IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14983 of 2010(Q)
1. SASANKAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PULIYATHU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYAMALA
5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :25/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.C.NO.14983 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 25th November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, the father of deceased
Aneesh Kumar, who was found dead in the early
morning of 10/3/2002 at the work place in a
suspicious manner, filed this petition under
Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ
of mandamus directing investigation of crime
No.47/2010 of Valiyamala Police Station,
registered under Section 174 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, by a Special Investigation
Team, excluding respondents 3 and 4 and to
complete the investigation within a time frame.
2. Deceased Aneesh Kumar was working
as Work Supervisor in Sree Dhanya
Constructions. At the time of his death, he
was engaged in the work site at Chullimanoor
Wpc 14983/10 2
near Nedumangadu. Petitioner would contend
that police is now making watchman Murugan,
the sole accused suppressing the true facts. It
is contended that though prosecution alleges
that Aneesh Kumar had consumed liquor on the
previous night, he is not in the habit of
drinking and postmortem certificate shows
that he had not consumed liquor. Accused
Murugan is the helper of abkari contractors
and he is only a paid accused. It is also
contended that dress and watch found on the
dead body does not belong to the deceased and
though it was pointed out by the petitioner to
the investigating officer, that aspect was
disregarded and petitioner was threatened. It
is also alleged that some of the co-workers
were transferred after the incident. These are
suspicious circumstances, which warrant proper
investigation.
Wpc 14983/10 3
2. Circle Inspector, Nedumangadu filed
a statement showing the progress of the
investigation. Statement reveals that crime
under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure
was registered based on the information
furnished by Murugan, the watch man of the work
site and the statement discloses that the
deceased along with other workers had consumed
liquor and on the morning, he was found dead
and Assistant Sub Inspector of Police arranged
to take photographs of the body of the deceased
and conducted inquest which revealed five
visible abrasions and the body was sent for
autopsy. Dr.Sharija, Senior Lecturer and
Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of
Forensic Medicine conducted autopsy. He
certified the cause of death as due to the
blunt injury sustained to abdomen. Sub
Inspector of Police therefore altered the
Wpc 14983/10 4
offence to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
and sent a report to the Magistrate. Circle
Inspector of Police, Nedumangad took over the
investigation on 15/3/2010. On the
investigation conducted and questioning the
accused Murugan finding that he is involved, he
was arrested on 16/3/2010. Remaining broken
torch light which was used by the accused to
assault the deceased was recovered on
17/3/2010 at 10 p.m from the STD booth near the
scene of crime, based on the confession
statement of the said Murugan. Murugan was
shown as the accused and report was submitted
before the Magistrate. Investigation reveals
that Murugan alone was responsible for the
murder of Aneesh Kumar and a thorough
investigation is being conducted.
3. Learned Government Pleader made
available the case diary. It is perused.
Wpc 14983/10 5
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Government Pleader were heard.
4. Though learned counsel vehemently
argued that there was allegation with regard
to the construction of road and based on a
complaint, enquiry was conducted and deceased
Aneesh Kumar had knowledge about the
malpractices therein and it is for that reason
the Management was interested in seeing Aneesh
Kumar dead and this aspect was not properly
investigated, going through the case diary, I
do not find that any material was unearthed to
support any of allegations. No material is
produced to show that an enquiry on the
construction of road was even made. Petitioner
did not make available any material in support
of any of the allegations.
5. Learned counsel then argued that
postmortem certificate does not reveal that
Wpc 14983/10 6
deceased Aneesh Kumar had consumed liquor.
Postmortem certificate will not reveal whether
deceased had consumed liquor or not. Stomach
contents were collected and sent for chemical
analysis. Unless the report is obtained, it
cannot be found out whether the deceased had
consumed liquor on the previous night.
Therefore, for the reason that postmortem
certificate does not reveal that deceased had
consumed liquor, it cannot be said that there
was no proper investigation.
6. Though learned counsel argued
that Circle Inspector Pradeep Kumar had
threatened the petitioner, it is seen from the
case diary that Pradeep Kumar had investigated
the case only till May 2010 and the case is
thereafter being investigated by Circle
Inspector, P.Velayudhan Nair. On perusing the
case diary, I do not find that any particular
Wpc 14983/10 7
aspects were not investigated and omitted to
be investigated. Therefore, I do not find that
in the interest of justice the investigating
agency is to be changed as sought for.
Considering the grievance of the
petitioner, in the interest of justice, it is
directed that investigation is to be conducted
by the Circle Inspector of Police, under the
supervision of an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police. Superintendent
of Police, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to
see that investigation of crime No.47/2010 of
Valiyamala police station is supervised by a
competent Senior police officer not below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
investigation must be fair and effective.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.