Merely because the court below has observed that more persons may be involved in the incident does not lead to an automatic conclusion that the investigating agency has left WPC.22359/2009. 8 out the real culprits. 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. The suspicion voiced by the petitioner seems to be quite misplaced. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.