1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.369 of 2011 K.Arumugam ...Petitioner -Vs- State rep. by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai Sivagangai District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to order to transfer of the investigation in crime No.253 of 2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent - Inspector of Police, Kalayarkoil to the 4th respondent - Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai for proper investigation of the case. For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the transfer of investigation in crime No.253 of 2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent police to the 4th respondent for proper investigation of the case. 2. Heard Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the father of one Ramu @ Ramarajan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 one of the three sons of the petitioner and the said Ramu @ Ramarajan was trained in domestic electrical works and he was assisting in doing electrical works and he used to join with other fellow workers and to go for his employment. He would further submit that on 11.11.2010, one Pandiyarajan asked the petitioner's son Ramu @ Ramarajan to come along with him to Kalayarkovil to assist him in electrical works, but he said that he would come on 13.11.2010, owing to some pre-occupied functions to be attended by him. 4.He would further submit that on 13.11.2010, the said Pandiyarajan along with the petitioner's son and two others had gone to Kalayarkovil to do electrical works in the house of one Raja, Document Writer and in or about 2.00 p.m. the said Pandiyarajan phoned up to his mother's cell phone and informed that the petitioner's son Ramu @ Ramarajan fell down while doing electrical works at Kalayarkovil and sustained injuries and was taken to Sivagangai Government Hospital. 5.He would further submit that despite it was communicated by 2.00 p.m. on that day, it was conveyed to the petitioner only by 6.00 p.m. on that day through some other person viz., Meenakshi. He would again submit that the petitioner immediately went to Sivagangai Government Hospital and tried to see his son, but he could see his son only on 14.11.2010 at about 6.00 a.m. that too the body of his son with injuries. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Kalayarkovil Police Station about the death of his son on the suspicion that Pandiyarajan, Vadivel and Jeyachandran should have caused the death of his son Ramu @ Ramarajan. He would further submit that a case was registered in crime No.253 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., but the investigation of the case was not proceeded in proper line despite the postmortem certificate shows the external injuries with a grievous injury on the forehead of the son of the petitioner. 6.He would again submit that the important aspect of examining the doctor, who had given first aid at Sahayam Hospital, Kalayarkovil nor any wound certificate has been obtained from them. He would further submit that the injured son of the petitioner was in an unconscious stage and was transmitted from the said Sahayam Hospital to Sivagangai Government Hospital by the said Pandiyarajan, Vadivel and Jeyachandran through 108 Ambulance van, which was for the purpose of escaping from the clutches of law. He would further submit that the motive for committing murder on the part of the Pandiyaraja was not at all investigated by the respondent police. He would also submit that there was a conspiracy in between Pandiyarajan, Vadivel and Jeyachandran, to commit the murder in view of the previous enmity in between the family members of the petitioner against the Pangalis of Pandiyarajan. 7.He would further submit that the gold ring and cell phone of the deceased Ramu @ Ramarajan were taken away by the said Vadivel and the said gold ring and cell phone were handed over by the Inspector of Police, after securing them from Vadivel to the petitioner, when he went to the police station for getting the postmortem report. However, the respondent police had not done the investigation promptly by examining the important witnesses and also collecting material objects from the place of occurrence like bloodstained earth, sample earth or bloodstained wall or sample wall. Now, the respondent police is putting up a story https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 that the said Ramu @ Ramarajan had accidentally fallen down by the tilt of the reaper fitted across the entrance and was hit against the wall on his forehead. If really, the theory of accidental death is true, the material objects should have been collected from the scene of occurrence, but it was not done so. However, the respondent police is proceeding to close the investigation as an accidental death. 8.He would further submit that the respondent police has not yet seized the bloodstained cloth worn by the deceased Ramu @ Ramarajan nor they took photograph of the scene of occurrence, where the alleged accidental slip had been taken place. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent police had wantonly left lacuna in the investigation in order to close the case and therefore, the petitioner has no faith in the investigation of the 2nd respondent police and it has to be transferred from the file of the 2nd respondent to the file of the 4th respondent C.B.C.I.D. 9.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the 2nd respondent is doing the investigation promptly by examining various witnesses and the investigation is proceeding in a correct line. He would further submit that the charge sheet is yet to be filed after the completion of investigation and the truth will come out in the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner, being the father of the victim in his agitated mood had come forward with certain averments and those averments or allegations would be thoroughly investigated and if there is any truth, then the police will take it as an evidence collected in the investigation. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia and it can be shown as wrong since the fact could be different from the allegation. He would also submit in his argument that there is no necessity for transferring of investigation from the file of the 2nd respondent to the file of the 4th respondent since there was no malafide found in the investigation of the 2nd respondent. 10.He would further submit that the claim of the petitioner that the investigation be transferred from the investigation of 2nd respondent may not be ordered in this case and necessary orders may be passed for early completion of the investigation and the filing of charge sheet by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition. 11.I have paid much consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The C.D. file was produced by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) and I have also perused. 12.No doubt, the 2nd respondent had initiated the investigation in view of the registration of F.I.R. and examined number of witnesses. While going through the rough sketch, I could see that the place of occurrence shown to be an unfinished house belonging to one Raja, Document Writer. The inquest report would go to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased Ramu @ Ramarajan was caused due to the fatal fall at the work spot, when a reaper had tilted the toes of the deceased person and thereby, he fell down and while falling down, he hit against his forehead on the wall. However, the investigation was not done by collecting the bloodstained wall and the sample wall on the location nor any photograph has been taken to show the bloodstained floor or wall. Of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 course, the injury sustained on the fore head is grievous and lacerated one as per the description made in the postmortem certificate. Apart from that, it is the statement of the witnesses that the injured Ramu @ Ramarajan was taken to Sahayam Hospital, where he was given first aid. But he was advised to be taken to Government Hospital immediately since his pulse rate was reducing. 13.No doubt it is true that we can see through the investigation that the said Ramu @ Ramarajan was unconscious immediately after the incident and he was taken to hospital by the Pandiyarajan, Jeyachandran and Vadivel and on the advice of the doctor of Sahayam Hosptial, he was taken to Government Hospital, where, he died. Therefore, we could see that the persons, who treated on seeing the injured Ramu @ Ramarajan at the Sahayam hospital is an important witness to speak about the sequences. But, the 2nd respondent did not examine the doctor at Sahayam Hospital nor obtained any certificate from the said Doctor and recorded his statement. 14.Moreover, there is no evidence to show that 108 Ambulance van was called for and it took the injured Ramu @ Ramarajan from Sahayam Hospital to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai. The driver or other persons in the 108 Ambulance van are also important witnesses to show that the said injured Ramu @ Ramarajan was transferred from the Sahayam Hospital to Government Hospital, Sivagangai. All these circumstances would go to show that the investigation done by the second respondent is much lacking. The injuries sustained the deceased should have been explained by a Doctor and no such evidence has been recorded. Al these things would go to show that the 2nd respondent police is not taking much care in doing the investigation of the case. If really, all these witnesses have been examined and their evidence have been gathered, it would solve the dispute. But, so far, the 2nd respondent police has not taken any steps for filling those lacunae. 15.In the said circumstances, I find that if the investigation is permitted to continue with the 2nd respondent police to reach a finality either to file a final report with accusation against the real culprits or closed as 'Mistake of Fact', as to term the death of said Ramu @ Ramarajan as an 'Accidental Death' with the help of the available evidence collected in the investigation, it would not depict the truth. 16. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that there was enmity had in between the petitioner's family and also the Pangalis of the said Pandiyarajan and no investigation has been done on the said line and the 2nd respondent has not ruled out the possibility of commission of any murder against the said Ramu @ Ramarajan. 17.In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the investigation now being conducted by the 2nd respondent in crime No.253 of 2010 pending on his file has to be transferred to some other higher agencies for getting a breakthrough in this case, since the case is pending investigation for over three months. Therefore, I prefer the 4th respondent to continue the investigation and to file a final report purely on the basis of the evidence to be collected by the said agency. 18.In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 the transfer of investigation is allowed and accordingly, the investigation in crime No.253 of 2010 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent police is hereby transferred to the file of the 4th respondent investigating agency. The 4th respondent investigating agency is directed to take over the investigation in crime No.253 of 2010 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent and to investigate afresh and complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet purely on the basis of the evidence collected by them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai Sivagangai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Crl.O.P.(MD).No.369 of 2011 08.02.2011 arul PAM 25.02.2011/6C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/