IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17548 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 44 YEARS, VADAKARATADATHIL VEEDU, KUNJIKARA, PURAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 314. 3. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686 681. 4. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INTERNATIONAL STADIUM BUILDING, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 025. 5. THE PRINCIPAL.T.D, MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA . 6. THE PROFESSOR AND POLICE SURGEON, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE, T.D.MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 7. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI. 8. ABRAHAM, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, EICHIRAVELIYIL VEEDU, PERUMPALLY, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI, RAMESH VIJAYAN R7 BY ADV. SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17548 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 28.06.2004 P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AND PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY P4: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CBCID ERNAKULAM FIR NO:85/CR/EKM/06 DT.16.05.2007 P5: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER IN VARIOUS MALAYALAM NEWS PAPERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) 16726/2010 DT.11.06.2010 P7: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER IN CMP NO:1929/2010 IN SC 288/2007 DT.05.10.2010 P8: COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM REPORT DATED 02.05.2004 BY LECTURER OF FORENSIC MEDICINE UNDER THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS P9: COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT.2.4.2011 AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS P10: COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS DATED 12.5.2011 P11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE HOME DEPARTMENT. P12: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.6.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No: 17548 OF 2011 (P) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the brother of deceased Shani. She was found dead on 1.5.2004. The police, on information, conducted inquest. The death, according to them was due to consumption of poison. Crime No:112/2004 was registered by Mulanthuruthy Police Station. So many representations were sent by the brother of the deceased, who is the petitioner herein. Request was made even to have further investigation by the C.B.I.. After conducting investigation, DySP filed a charge sheet against the petitioner's husband under section 498A of I.P.C. Again complaints were made by the petitioner. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to C.B.C.I.D., Ernakulam. W.P.(C) No: 17548 OF 2011 (P) -2- Investigation was again conducted by the DySP, C.B.C.I.D., where upon he filed further report alleging commission of offence under sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. by the husband of the deceased. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court as per Exhibit P6 judgment. As per Exhibit P6 judgment this Court directed the petitioner to file a petition before the trial Court seeking further investigation by the police. The trial Court was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner. It was observed in case that Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I., that Court may send a report to this Court giving reasons for the same. It was further observed that on receipt of that report, this Writ Petition shall be revived and appropriate orders shall be passed by this Court. As directed, petition was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions W.P.(C) No: 17548 OF 2011 (P) -3- Judge, Ernakulam considered the matter in detail. It was observed that a perusal of the case file would show that all the material witnesses were questioned by Investigating Officer and they were cited by the Prosecution to prove the offence alleged against the petitioner. It was also noted by the Court below that there is nothing on record to show that any material witness was omitted to be questioned during investigation, to suggest that the investigation was not properly conducted. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem found no injury or any mark on the body of the deceased to prove that there was forcible administration of poison. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not specifically mentioned by the Doctor that she had taken viscera and sent it for chemical analysis or that it was preserved. It was also pointed out W.P.(C) No: 17548 OF 2011 (P) -4- that no witness did tell the Investigating Officer that residue of poison consumed by the deceased was available in the house. Mere failure to collect the residue of poison cannot create any suspicion to hold that the investigation is defective. Since the Autopsy report is clear that the death was due to organo phosphorous compound poisoning and as there is nothing to suggest that it is a homicide, the contention that the C.B.I. should be entrusted with the investigation cannot be sustained. As such, I find no reason to allow this petition. It is hence dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj