IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 1346 of 2006(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K. RAMACHANDRAN, KALATHIL PARAMBILE HOUSE, CMC 27, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. -------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2006 --------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to produce letter dated 09-02- 2005 referred to in the counter statement filed in the earlier writ petition by the 5th respondent, and to direct respondent No.2 the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate further, Crime No.41 of 2005 of Palarivattom Police Station. Petitioner is the father of deceased Sindhu who died under suspicious circumstances on 06-02-2005 at her matrimonial home. Sindhu was married to Srinivasan on 06-11-2003. After marriage she was living at her matrimonial house at Palarivattom. Srinivasan was employed in Bombay and he was occasionally visiting his house at Palarivattom. Under Annexure 2 FIR Crime 41/2005 under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure was registered Ext.P1 Postmortem W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2010 2 certificate shows the cause of death of Sindhu was electrocution. When the investigation was not satisfactory to the petitioner and inspite of Ext.P5 mass petition submitted before the Chief Minister and the suspicion raised by Ext.P4 series of news paper reports, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20991 of 2005 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entrust the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 27-07-2005, this Court after finding that there is no material or circumstance warranting to hold that investigation conducted was not proper or to direct further investigation, to allay the grievance and suspicion “that may be lurking in the mind of the petitioner”, directed Deputy Superintendent of Police to scrutinize and verify the entire case diary and if he finds that there are some loose ends, then to conduct further investigation. This petition is filed contending that subsequent to Ext.P7 judgment, no proper investigation was W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2010 3 conducted and in such circumstances, the investigation is to be entrusted to the CBI. 2. The Investigating Officer submitted a statement disclosing that subsequent to Ext.P7 judgment, Assistant Commissioner of police scrutinised the entire case records and found that the death of Sindhu was due to electrocution, as confirmed in the earlier investigation and therefore, there was no necessity to conduct a further investigation. It is also stated that the report of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam establish that electrocution was from the wet grinder, which was examined by the Electrical Inspector. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. The petitioner earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C).No.20991 of 2005 seeking the some relief contending that investigation is not proper and proper investigation is to be ordered. It was disposed under Ext.P1 judgment. This writ petition W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2010 4 is filed as if this Court had earlier found that there are some loose ends and it was directed to be verified and to conduct a further investigation and it was not done and as there is no chance for a proper investigation by the local Police, the investigation is to be entrusted to the CBI. 5. Ext.P7 judgment does not support the contentions of the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of Ext.P7 judgment reads thus; “ I have carefully perused the postmortem report and the statement filed by the investigating Officer. Prima- facie, I do not find any material or circumstance to take a view that the investigation in the case has not been conducted properly. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has been persistent in his plea to direct a further investigation by any other agency, I am not inclined to accede to the said request on the face of the materials available before this W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2010 5 court at this stage. However, to allay the grievance and suspicion that may be lurking in the mind of the petitioner, I am of the view that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can be directed to verify the entire records and conduct a further investigation, if so warranted”. It is therefore, clear that there is no finding by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment that there are any loose ends in the investigation warranting further investigation. On the other hand, this Court directed an Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to scrutinize the entire case diary with an open mind just to allay the suspicion that may be lurking in the mind of the petitioner and not for the reason that this Court found it necessary to order further investigation, Ext.P7 judgment do not direct any further investigation and instead left it to be the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2010 6 Police on scrutinising the case diary and find that there are some loose ends, to conduct further investigation. When Asst. Commissioner of Police after scrutinising the file found that the earlier conclusion is correct and death is due to electrocution from the wet grinder used in the kitchen, I find no justification for the petitioner to seek investigation by CBI especially when this Court on clear terms declared in Ext.P7 judgment that the Investigation was proper. Petition is therefore, dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE pm