IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14983 of 2010(Q) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.47/2010 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION. ..................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SASANKAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PULIYATHU CHARUVILLA VEEDU, PALACHIRA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P., SRI. A.SABEER. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DIST). 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.14983 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 25th November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, the father of deceased Aneesh Kumar, who was found dead in the early morning of 10/3/2002 at the work place in a suspicious manner, filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing investigation of crime No.47/2010 of Valiyamala Police Station, registered under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by a Special Investigation Team, excluding respondents 3 and 4 and to complete the investigation within a time frame. 2. Deceased Aneesh Kumar was working as Work Supervisor in Sree Dhanya Constructions. At the time of his death, he was engaged in the work site at Chullimanoor Wpc 14983/10 2 near Nedumangadu. Petitioner would contend that police is now making watchman Murugan, the sole accused suppressing the true facts. It is contended that though prosecution alleges that Aneesh Kumar had consumed liquor on the previous night, he is not in the habit of drinking and postmortem certificate shows that he had not consumed liquor. Accused Murugan is the helper of abkari contractors and he is only a paid accused. It is also contended that dress and watch found on the dead body does not belong to the deceased and though it was pointed out by the petitioner to the investigating officer, that aspect was disregarded and petitioner was threatened. It is also alleged that some of the co-workers were transferred after the incident. These are suspicious circumstances, which warrant proper investigation. Wpc 14983/10 3 2. Circle Inspector, Nedumangadu filed a statement showing the progress of the investigation. Statement reveals that crime under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure was registered based on the information furnished by Murugan, the watch man of the work site and the statement discloses that the deceased along with other workers had consumed liquor and on the morning, he was found dead and Assistant Sub Inspector of Police arranged to take photographs of the body of the deceased and conducted inquest which revealed five visible abrasions and the body was sent for autopsy. Dr.Sharija, Senior Lecturer and Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine conducted autopsy. He certified the cause of death as due to the blunt injury sustained to abdomen. Sub Inspector of Police therefore altered the Wpc 14983/10 4 offence to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sent a report to the Magistrate. Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad took over the investigation on 15/3/2010. On the investigation conducted and questioning the accused Murugan finding that he is involved, he was arrested on 16/3/2010. Remaining broken torch light which was used by the accused to assault the deceased was recovered on 17/3/2010 at 10 p.m from the STD booth near the scene of crime, based on the confession statement of the said Murugan. Murugan was shown as the accused and report was submitted before the Magistrate. Investigation reveals that Murugan alone was responsible for the murder of Aneesh Kumar and a thorough investigation is being conducted. 3. Learned Government Pleader made available the case diary. It is perused. Wpc 14983/10 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that there was allegation with regard to the construction of road and based on a complaint, enquiry was conducted and deceased Aneesh Kumar had knowledge about the malpractices therein and it is for that reason the Management was interested in seeing Aneesh Kumar dead and this aspect was not properly investigated, going through the case diary, I do not find that any material was unearthed to support any of allegations. No material is produced to show that an enquiry on the construction of road was even made. Petitioner did not make available any material in support of any of the allegations. 5. Learned counsel then argued that postmortem certificate does not reveal that Wpc 14983/10 6 deceased Aneesh Kumar had consumed liquor. Postmortem certificate will not reveal whether deceased had consumed liquor or not. Stomach contents were collected and sent for chemical analysis. Unless the report is obtained, it cannot be found out whether the deceased had consumed liquor on the previous night. Therefore, for the reason that postmortem certificate does not reveal that deceased had consumed liquor, it cannot be said that there was no proper investigation. 6. Though learned counsel argued that Circle Inspector Pradeep Kumar had threatened the petitioner, it is seen from the case diary that Pradeep Kumar had investigated the case only till May 2010 and the case is thereafter being investigated by Circle Inspector, P.Velayudhan Nair. On perusing the case diary, I do not find that any particular Wpc 14983/10 7 aspects were not investigated and omitted to be investigated. Therefore, I do not find that in the interest of justice the investigating agency is to be changed as sought for. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, it is directed that investigation is to be conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to see that investigation of crime No.47/2010 of Valiyamala police station is supervised by a competent Senior police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigation must be fair and effective. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.