Madras High Court
Karuppayee vs The State Represented By on 17 April, 2007
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17/04/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3029 of 2007 Karuppayee ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Panavadali Chatram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Division, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. 5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.64 of 2007 from the file of the first respondent, to the file of the fifth respondent herein and further direct the fifth respondent to conduct proper investigation by taking appropriate steps as against one Sumathi, W/o.Neeli Rajarathinam and one Neeli Rajarathinam of Maruthankinaru village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, and to file final report within the stipulated time. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :ORDER
This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.64 of 2007 from the file of the first respondent, to the file of the fifth respondent herein and further direct the fifth respondent to conduct proper investigation by taking appropriate steps as against one Sumathi, W/o.Neeli Rajarathinam and one Neeli Rajarathinam of Maruthankinaru village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, and to file final report within the stipulated time.
2. The facts in nutshell for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
Consequent upon the death of one Servaran aged about 65 years the Panchayat President of Maruthankinaru village, who was found dead on 19.02.2007 in the field, the police registered the case in Cr.No.64 of 2007 under section 174 Cr.P.C and sent the dead body for post-mortem. A team of two doctors conducted the post-mortem and ultimately recorded as under:
"cs;SWg;g[fs;- bghpfhh;oaj;jpy; (pericaridum) 1 ypl;lh; ciw uj;jk; fhzg;gl;lJ. bghpfhh;oaj;jpy; Xl;il Vjk; ,y;iy. ,Ujak; 300 gms vy;yh miwfSk; fhyp. ,lJ btz;ohpf;fps; (ventricle) btspr;Rthpy; 3 X 0.5 X 2 cm rpije;j fhak;. cs;Rthpy; fhak; VJk; ,y;iy. Heard congested. (FUjp njf;fepiy). Left Pluera cavity y; 50 m.l fUepw ,uj;jk;. ,lJ EiuaPuy; RUq;fpa epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ. EiuaPuypy; mst[ rpije;j fhak;. ,iug;igapy; 50 kpyp ghjp brhpj;j Ty; nghd;w jputk; fhzg;gl;lJ. Fwpg;gplj;jf;f kzk; Vjk; ,y;iy. fy;yPuy;> EiuaPuy;> .. ,iug;ig. RpWePufk;> K:is> midj;Jk; uj;jj; njf;f epiy. Fuy; tis vYk;g[ nrjkpy;iy. ryhy; vYk;g[> K:is> jz;Ltlk; nrjk; Vjk; ,y;iy. "
3. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. Those team of Doctors were of the opinion that severe force applied externally might have caused such internal injury to the heart and thereby the death might have occurred. Thereupon, the police altered the F.I.R into one under Sections 3(ii)(v) of the S.C / S.T Act and 302 I.P.C and took up the investigation. The police referred the matter to the Professor of Forensic Science, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, who opined that Myocardial infarction might have caused such rapture/laceration in the heart and his opinion is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"1) ,we;j egUf;F btspf; fhaq;fs; Vjk; ,y;yhky; ,Ujaj;jpy; gpzf;TW Ma;t[ rhd;wpjHpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgo Lacerated injury tu tha;g;g[ cz;lh?
tha;g;g[ ,y;iy.
2) nehahsp Vw;fdnt ,Uja nehapdhy; mtjpg;gl;oUe;jhy;> ,J nghy Lacerated injury ,Ujaj;jpy; tu tha;g;g[ cz;lh?
Myocardial infarction dpd; ,Wjp tpisthf ,lJ btz;ohpf;fps; jhnd rpije;J Laceration nghy; bjhpa[k;.
mg;go ,Uja nehahsp vd;why; gpzf;TW Ma;tpy; Fwpg;gpl;l fhaq;fis tpsf;fkhf brhy;yt[k;.
Laceration nghy; ,lJ btz;ohpf;fps; Rupture Mdhy; bjhpa[k;.
3) cq;fs; mgpg;uhag;go ,J khuilg;g[ kw;Wk; mjdhy; Vw;gLk; khw;wq;fs; jhnd.
Mk;.
4) ,wg;gpd; ,Wjpahd cq;fs; fUj;bjd;d.
khuilg;g[ kw;Wk; mjd; tpist[fspd; jd;ikahy; ,we;jpUf;fpwhh;. (i.e) Myocardial rupture and its complications."
4. In this factual matrix, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this is not a case of murder, in view of the opinion of the Professor of Forensic Science. According to him, the investigation is pending and several witnesses were examined, but so far, it has not disclosed any homicide.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit by drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant previous motive between the deceased and the other accused relating to the bifurcation of a large area and declaring a part of it as Scheduled Caste area, namely Maruthankinaru village Panchayat and the deceased at the time of his death was the Panchayat President of that area. The Vice-President and his wife are suspected as the ones who caused the death of Servaran.
6. Highlighting the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that CBI enquiry is absolutely necessary to probe into the matter and cull out the truth in an unbiased manner. He would also air the grievance of the petitioner that even the petitioner was not examined and the other witnesses whom the petitioner relies on to prove that this is a case of murder.
7. There are allegations by the petitioner as against the method and manner of investigation conducted by the police, for which the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that those allegations are baseless.
8. Be that as it may, without deciding on the truth or otherwise of the matter, I would like to observe that earlier the police had chosen to register the case only under Section 174 Cr.P.C and after getting the opinion from the team of Doctors who conducted the post-mortem, the police has chosen to alter it into a case of homicide. However, because of the opinion given by the Professor, Forensic Science Department, they are not in a position to conclude that this is a case of murder.
9. It is a trait proposition of law that medical evidence alone would not be the decisive factor. The Honourable Apex Court repeatedly held that if the medical evidence is contrary to reliable ocular evidence, the latter would prevail over the former. Indubitably the medical evidence is an important piece of evidence, however that alone is not the decisive factor for recording the conviction. Here, the grievance of the petitioner is that he has got sufficient evidence to produce before the police that it is a case of murder, but the police is not at all taking into account the evidence on the side of the petitioner.
10. Be that as it may, considering the seriousness of the allegations made by the petitioner and also the fact that earlier there were some discrepancies noted between the opinion given by the team of doctors and the Professor of the Forensic Science Department, in the interest of achieving objectivity and also the maxim, that it is not enough to do justice, but is must be seen to be done. I would like to direct the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Tirunelveli to take over the investigation and probe into the matter as per law keeping in view of the averments made in this petition. The first respondent shall hand over the relevant case file to the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Tirunelveli.
11. With the above direction, this petition is closed.
rsb To
1.The Inspector of Police, Panavadali Chatram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Division, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
4.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.