Kerala High Court
Rajeev vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2016
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 7140 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST SC 341/2016 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA
CRIME NO. 469/2016 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:
-------------
RAJEEV
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. RAJU,
RESIDING AT KANNUKUZHICHIRA HOUSE,
VADAKKUMURI, PENNUKKARA P.O.,
POOMACHAL, CHENGANNOOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN MATHEW (THEREZHATH)
SRI.JOBIN JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN- 682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 122.
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688 001.
*4. LATHA M.NAIR,
AGED 49, W/O.LATE M.P.MARALEEDHARAN NAIR,
SANKARAMANANGALAM,
MOLAKKUZHA MURI, MOLAKKUZHA VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.12.2016 IN
CRL.M.APPL.NO.11615/2016)
ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7140 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
-----------------------
ANNEXURE I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 469/2016 DATED
19.02.2016 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE II THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15.04.2016
IN CRIME NO. 469/2016.
ANNEXURE III THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT INVESTINGATING OFFICER IN THE ABOVE
CRIME.
ANNEXURE IV THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM
WOUND CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 54/16 ISSUED BY THE
CENTURY HOSPITAL AT MULAKUZHA IN CHENGANNUR.
ANNEXURE V THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.10.2016
FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE VI. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEGMENT DATED 14.10.2016
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ACKNOWLEDGING THE
RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE VI COMPLAINT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN BA NO.5711/2016 DATED 12.8.2016
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BE COURT
IN CRL.M.C. NO.6843/2016 DATED 21.10.2016
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.7140 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2016
O R D E R
1. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in S.C. No.341 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikara.
2. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct further investigation under sub section (8) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the supervision of the 3rd respondent and also to file the report in a time bound manner.
3.The prosecution allegation is that on 18.02.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. , while the deceased Muralidharan and the first informant were on their way to meet Advocate Venu , the petitioner herein came in a motor Bike and intercepted their Bike. At that time the accused Nos. 1 and 3 came in Crl.M.C.7140/2016 2 a motor Bike and the petitioner herein is alleged to have exhorted the others to do away with Muralidharan. The 1st accused is alleged to have dealt a blow on the head of Muralidharan with an iron rod causing fatal injuries including fracture to the skull and facial bones. The injured was immediately taken to the Century hospital and then to the Pushpagiri Hospital for better neurological management. Finally, he was admitted in the Indo Amercan Hospital at Vaikom. However, his life could not be saved. On 25.02.2016 at 2.30 a.m. he succumbed to his injuries.
4.Investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police Chengannur and he laid the final report before the jurisdictional Court on 15.4.2016. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is pending as S.C. No 341/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - III , Mavelikkara. Annexure-II is the final report which reveals that as many as 28 witnesses are Crl.M.C.7140/2016 3 cited to prove the prosecution case .
5.It is also borne out from the records that the 1st accused has not been released on bail. Instead, while dismissing the bail application filed by him, this Court had directed the Court of Sessions to take up and dispose of the case expeditiously. When the case was scheduled for trial, this petition was filed with a prayer to order further investigation.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor were heard. The wife of the deceased filed an application to get herself impleaded in this petition. The same was allowed.
7.In order to persuade this Court to justify his prayer for further investigation and to bring home his point that the charge is incomplete, mainly three contentions are advanced.
8.It is argued assiduously that, firstly, in the accident register cum wound certificate of the deceased which was Crl.M.C.7140/2016 4 prepared after examining him at 8.10. pm on 15.02.2016, it is mentioned that the deceased was assaulted by two persons. This would falsify the present prosecution case, that the petitioner was also involved. Secondly, the investigating officer did not record the statement of the medical officer doctor who examined the deceased and therefore the investigating agency is guilty of suppressing the dying declaration which the deceased would have probably given to the doctor. Thirdly, no effort was taken by the Investigating officer to obtain the footage from the security camera placed in the house of advocate Venu. According to the learned counsel, if the same was sourced and produced as per law, it would have proved that the petitioner was not present at the scene of crime. The learned counsel would refer to a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in Chandra Babu v. State and Others (2015 (7) SCALE 529) Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979 (2) SCC 322), HDFC Bank Ltd. Crl.M.C.7140/2016 5 v. J.J.Mannan @ J.M.John Paul and Another (AIR 2010 SC 618), Nirmal Singh Kahlon and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (AIR 2009 SC 984) and Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR 2009 SC 2308) to bring home his point that the prime consideration for the investigating officer is to arrive at truth and to do real and substantial justice.
9.Per Contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the first information was furnished by an eye witness to the incident. Referring to Annexure II final report, it is submitted that CW 2 to 7 had all stated about the sequence of events which took place at the scene of crime, prior to, and subsequent to the incident. They have all stated about the role played by the petitioner in the incident. It is further alleged that the investigating officer had made all efforts to contact Advocate Venugopal, who is working in Karnataka but he could not be contacted. The wife of Venugopal was questioned and she is said to Crl.M.C.7140/2016 6 have stated that the camera placed in her house , which was at a distance of about 25 meters from the boundary wall did not capture any part of the incident which took place in the road which was even father off, more so as the incident had allegedly occurred at 7.30 p.m. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the only intention of the petitioner is to protract the trial which was directed to be expedited by a learned single Judge of this Court. He would further submit that no such contention was raised earlier though the final report was laid before the court as early as on 15.04.2016 and the trial is scheduled to commence today ( on 2.12.2016 ) .
10.I have heard the rival submissions and have anxiously gone through the materials on record. The petitioner has produced a copy of the FI statement, the final report as well as the accident register cum would certificate. The contentions advanced by the learned Counsel to persuade this Court to order further investigation does not appeal to Crl.M.C.7140/2016 7 me. Annexure-IV Accident register-cum-wound certificate was prepared at 8.10 p.m., immediately after the incident. It would reveal the injured was immediately referred to a Neuro surgeon of a more specialized hospital. It is not mentioned as to who had brought the injured and who had given the history of the alleged cause of injury. CW 17 is the senior Medical officer of the Century Hospital, who has been cited to prove the wound certificate. The contention that the deceased might have given a dying declaration and the same was suppressed is just an imaginary contention raised by the learned Counsel as according to the prosecutor, the objective was to save the life of the deceased. He was rushed to a better equipped hospital without losing any time. Insofar as the CCTV footage is concerned, though the contention appears attractive, it is clearly far fetched. The incident occurred at 7.30 p.m. and the wife of Venugopal is said to have been questioned. The camera was placed to detect Crl.M.C.7140/2016 8 intruders inside the premises and not to record the events which take place in the road. The boundary wall is at a distance of 25 meters away from the place where the camera was placed according to the investigating officer. I have no reason to disbelieve the investigating officer as the petitioner has no contention even now that any person, let alone Venu or his wife has informed him or any other person that the CCTV footage is available which would give a different version of the incident.
11.In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on various decisions which relates to further investigation /re-investigation, cannot apply to the facts of this case though there cannot be any doubt with regard to the principles ingrained therein. Though this Court is vested with the extraordinary power to direct further investigation or re investigation as the case may be, the said power is to be exercised very sparingly and with great circumspection. Existence of valid and good Crl.M.C.7140/2016 9 reason is an essential requisite to order further investigation. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel are not such as to persuade this Court to exercise the said extraordinary power. All legal and tenable contentions can be raised by the petitioner at the appropriate stage . I do not find any reason to interfere with the trial proceedings .
This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE vps