Kerala High Court
B.Babu Aged 61 Years vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2009
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/20TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 17266 of 2012 (G)
----------------------------
(CRIME NO.634/2009 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------
B.BABU AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, PALLIVILA VEEDU, PANAYANMOOLA
NADOORKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695122.
BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV
SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KERALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1, R3,R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 17266 of 2012 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF SCENE OF CRIME
634/2009 OF THE SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, ATTESTED BY R5 DATED
21-11-2009.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE DATED 20-10-2009.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10-12-2009 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HOME MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 28-1-2010.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18-1-2010 ISSUED BY R5.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 29-1-2011 ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R5(a): THE TRUE COPY OF THE FSL REPORT DATED 29.05.2012.
// TRUE COPY //
TKS
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)No.17266 of 2012
----------------------------
Dated 11th March, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner whose wife died in suspicious circumstances filed this petition on being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the fourth respondent and seeking a direction to the second respondent to take over the investigation in Crime No.634 of 2009 of Parasala Police Station. The body of the petitioner's wife Savithri was found in the bathroom of the house of Smt.Sunitha, Kuzhivilakathu Puthen Veedu, Thanimoodu, Amaravila, Neyyattinkara on 19.10.2009 at about 20.00 hours, where she was working as housemaid. Admittedly, the body was found in nude inside the bathroom of that house and its door was found not locked from inside.
2. After registering Crime No.634 of 2009 the 5th respondent was conducting the investigation. On being directed to file a statement the 5th respondent filed the statement dated 8th October, 2012. In paragraph 2 of the said statement it is stated that the chances of hitting on the wall of the bathroom and falling on the floor of the bathroom could not be ruled out and at the same time it is stated in the same paragraph that the said bathroom was not seen so slippery in nature. Further it is stated that on chemical examination of viscera no poison WP(C).No.17266/2012 2 was detected. True that it is also stated therein that the report of the vaginal swab and smear on chemical examination reveals absence of any semen or spermatozoa. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine who conducted autopsy on the body of Savithri. It is stated in paragraph 2 as hereunder:-
"The doctor opined that death was due to head injury. According to Doctor, the injury is possible in assisted fall like pushing and that there should be an added force during the fall."
Evidently, the 4th respondent has now taken over the investigation and questioned all the witnesses all over again. Annexure R5(a) is the FSL report dated 29.5.2012. No suspicious circumstances emerged from Annexure R5(a) report. It appears that the Investigating Officer on collecting such materials arrived at the opinion that there is no reason for casting any suspicion on the death of Savithri. Subsequently, another statement was filed on 5.2.2013. However, nothing new is revealed in the said statement except a passing reference with respect to the suspicion raised by some of the relatives of the deceased against WP(C).No.17266/2012 3 Sunitha's son Gireeshkumar as having enmity towards Savithri on account of her passing information regarding his love with a girl named Ranjini, to Sunitha. Without giving any details regarding the investigation in that regard it is stated that the investigation did not unearth any proof regarding such an enmity. Reference regarding the opinion of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of Savithri has been reiterated there. Even in the said circumstances the Investigating Officer seems to have formed a conclusion that the death of Savithri is not shrouded with any suspicious circumstances. Merely because the chemical examination report of viscera detects no poison so also the vaginal swab and smear reveals absence of any semen or spermatozoa are no reasons for drawing such a conclusion. It is very much evident from the report submitted by Dr.Sreedevi, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine who conducted autopsy on the body of Savithri that her death occurred due to head injury and the injury is possible in an assisted fall that is, there is an added force during the fall. Going by normal human behaviour it cannot be presumed that a woman would take her bath in nude in the bathroom of another house keeping its door unlocked. The doctor's opinion is capable of casting suspicion regarding the entry of someone and assisting her fall. In this context, it WP(C).No.17266/2012 4 is also apposite to note that the Investigating Officer himself in the first report stated to the effect that on inspection of the bathroom it was found not so slippery. I am of the considered view that, in the circumstances, a proper investigation by a higher officer is inevitable to elicit the truth. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation could be handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara.
In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The third respondent is directed to entrust the investigation in Crime No.634 of 2009 of Parassala Police Station with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara. On such entrustment the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara shall conduct the investigation effectively and expeditiously and then lay the final report, in accordance with law, before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS