Kerala High Court
John. T.V vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2025
2025:KER:60908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3352 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOHN. T.V.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.LATE VARGHESE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR.P.O., EDAKKANAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670703.
BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR-670003.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KANNUR-670003.
5 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
RANGE FOREST OFFICE, KOTTIYOOR RANGE, KANNAVAM.P.O., KANNUR-
670650
*ADDL.R6 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
GAME WARDEN/WILD LIFE PRESERVATION OFFICER, KANNUR - 670012
*[ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 IN I.A.
1/2020 OF WP(C) 3352/2020]
BY SPL.GP- T P SAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -2-
2025:KER:60908
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order, whereby the request made by the petitioner for compensation due to the death of his father in a wild animal attack was rejected.
2. Petitioner submits that his father died on 11.08.2019 in an attack by a wild boar. On 11.08.2019 at about 10 AM deceased Varghese went out of the house for the purpose of grazing cows. Till noon he did not reach home. On a search conducted he was found dead due to the attack of a wild boar at a place about 1 km away from his house. Consequent to the death, police has registered Crime No.551/2019 under Section 174 of Cr.PC and conducted investigation. The first informant has given a statement to the effect that the deceased died due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P3 report of the death of said Varghese also states that the death happened due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P4 is the post-mortem certificate in which it is opined that the cause of death suggests that the deceased was attacked by an animal. Ext.P5 is the inquest report, wherein almost four persons gave statement to the effect that the death happened due to the attack by a wild boar. In Ext.P5 it is further stated that almost all the WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -3- 2025:KER:60908 persons in the Panchayat are in unison regarding the cause of death of deceased Varghese that it happened due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P7 is the newspaper report, wherein also it is reported that the said Varghese died due to the attack by a wild boar.
3. A request was made for payment of compensation towards death due to attack by a wild animal, and by Ext.P8 a reply was given as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, that, as it is not clear as to whether the death has happened due to the attack by a wild boar, the request for compensation stands rejected. Thereupon Exts.P9 and P10 requests were made before the Government, and Ext.P11 before the District Collector, Kannur. As no action was taken on the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P12 request for compensation in proper form. Ext.P13 series of photographs were also produced to show the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased and contended that the depth of the wound on the neck and other parts of the body will categorically prove that the death has happened due to an attack by a wild boar.
4. A detailed statement has been filed by the 6 th respondent, placing reliance on Annexure.R6(a) report submitted WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -4- 2025:KER:60908 by the Section Forest Officer that, on enquiry, no evidence could be gathered that it is an attack by a wild boar, and Ext.R6(d) post- mortem report only says that the death was due to an attack by an animal. Relying on the injuries noted in Ext.R6(b) post-mortem report it is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) that the nature of the wound and other marks present in the dead body make it clear that the death was not due to an attack by a wild boar. The Divisional Forest Officer (Flying Squad), Kannur Division conducted an enquiry and has taken statement of a nearby resident as Ext.R6(c), in which he gave a statement to the effect that he has seen an ox with blood and sand on its horn and therefore, the death of the said Varghese has happened due to attack by an ox, and the contention that he was attacked by a wild boar is only an attempt to get compensation on the said basis.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in an attack by a wild boar, and that he is entitled for compensation. Ext.P4 post-mortem certificate reveals that the death of the deceased was due to an attack by an animal. Crime was registered on the statement given by the 1 st informant that the death occurred due to an attack by a wild boar. While preparing WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -5- 2025:KER:60908 Ext.P5 inquest, statements of four persons in the locality was taken and they have reported that there can be no doubt that the death has occurred due to the attack by a wild boar. Further in Ext.P5 it is clearly stated that the residents of the Panchayat were unison of the fact that the death had occurred due to the attack by a wild boar. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is Ext.R6(c) statement given by a neighbouring property owner. In the reply affidavit the petitioner has taken a contention that, he has given such a statement due to rivalry towards the deceased for the reason that the deceased used the nearby property to graze the cattle. In Ext.R6(c) statement the said Ravindran, who has deposed against the claim of the petitioner, has stated that the deceased Varghese had various oxen and 10 cattles, and the date on which he was found dead, i.e, on 11.08.2019, during morning 9 O'Clock, these cattle and the oxen came to his property, and the same was informed to Shri.Thankachan, who is the son of the deceased Varghese, and he went to the site and took the oxen and cattle with him. It is further stated that in the evening, one Ramadasan came to his house and asked who has expired today, and thereafter he made enquiry regarding the same and found that it is Varghese who had died, and he further stated that he remembers that on the horn of WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -6- 2025:KER:60908 the ox which came to his house during morning on that day, there was blood and soil, and it is taking into consideration the above said statement given by Ravindran as per Ext.R6(c) the claim was rejected. This Court prima facie finds it difficult to accept the said statement of said Ravindran due to the following reasons. The petitioner has in the reply affidavit stated that the said Ravindran had rivalry towards the deceased. Further as per the statement he deposed to the effect that he saw the ox of the deceased entering into his property, on the day of death of Varghese, at about 9 AM, and, he informed the same to the son of the deceased. But it is a fact that though the presence of the oxen and cattles were informed to the son of the deceased, he was not informed about the presence of blood on the horn of one of the oxen. The presence of blood on the horn of the ox is something which will not be taken lightly by anybody, and if he has seen the blood on the horn of the ox, he would definitely have informed this fact to the son of the deceased, which he did not do, even going by the statement, but gave a statement to the Forest Officials, a month after the incident that he remembers that there was presence of blood on the horn of the ox which came to his property on 11.08.2019 at about 9 O'Clock. The fact that he did not reveal the presence of blood on the horn to the son of the deceased coupled WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -7- 2025:KER:60908 with the contention of the petitioner that he was not in good terms with the deceased will create suspicion regarding his statement. The photographs produced also will reveal that there are severe injuries on the body of the deceased, which the petitioner claims that it will not normally occur due to an attack by an ox. It is also to be noted that it is the responsibility of the State and the Forest Department to see that the citizens are not attacked by any wild animal, and if attacked, it is the duty of the Government to provide adequate compensation for the same.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that all the persons except the person who gave Ext.R6(c) statement has categorically stated that there is no doubt that the death has occurred due to the attack by a wild boar, and the post-mortem report also says that the death occurred due to an attack by an animal, I am of the opinion that Ext.P8 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside. There will be a consequential direction to respondents 5 and 6 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compensation in the light of the observation made above, without any delay, at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner will be free WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -8- 2025:KER:60908 to adduce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the authorities concerned in the proceedings.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-
WP(C) No. 3352 of 2020 -9-
2025:KER:60908 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3352/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Ext. P13 True copy of the photographs of the body of the deceased EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF VARGHESE DATED 20.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR.NO.551/2019 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE ON THE DEATH OF VARGHESE DATED 19.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE OF VARGHESE DATED 13.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT DATED 12.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYAL MANOREMA DAILY DATED 12.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2.9.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.