Kerala High Court
Murugeshan.M vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941
OP(Crl.).No.501 OF 2019
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN CRMC 3831/2019 AND
CRL.M.C.NO.3834/2019 DATED 04-11-2019 OF COURT OF SESSION,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS:
1 MURUGESHAN.M,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.MUTHU, MANIKKATTI STREET, KALLUR P.O.,
THIRUMUGHAM TALUK, PUTHUKOTTAI, TAMIL NADU.
2 LAKSHMI,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.SHALIVAHANAN, DOOR VINAYAGAR KOVIL THERU,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, KODUAIKKANPATTY, PUDUR SALEM, TAMIL
NADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY
SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
SRI.K.S.MIZVER
SRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD- 678581.
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PALAKKAD- 678001.
R1-3 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2019,
THE COURT ON 12.11.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
O.P.(Crl) No.501 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2019
JUDGMENT
This is a matter which relates to the death of two persons by name Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam. They were shot dead by the police, the Kerala Thunderbolts, a command force of the Kerala Police. The petitioners, who are the kith and kin of the deceased, allege that the death occurred in a fake encounter. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleges possibility of even custodial death. Death was caused in self defence, is the version of the police.
2. The issue before the court, in this petition, is not the truth of the above versions. The petitioners had approached the Court of Session, Palakkad contending that the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in People's Union for Civil O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 3 Liberties v. State of Maharashtra : (2014) 10 SCC 635, regarding investigation of death caused in police encounters, had not been complied with. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners and dismissed the two applications filed by them. Learned Sessions Judge found that none of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court was flouted or violated. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court with this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the questions to be decided in this petition are whether the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in PUCL (supra) have been complied with in the investigation relating to the death of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam and whether there is any sufficient ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Crime No.291/2019 of the Agali police station is the case registered in relation to the death of Karthik @ Kannan and O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 4 two other persons. As per the First Information Report (FIR) in that case, on 28.10.2019, at about 12.20 hours, when the police party was conducting usual patrolling in the reserve forest at the place Mele Manjikkandy, a group of persons who belonged to the organisation by name Communist Party of India (Maoist), opened fire at the police party. It is stated that the police party, in self- defence, fired back. After the exchange of fire, the police party conducted search of the area and then saw the dead bodies of one lady and two men, one of them subsequently identified as Karthik alias Kannan. Crime No.291/2019 of the Agali police station was registered in the matter against 'a group of CPI Maoists' as accused, under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 353, 121 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C and Sections 3 read with 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 16, 20, 38, 39 and 49 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also under Section 27(1)(e) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
4. Crime No.292/2019 of the Agali police station was registered in relation to the death of Manivasakam. As per the O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 5 FIR in that case, on 29.10.2019, when the police party conducting investigation of Crime No.291/2019 and other officials were at the scene of the incident in that case, a group of persons who belonged to CPI(Maoist) opened fire towards the police party and the officials. It is stated that the members of the Thunderbolt fired back in self-defence and a male member of the group which attacked them, subsequently identified as Manivasakam, was killed in the encounter. FIR was registered in relation to this incident as Crime No.292/2019 of Agali police station under Section 307 I.P.C and various other provisions of the I.P.C and the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act and the Kerala Forest Act.
5. Heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary in the two cases.
6. It would be advantageous, at first, to understand the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in PUCL (supra). They are the following:
O.P.(Crl) No.501/20196
1. Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in some form without revealing details of the suspect or the location.
2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used by the police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to the Court under Section 157 of the Code without any delay. While forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code, the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code shall be followed.
3. An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another Police Station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 7 encounter). The team conducting inquiry/ investigation shall, at a minimum, seek:
(a) To identify the victim; colour photographs of the victim should be taken;
(b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including blood-stained earth, hair, fibers and threads, etc. related to the death;
(c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names, addresses and telephone numbers and obtain their statements (including the statements of police personnel involved) concerning the death;
(d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including preparation of rough sketch of topography of the scene and, if possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence) and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death;
(e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased are sent for chemical analysis. Any other fingerprints should be located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis;
(f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the District Hospital, one of them, as far as possible, should be in charge/Head of the O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 8 District Hospital. Post-mortem shall be videographed and preserved;
(g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles, bullets and cartridge cases, should be taken and preserved. Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection should be performed.
(h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide.
4. A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.
5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation. However, the information of the incident without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.
6. The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness.
O.P.(Crl) No.501/20199
7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to the concerned Court.
8. After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent Court under Section 173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded expeditiously.
9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.
10. Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must be ensured that the six monthly statements reach to NHRC by 15th day of January and July, respectively.
11. If on the conclusion of investigation the materials/evidence having come on record show that death had occurred by use of firearm amounting to offence under the IPC, disciplinary action against such officer must be promptly initiated and he be placed under suspension.
12. As regards compensation to be granted to the dependants of the victim who suffered death in a police encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357A of the Code must be applied.
O.P.(Crl) No.501/201910
13. The Police Officer(s) concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material, as required by the investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.
14. An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the Police Officer's family and should the family need services of a lawyer/counselling, same must be offered.
15. No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the concerned officers is established beyond doubt.
16. If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein.
O.P.(Crl) No.501/201911
7. Before considering whether the guidelines mentioned above had been complied with in relation to the investigation of the death of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam, it is to be noted that the contention regarding custodial death raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not merit consideration here. If the petitioners had got a plea that anyone of the aforesaid persons had suffered custodial death, they should have sought appropriate relief in that regard from the appropriate forum. The very fact that the petitioners had approached the Court of Session, Palakkad for implementation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in PUCL (supra) would mean that their plea is that the death of the aforesaid two persons occurred in police encounter. I may hasten to add that, if the petitioners have got a plea that the aforesaid persons died in police custody, inspite of the observations/findings made in this order, they are entitled to seek appropriate remedy from the appropriate forum.
8. Now, on a perusal of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in PUCL (supra), it can be seen that the O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 12 directions under items 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 have no relevance at the present stage. Since the petitioners, who are the relatives of the deceased, exercised their right to approach the Court of Session, the guideline issued under item No.16, has also no significance here. It has to be examined whether the remaining guidelines/directions of the Apex Court have been complied with or followed:
Direction No.1 - Recording Intelligence Information or Tip-off.
9. As per the materials available in the case diaries in the two cases, there was no intelligence information or tip-off received by the police. The encounters had taken place not on the basis of any such information or tip-off. Therefore, direction No.1 in PUCL (supra) has no application.
Direction No.2 - Registration of F.I.R.
10. Strictly speaking, direction No.2 given in PUCL (supra) has no application here. Direction No.2 applies to a case where an encounter takes place pursuant to an intelligence information O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 13 or tip-off received by the police. In the cases at hand, death of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam had not occurred in an encounter which took place on the basis of any intelligence information or tip-off received by the police. Inspite of the above situation, it is to be noted that FIRs have been registered in relation to the two incidents that took place on 28.10.2019 and 29.10.2019.
11. Sri.K.S.Madhusoodhanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that it was illegal and improper to register FIRs against the dead persons and that it was incumbent upon the Station House Officer to register FIR against the police officers who caused the death of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007 Cri.L.J 402) in support of his contention. In the above mentioned case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed as follows:
O.P.(Crl) No.501/201914
"72. It has been brought to the notice of this Court, that cases are registered against dead persons, under Section 307 of the I.P.C. alleging that they attempted to murder the police officials, during the operations. Such a course is totally impermissible. When even according to the report, the person is dead, the question of accusing him, of attempt to murder, does not arise. Further, any investigation into the question, as to whether the death of the person is on account of any indiscriminate use of weapons by the police, without any provocation and other related facts, cannot be carried out, on the basis of a crime registered under Section 307, or the allegations, which are relevant to that provision. In fact, it would amount to contradiction in terms. To this extent, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be accepted".
(emphasis supplied).
12. FIRs in Crime Nos.291/2019 and 292/2019 of the Agali police station are registered against members of the organisation by name CPI (Maoist). As per the allegation in the FIRs, the persons who were killed in the encounter were not the only persons who had attacked the police party. There is also an O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 15 allegation that some of the persons who had attacked the police party had escaped. Therefore, it cannot be found that, registration of FIRs against group of persons who belong to CPI (Maoist), was illegal or improper.
13. But the question is whether the FIRs registered are sufficient or is it necessary to register separate FIRs against police officers for causing the death of Karthik and Manivasakam. The decision in Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners itself gives the answer to this question in the following words:
"59. The death of an individual, who is found dead in an incident of exchange of fire, between himself or a group of which he is a member, on the one hand, and the police party on the other hand, can certainly result in registration of an FIR, if any complaint is made, attributing specific acts to any individual, be it police or outsider as causes of death. The fact that a person was found dead, without there being a specific complaint, cannot, by itself, result in registration of a case, against any individual.
69. It is not as if that the omission to register a O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 16 case under Section 302 against any police official would draw curtain over the whole episode, in a given case of a calculated and pre-meditated murder of a citizen, by the police official, in gross misuse of his power. It is well known that, whenever an offence takes place, it is not necessary that the investigation and trial must be limited, to those arrayed as accused or with reference to the provisions of law, mentioned in it.
Once a case is registered, under whatever provision, and the investigation is taken up, the situation may warrant inclusion of new names, deletion of existing ones' and invocation of different provisions, than those cited in the FIR. Cr.P.C. does not prohibit inclusion of police officials, in the list of accused, if, during the course of investigation their culpability is suspected. In addition to this, Section 176 of the Code prescribes the special procedure and investigation by a different agency, duly conferring magisterial powers upon him. Any one, who is posted with the facts, about the death of an individual, in the encounter, or police firing, can certainly take part in the investigation, and supply necessary material.
87. How hazardous it would be, to require that a O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 17 case under Section 302 IPC must be straightway registered against a Police Official or Armed Personnel, whenever a death takes place in an encounter; is not difficult to imagine. It may not be possible to know the sequence of events that ensue in encounters, which take place in interior places or forests".
(emphasis supplied).
14. Above all, direction No.2 given by the Supreme Court in PUCL (supra) does not state that FIR should be registered against police officers who have participated in the encounter. The direction is that FIR regarding the death that occurred shall be registered. The FIRs in Crime Nos.291/2019 and 292/2019 mention the death of persons in the two incidents. Moreover, as noticed earlier, direction No.2 has application only when death is caused in a police encounter which takes place pursuant to a tip- off or intelligence information received by the police. Direction No.3 - Independent Investigation
15. With regard to direction No.3, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the police team which participated in O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 18 the encounters was led by an officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police but the investigation of the cases is conducted by an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore, there is violation of direction No.3.
16. The case diary reveals that, on 28.10.2019 itself, the District Police Chief constituted a special investigation team headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch for investigation of the incident that occurred on that date. The State Police Chief had, as per the order dated 29.10.2019, entrusted the investigation of the two cases to the Crime Branch to be headed by the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes). Learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation of the two cases is now being supervised by the Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor would also submit that the police party involved in the encounter was led by a police officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 19 supervision of the investigation of the case is not conducted by a higher officer. What is required under direction No.3 is not the investigation of the case by a higher officer but supervision of the case by an officer higher in rank than the officer who had led the police party which was engaged in the encounter.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no investigation is now being conducted regarding the cause of death of the two persons because the FIRs are registered not against the police officers. The apprehension of the petitioners in that regard can be addressed by giving appropriate directions with regard to the investigation conducted in the cases. Merely because the FIRs are registered not against the police officers but against the persons who allegedly attacked the police party, it does not mean that the cause of death and the circumstances leading to the death of the persons in the encounter shall not be investigated.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that finger prints of the dead persons had not been taken and O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 20 preserved. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that during the postmortem, the finger prints have been collected and preserved. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor would submit that, immediately after the dead bodies were found, inquest proceedings were conducted and thereafter, the dead bodies were removed to the Government Medical College, Thrissur and therefore, the investigating officer had no occasion to collect the finger prints from the dead bodies.
19. I have perused the postmortem reports in respect of the body of the persons Karthik and Manivasakam. The autopsy report in respect of Karthik shows that only the thumb impression of the dead body was taken on a sheet of paper. The autopsy report in respect of the body of Manivasakam, on the other hand, shows that finger prints of atleast four fingers of each hand have been taken on a sheet of paper and photographs of finger prints have also been taken. It is doubtful whether taking of finger prints on sheet of paper is sufficient. If there is any acknowledged method of collecting and preserving finger O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 21 prints, that method shall be followed and sufficient number of finger prints of all fingers of each hand shall be taken and preserved and sent for chemical analysis also.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ext.P1 order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge without even seeing the postmortem reports. The postmortem reports were not available with the learned Sessions Judge at that stage. Now, they have been made available before this Court. I have perused the postmortem reports. The postmortem in each case was conducted by a team of doctors of the Government Medical College, Thrissur headed by the police surgeon. The postmortem report contains the description of the injuries found on the dead bodies, with necessary details. The police surgeon, who headed the team, has given statement to the police explaining each injury found on the dead bodies. The case diaries reveal that the postmortem conducted had been videographed.
21. The postmortem report in respect of Karthik shows that his death was due to multiple rifled firearm injuries O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 22 sustained to the chest. The postmortem report in respect of Manivasakam shows that his death was due to rifled firearm injuries sustained to the head and the abdomen.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not raised any other grievance regarding non-compliance of any other matter in relation to direction No.3 in PUCL (supra).
Direction No.4 - Magisterial Enquiry
23. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has submitted that magisterial enquiry is now being conducted by the District Magistrate (District Collector) under Section 176 Cr.P.C. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners.
Direction No.5 - Intimation to NHRC
24. The case diaries reveal that intimation was sent to the National Human Rights Commission regarding the death of the persons on 29.10.2019 in the two cases.
Direction No.7 - Forwarding Documents to the Court
25. The impugned order shows that there was no delay in sending the FIRs and other documents to the court. Learned O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 23 Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, has narrated in detail the particulars of the documents forwarded to the court. The case diary reveals that there was delay in producing some properties before the court. But, a report in that matter had been given to the Court of Session explaining the reason for the delay. Direction No.9 - Information of Death to Next of Kin
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no information was given to the petitioners or any other relatives regarding the death of Karthik and Manivasakam. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor admitted this fact. However, he would submit that the aforesaid persons were natives of Tamil Nadu and their identity had not been established and it was the reason for not giving any intimation to the relatives of the deceased. This explanation is satisfactory. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has also submitted that necessary information had been given to the Tamil Nadu police in the matter. Moreover, as the petitioners, who are the relatives of Karthik and Manivasakam, had got information regarding the death of the persons from other O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 24 sources and since they had approached the Court of Session within a period of four days, this issue does not survive for consideration.
Direction No.13 - Surrender of Weapons by Police Officers
27. The Supreme Court has specifically directed that the police officers concerned must surrender their weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material as required by the investigating team, of course, subject to their right under Article 20 of the Constitution. The case diary reveals that only one firearm used by a police officer was seized during the investigation, that too, only on 05.11.2019. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the weapons used by the other police officers have been surrendered before the Commandant of the Thunderbolts. Surrender of the firearms by the police officers before the Commandant does not amount to compliance with the directions given by the Supreme Court.
28. In the statement filed by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, who supervises the investigation now, it is O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 25 mentioned as follows:
"Request was sent to Head of Operation team participated in the firing to produce the list of members who participated in the operation and to preserve their arms which are surrendered for the seizure by investigation team. Seizure of one firearm belonging to a police officer was done on 05-11-2019."
I am of the view that there has been undue delay in surrender/seizure of the firearms used by the police officers who had participated in the encounter. Therefore, it is necessary to give directions to the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, who now supervises the investigation, to seize the firearms immediately and send them for forensic and ballistic analysis.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the fact that, Section 49 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which is not a penal provision, is included in the FIRs registered. It is a provision giving protection to acts done in good faith in the course of any operation directed towards combating terrorism. Learned O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 26 counsel would contend that, by incorporating the aforesaid provision in the FIRs, already a decision has been taken by the investigation team that the police officers have acted in good faith. There is some force in this contention. Section 49 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, not being a penal provision, it is not explained what was the necessity of incorporating that provision in the FIRs registered. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to give directions to conduct impartial investigation irrespective of the provisions of law incorporated in the FIRs.
30. Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no one, even a Maoist, cannot be deprived of his life except in accordance with the procedure established by law. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. Article 21 of the Constitution confers upon every person that sacred and cherished right. Causing death in fake encounters is nothing but cold blooded and brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law. The 'encounter' philosophy is a O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 27 criminal philosophy (See Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad : AIR 2011 SC 1945).
31. At the same time, whether the death was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely. The question, whether there was any infraction of law resulting in the death of persons, is a matter to be investigated and found out. The case diary reveals that one A.K.47 rifle was found near the dead body of Manivasakam. Three rifles and three country made guns and live and empty cartridges were found at the scene of the incident that took place on 28.10.2019. Police officials also have the right to act in self-defence. Whether they really acted in self-defence or not, is a matter which requires investigation, inspite of any assertions made in the first information reports in that regard.
32. The discussion above would show that most of the directions given by the Supreme Court in PUCL (supra) have been complied with in relation to the investigation conducted regarding the death of the two persons Karthik and O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 28 Manivasakam. However, there are certain lapses and omissions, as noticed earlier, in complying with the directions. Such lapses and omissions have to be rectified. This original petition can be disposed of by issuing necessary directions in that regard.
33. In the result, the following directions are issued:
(i) The investigating officer, in the two cases registered as Crime Nos.291/2019 and 292/2019 of Agali police station, shall forthwith seize the firearms used by the police officers during the two incidents/encounters that took place on 28.10.2019 and 29.10.2019 and take immediate steps for sending them for forensic and ballistic analysis. A report of compliance in that regard shall be sent to the Court of Session, Palakkad, without any delay.
(ii) Finger prints of all fingers of both hands of the dead persons, if already not taken and preserved properly, shall be taken immediately by appropriate method, before cremation of the dead bodies. A report of compliance in that regard shall also be sent to the Court of Session, Palakkad, without delay. O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 29
(iii) Whatever be the penal and other provisions mentioned in the FIRs in Crime Nos.291/2019 and 292/2019 of Agali police station, the circumstances under which the death of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam had occurred and the cause of their death, shall be investigated and it shall be found out whether the police officers who had participated in the encounter have committed any offence in relation to the death of the aforesaid two persons. If the petitioners are not satisfied or if they are aggrieved at a later stage regarding the investigation so conducted, they are at liberty to approach the Court of Session, Palakkad for appropriate relief at that stage.
(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CU-III, Kozhikode, who supervises the investigation, shall ensure compliance with the directions mentioned as items (i) to (iii) above regarding the investigation of the two cases.
34. There is no necessity to further preserve the dead bodies of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam. I have already found that the postmortem reports contain necessary details with O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 30 regard to the injuries sustained by them. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court on 05.11.2019, restraining the State from cremating the dead bodies of Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam, is vacated. Their dead bodies shall be dealt with by the authorities concerned as per the prevailing rules and norms in that regard.
35. It is made clear that, this Court has not, even remotely, expressed any view with regard to the circumstances under which or the manner in which the death of the two persons Karthik @ Kannan and Manivasakam occurred.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr/11/11/2019 O.P.(Crl) No.501/2019 31 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
CRL.M.C 3831/2019 AND CRL.M.C 3834/2019
DATED 04.11.2019 OF THE COURT OF
SESSIONS, PALAKKAD.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE