Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.d. The petitioner was informed by the 4th respondent police to come and collect the body of her son after postmortem conducted at the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and stated that in the event of failure to collect the body, the same would be handed over to the Municipality as Not Claimed. The petitioner filed MP.No1/2011 in hCP.No.43/2011 seeking for the relief of re-postmortem. A Division Bench of this Court has ordered notice returnable by 24.01.2011 and liberty was given to the petitioner to approach appropriate Forum for immediate relief and accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in WP.No.1293/2011 with the above said relief. The petitioner made similar averments in WP.No.1293/2011 except the omission of the alleged events of accident and postmortem etc.

3. Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner suspected that this is a case of honour killing. It is further contended that the claim of the respondent police to the effect that the son of the petitioner died due to an accident is unbelivable in view of the difference and variations between the two postmortem reports dated 15.01.2011 and 23.01.2011 respectively. It is also contended that as per the first postmortem report dated 15.01.2011, the doctor found ante-mortem injuries, viz., abrasions seen on the top of the right shoulder, back of right elbow, back of right upper chest, right lower abdomen, hip knee and top of the left shoulder etc., and muscle deep laceration on the outer aspect of left lower abdomen and back of left hip. There is no mention about any incised wound noticed in the said report. On the other hand, in the re-postmortem report, number of irregular abrasions are mentioned as external injuries and as ante-mortem injuries. It is contended that in the first postmortem report, it is opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries and in the second postmortem report, it is opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to head and chest injuries. It is also opined that the manner of causation of the injuries could not be stated categorically. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the exact cause of the death of the petitioner's son is not known even though the investigation was done first by the regular jurisdictional investigating agency and subsequently by the CBCID police and they are themselves not sure whether the deceased died due to an accidence or due to murder. He would place strong reliance on the status report submitted by the investigating officer, viz., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID and contended that the said investigating officer has clearly stated that the unfortunate death of the deceased has taken place due to the negligent and careless attitude of the escort police constables. It is also contended that even CBCID police has not conducted the investigation in a proper manner and in accordance with law and they have simply placed reliance on the materials collected by the earlier investigating agency and their intention is only to close the case as a "road accident" case. It is further contended that the version of the present investigating agency that the deceased jumped over the barricade and met with a vehicle accident is unbelievable. He would also submit that in the objection filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, the petitioner has pointed out several inconsistencies and therefore, the petitioner is having serious apprehension that she may not get an unbiased and fair investigation at the hands of CBCID and that the matter may be entrusted to an independent agency for investigating into the matter in order to find out the truth and the cause of the death of her son as the victim was in the police custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in view of the admitted statement made by the investigating officer in the Status Reports to the effect that the deceased died due to the careless and negligence act of the escort police officials, the petitioner is also entitled to claim compensation, more particularly, as the deceased died under suspicious circumstances while he was in the police custody.

[e]THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS Vs. DAMAYANTHI AND OTHERS reported in 2011 [4] CTC 746;

[f]GANESAN AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE HOME SECRETARY, ST GEORGE FORT, CHENNAI 600 009 AND OTHERS reported in 2012 [2] CTC 848.

4. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the investigation is carried out by CBCID in a proper manner and in accordance with law. It is further contended that the progress of the investigation in respect of this case was brought to the notice of this Court by way of submission of Status Reports. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID has also filed a common counter affidavit in both the matters, viz., in WP.No.1293/2011 and HCP.No.43/2011 and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is contended that the daughter of the 2nd respondent in HCP.No.43/2011 fell in love with the victim boy, Vinoth @ Vinothkumar and she left her house with the victim boy on 14.08.2010 and thereafter, on a complaint given by her father, they were secured and again on 30.08.2010, the girl came to the house of the petitioner and the petitioner handed over the girl to the police who in turn handed over the girl to her parents. It is submitted that again on 22.09.2010, the girl and the victim boy left their respective houses and the Puzhal police arrested them on 10.10.2010 and the petitioner's son came out on bail in Crl.OP.No.25134/2010 as per the order of this Court dated 29.10.2010. It is submitted that as per the counter affidavit, the daughter of the 2nd respondent in HCP.No.43/2011, was married to one Logesh forcibly as arranged by her parents on 09.12.2010 and from that day onwards, the victim boy/petitioner's son was absconding which resulted in filing HCP.No.43/2011 before this Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the postmortem was conducted properly and as per the order of this Court, the re-postmortem was also conducted by a team of doctors at the Government Hospital attached to the Madras Medical College, Chennai. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the CBCID police are baseless. It is also submitted that on the date of occurrence, the victim was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and he was ordered to be detained in the Borstal School, Nanguneri, for judicial custody as the victim boy was juvenile and while he was taken in a taxi along with the police constables to the Borstal School, he was allowed to answer the nature's call and at that time, he met with an accident and died. It is further contended that the investigation is in progress and the final report would be filed at the earliest. It is submitted that there is no lapse on the part of the present investigating officer warranting for transfer of investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the earlier investigating officer also verified from a team of three doctors including Captain Dr.B.Santhakumar, who has signed the second postmortem report in respect of the cause of irregular abrasions sustained by the victim boy and also ascertained the opinion to the effect that the nature of injuries, the sights, the pattern of injuries found on the dead body would indicate that they would have been sustained by a forceful fall on a hard rough surface as in a road traffic accident. It is contended that the said opinion supports the case of the prosecution.

It is pertinent to note that in the first postmortem, only 3 antemortem injuries were mentioned whereas in the second postmortem report, nearly 17 injuries have been noted. Apart from two abrasions in the second postmortem certificate, there is also a mention about two lacerated wounds on left side of the upper hip and on the lower part of the left side of the back. It is to be stated that in the first postmortem certificate, the second injury is mentioned as 4x1 cm muscle deep laceration on the outer aspect of left lower abdomen" and the 3rd injury is mentioned as 3x1 muscle deep laceration seen on the back of left hip". In the second postmortem certificate, it is opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to head and chest injuries. It is further opined that the manner of causation of the injuries could not be stated categorically. It is pertinent to note that the earlier investigating officer made a feeble attempt to get an opinion from a team of three doctors, including the doctor who has conducted re-postmortem, viz., Captain Dr.B.Santhakumar, to the effect that the injuries found on the deceased would indicate that they would have been sustained by a forceful fall on a hard surface as in a road traffic accident. A perusal of the said communication dated 15.02.2011 from the team of three doctors to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Sub-Division, Tirunelveli, discloses that the said team of doctors have also opined that the injuries found on the body of the victim boy would have even been caused due to attack and assault by rough surfaced hard objects. It is curious to note as to why the former investigating officer has obtained such a clarification in respect of the re-postmortem by putting certain questions. Such clarification is used to be made only during the course of full-fledged trial and that too, during the examination of the doctors. In our considered opinion, even the clarified view expressed by the team of three doctors does not support the prosecution theory as it is specifically stated that such injuries could have also been caused due to attack or assault with rough surfaced hard objects. Therefore, it is crystal clear, as per the opinion of the postmortem reports it cannot be concluded at present that the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused due to an accident.