Madras High Court
Kumaresan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 12 March, 2019
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16199 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
Kumaresan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
Office of the Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
New Natham Road, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudhu Kottai Police Station,
Madurai.
4.The Dean,
Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai.
5.C.Muthurani, W/o.Chellakannu,
Vellaimalaipatti Post,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai – 625 537.
(R5 is suo-motu impleaded as per the
order of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.09.2014
in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16199 of 2014)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
6.Dr.T.Selvaraj, S/o.Thangaraj,
Associate Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine,
Madurai Medical College, Madurai.
7.Dr.G.Natarajan, MD, S/o.P.Ganesan,
Professor & HOD of Forensic Medicine & Police Surgeon,
Madurai Rajaji Government Medical College,
Madurai.
8.S.Namburajan, aged 44 years,
S/o.K.Sathish,
New No.69, V.G.P. Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
(R6 to R8 are impleaded as per the order of
this Honourable Court dated 29.10.2014 and
made in M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2014 in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16199 of 2014)
9.Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan,
S/o. Ramanathan,
Chamber No.88, High Court Campus,
Madurai – 625 023.
(R9 is impleaded as per the order of this
Hon'ble Court dated 29.10.2014 and made
in M.P.(MD) No.5 of 2014 in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16199 of 2014)
10.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
11.The Secretary,
Home Department, St. George Fort,
Chennai.
12.The Director General of Police,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
(R10 to R12 are Suo-Motu impleaded
vide order dated 29.10.2014) ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
PRAYER : Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying
to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to exhume the body of the deceased by name
Ethinammal, aged about 46 years and conduct re-postmortem by a team of doctors
forthwith and record the entire proceedings from exhume the body and upto the
complete the re-postmortem by video recording.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Ms.S.Prabha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R.1 to R.4 & R.10 to R.12
Ms.U.Nirmala Rani for R.5
Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for R.6
Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R.7
Mr.L.Shaji Chellan for R.8
Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
(Party-in-Person) for R.9
***
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to exhume the body of one Ethinammal, aged about 46 years and conduct re-postmortem by a team of doctors forthwith and record the entire proceedings from exhuming the body upto the completion of re-postmortem. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a degree holder in Engineering and he is doing social service. One Akshaya Trust is running an orphanage home and most of the inmates die in suspicious circumstances. One lady by name Ethinammal who was residing in the orphanage run by the Trust died and her body was taken to Rajaji Government Hospital for conducting postmortem and the postmortem report stated that the death should have occurred due to Bilateral Pulmonary Tuberclosis. However, the said postmortem report was said to have been issued wrongly without actually conducting the postmortem and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief set out earlier.
3. This Court by an order dated 28.08.2014, after seeing the videograph produced by the petitioner directed the respondent police to make arrangement to exhume the body of the said Ethinammal and the 4 th respondent was directed to constitute a team consisting of experts from various department including the Head of the Department, Forensic Science to conduct re-postmortem and file a report before this Court.
4. Pursuant to the said order, the body of late Ethinammal was exhumed and a re-postmortem was conducted and the said report reads as follows:
"The following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body:
1.Contusion measuring 10 cm x 3 cm noted on right frontal region On dissection of Scalp, Skull & Dura:
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Contusions scalp measuring 11 cm x 4 cm noted on right frontal region, 12 cm x 9 cm on right parieto occipital region and 9 cm x 6 cm on left parieto occipital region. Brain liquefied and blood tinghed. Note:
Multiple superficial surface incisions made all over the body reveals nil other injuries."
5. Subsequently, various miscellaneous petitions to implead and intervene have been filed and based on those applications, this Court impleaded the respondents 6 to 9 vide order dated 29.10.2014. On the same date, Respondents 10 to 12 viz., the State Authorities were suo motu impleaded by this Court.
6. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the first postmortem certificate would reveal that there was no injuries, whereas the re-postmortem certificate filed pursuant to the orders of this Court would reveal that no postmortem was done earlier and the Akshaya Trust in connivance with the police and the doctors in the Government Rajaji Hospital procured a fake postmortem report, even though the body of late Ethinammal had injuries and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for initiating appropriate action against the erring persons.
7. Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the 7th respondent would submit that one Dr.Selvaraj was originally allotted with the work of http://www.judis.nic.in 6 conducting postmortem on the body of late Ethinammal, however the said Dr.Selvaraj did not conduct the postmortem and he allowed the students to do postmortem. Therefore, he prayed that appropriate action has to be taken against Dr.Selvaraj.
8. Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the 6 th respondent/Dr.Selvaraj would submit that Dr.Selvaraj has not at all conducted postmortem on the body of late Ethinammal and he did not issue postmortem certificate. He would submit that some foul play has been made in getting the signature of Dr.Selvaraj in the postmortem certificate along with other documents. Professor Natarajan, the 7th respondent herein cunningly obtained the signature of Dr.Selvaraj in the postmortem certificate of late Ethinammal by mixing it along with other certificates on 25.08.2014. As the 6th respondent/Dr.Selvaraj was going on leave for the next four days, he signed several certificates and possibly he would have signed the postmortem certificate of late Ethinammal without his knowledge. The learned counsel would further submit that in the postmortem notes, the case sheet was blank without any signature. Since there are some problems between the 6th and 7th respondents, the 7th respondent had attempted to make the 6th respondent as a scapegoat and therefore, he would contend that the 6th respondent is an innocent.
9. Mrs.U.Nirmala Rani, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the 8 th respondent would submit that without actually conducting postmortem on the body of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 late Ethinammal, the first postmortem certificate was given. However, the second postmortem certificate would reveal that ante-mortem injuries were found in the body of the deceased Ethinammal. She would further contend that there is connivance between the police, Doctors and the Akshaya Trust. Moreover, the said Akshaya Trust has got no infrastructure like Doctors to run a home and it has not been licensed under the Mental Health Act and it has been licensed only under the Disabilities Act and therefore, appropriate enquiry has to be conducted into the activities of the Trust.
10. Ms.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that only based on the experts opinion, the cases are decided. The post report decides the facts of the case. The police authorities have done their duty and there is no fault on the part of the police authorities.
11. The learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the impleading petitioner viz., Akshaya Trust would submit that the Trust is only running an orphanage home and it is not running a mental asylum, so as to be certified under the Mental Health Act. Licence has been duly obtained under the Disabilities Act. He would further submit that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9793 of 2014 filed by C.Muthuram against the State including the Akshaya Trust, was dismissed on 12.09.2014 holding that the allegations against Akshaya Trust have not been substantiated and the Trust has got its licence to run a home as per the provisions of the Disabilities Act. Therefore, he would http://www.judis.nic.in 8 submit that there is no fault or foul play on the part of the Trust in the death of late Ethinammal and he seeks for dismissal of the petition.
12. Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel who appeared as party-in-person would submit that general directions have to be issued by this Court as to how the postmortem should be conducted in future and also as to the procedure for videographing the same, so that unwanted controversies could be avoided at a later stage.
13. Heard all the parties and perused the records placed before this Court.
14. The facts of the case would reveal that there was a mess up in the Government Hospital in conducting the postmortem of the deceased Ethinammal, who was an inmate in the orphanage run by the Akshaya Trust. The records would reveal that police has brought the body of the deceased from the home to the Hospital for conducting postmortem as per law and the body was handed over to the Government Hospital and there only the foul play seems to have happened. It is evident from the first postmortem report that the lady died due to "Bilateral Pulmonary Tuberclosis" and no injuries were noted on the body, whereas the second postmortem conducted pursuant to the orders of this Court would reveal that there were ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
15. Therefore, it is evident that without even conducting the postmortem, the body of the deceased Ethinammal was sent for burial and based on the orders of this Court, when the body was exhumed and re-postmortem was conducted, it was found that there was ante-mortem injuries noted on the body of the deceased.
16. However, as already found by the Division Bench of this Court, the Trust is run as per law and also the records produced by the Police would reveal that there was nothing wrong with the police or with the Trust and the error has occurred only in the postmortem conducted by the Hospital. Therefore, the Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai is directed to conduct appropriate enquiry with the 6th and 7th respondents who are blaming each other for the lapses and initiate necessary action against the erring doctors who issued the postmortem certificate without actually conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased Ethinammal.
17. The Division Bench of this Court had already held that the allegations against the Trust are not substantiated. Paragraph 15 of the order dated 12.09.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.9793 of 2014 is extracted hereunder:
"15. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the allegations made against The Akshaya Trust have not been substantiated, with sufficient evidence. It is also noted that the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Trust has a valid licence to run the Home, as per the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2002. However, we find it appropriate to direct the third respondent to monitor the activities of the Trust and the Home, run by the Trust, periodically, as per the procedures established by law. It is also made clear that, if any irregularities are found in the running of the Trust or the Home, or if it is found that certain unlawful activities had taken place therein, it would be open to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Akshaya Trust is directed to submit monthly reports, regarding the inmates of the Home, to the third respondent herein, apart from following the other necessary procedures. It is also made clear that, before persons are taken as inmates, by the Home, the information relating to such persons shall be furnished to the nearest Police Station. If possible, the identity of the persons may be established and further details, if any, may also be furnished to the Police Station."
18. In view of the above stated position and also in view of the records produced before this Court, nothing can be said against the Trust as well as the police authorities http://www.judis.nic.in 11
19. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.03.2019 To
1.The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Home Department, St. George Fort, Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.
4.The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, New Natham Road, Madurai.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
6.The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudhu Kottai Police Station, Madurai.
7.The Dean, Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J pgp Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16199 of 2014 Dated :12.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in