IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35853 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 357/2006 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALAPPUZHA NARAYANAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, CHAKKAMADATHIL HOUSE, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, KANDASSANKADAVU DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.I OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR. 3. C.I. OF POLICE, PEECHI POLICE STATION, PEECHI, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 35853/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY SUJATHA DISAPPEARENCE ENQUIRY ACTION COUNCIL. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 2573 DT. 09/07/07 IN THE 5TH MEETING OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / tga M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.35853 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 30th July 2009 JUDGMENT A 76 years old father filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the investigation of crime 357/2006 of Anthikkad police station to be entrusted to some efficient agency. Sujatha, the eldest daughter of the petitioner was married to Manikantan on 26/4/2004. She was residing with her husband. There was no issues. On 15/9/2006 she was reported missing. On getting information that Sujatha did not report to the work, petitioner enquired and finding that she is missing, lodged a complaint based on which crime 357/2006 of Anthikkad police station was registered under the caption man missing. As no progress was seen, a committee was formed in respect of the missing of Sujatha. The said committee submitted Ext.P1 representation to the Home Minister. According to the petitioner no proper investigation was conducted and hence investigation WPC 35853/08 2 is to be entrusted to an efficient agency. 2. Sub Inspector of Police, Anthikkad police station filed a statement disclosing that on 17/9/2006 getting a report about the missing of Sujatha, crime 357/2006 was registered under the caption man missing and enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that she was residing with her husband and had gone to work on 15/9/2006 and a witness who had traveled along with Sujatha in the bus stated that she alighted from the bus at Thanapadam stop and in spite of questioning several witnesses nothing could be revealed. It is also stated that an unidentified dead body of a lady about the same age of Sujatha was found in Peechi police station limit and crime 253/2006 under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure was registered in that police station. Though dresses of that lady was shown to the petitioner, he could not identify and though investigation continued till 30/5/2007, as no clue could be obtained the case diary was closed with a final report that case is undetected. It was submitted to the Magistrate and chemical analysis report in crime 253/2006 of Peechi police station is WPC 35853/08 3 yet to be received. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. Statement of Sub Inspector of Anthikkad police station who conducted enquiry under Section 174/175 of Code of Criminal Procedure discloses the sad plight of parents of a woman, who belongs to the lower strata of the society who was reportedly missing. In spite of the fact that dead body of a woman of similar age was found within the police station limit of Peechi, no effective step was taken to find out whether that body is that of the missing Sujatha. At this age, there are several methods to identify the dead body including DNA finger printing which is available at Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnolory. Unfortunately, no test was conducted to find out whether the unidentified body found on 18/9/2006 is that of Sujatha the missing lady in this case. Though Sub Inspector has stated that father of that lady, who was married 2½ years earlier to that day, did not identify the blouse and the underskirt it was not shown to the husband or female relatives so as to find out whether the WPC 35853/08 4 dresses are that of Sujatha or not. It is absolutely clear that no proper enquiry/investigation was conducted. In such circumstances, first respondent is to be directed to entrust the investigation of crime No.357/2006 of Anthikkad police station to C.B.C.I.D. to conduct a proper investigation and to submit a report under Section 173(2) to the concerned court. It cannot be a further investigation as after investigation report under Section 173(2) was filed but continuation of the investigation. Petition is disposed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for direction, if any. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.