IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.29025 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007 B. Sivappi .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram (Dt.) 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kallakurichi, Villupuram (Dt.) 4. The Inspector of Police Vada Ponparappi Police Station Villupuram (Dt.) 5. The Inspector of Police Ponda Police Station, Goa 6. The Director Central Bureau of Investigation Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondents. Prayer in Crl.O.P.11736/05: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to the sixth respondent to take over the case in Crime No. 334 of 2006 on the file of the 4th respondent police for investigation and proceed with the same as per law and to direct the respondents to pay a fair and just amount as compensation to the petitioner for the atrocity committed on the petitioner's daughter as per Rule 12(4) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. For Petitioner : Mr.T. Arulraj For R1 & R5 : Mr.J.C. Durairaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R6 : Mr.N. Chandrasekaran Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases O R D E R
This petition seeks a direction for investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. A young girl by name Manimegalai aged 17 years had been taken on the night of 09.10.2006. It transpires that she had been taken away to Goa. A complaint in Tamil had been preferred on 06.11.2006 by mother of the girl and the translation of the same in English is as follows:
‘While I was in prison for prohibition offences, my husband and daughter Manimegalai were staying in the house. On 10.10.2006 morning, my daughter was found missing. After enquiry, I came to know that one Rasathi along with his associates Simon, Durai, Thanikalas and Rupan kidnapped my daughter along with two sovereigns of gold. Since I was not able to trace out my daughter, my husband informed the same to the Village Panchayat. Even though the said Rasathi had confessed himself before the Panchayat for the alleged kidnap and agreed to bring my daughter within two days, Rasathi did not turn up even after one month. Later on, I was informed by my niece Muthulakshmi that my daughter was set on fire on 01.11.2006 in Goa. Hence, I preferred a complaint on 02.11.2006 before the 4th respondent herein and the complaint was refused to accept for the reason the occurrence took place outside Tamil Nadu. When I contacted on the number given by my niece Muthulakshmi, my daughter muttered repeatedly that she had been set on fire by pouring oil onto her body and disconnected the line. Later on, the said Rasathi informed of the address of a hospital Bambooli, Bangalore-Uppili. When contacted again on the same number, my daughter Manimegalai urged me to come to that place along with higher people to rescue her, since she was in a serious condition due to the burn injury. Thereafter, I made a complaint to various officials by furnishing the phone number to conduct proper investigation in the matter to save my daughter’s life.’
3. On such complaint, a case in Crime No. 334 of 2006 was registered by the forth respondent. Subsequent to the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 147, 366(A) IPC r/w 3 (ii)(v) of SC & St Act against five persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no proper investigation had been conducted in the case and the fourth respondent had only acted in such manner as would shied the accused from the consequences of their wrongful action. The complaint made clear that the minor girl had been set on fire and the fact thereof had been informed to the complainant by one Muthulakshmi, niece of the complainant. On being contacted at the telephone number given by the said Muthulakshmi, the complainant’s daughter had informed that she had been set on fire. This has been reiterated by the deceased girl subsequently also. A charge sheet has been filed for offence under Sections 147 and 366(A). The cold blooded murder easily can be perceived in the circumstances of the case. It is absolutely necessary that CBI may be entrusted with the investigation in the case. The decision of the Apex Court in Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and another reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1323 was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to impress upon this Court and that prima facie, it would appear that the respondent police acted towards shielding the culprits. Hence, a direction for investigation by CBI is necessary.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that due investigation has been conducted in the matter and the culprits had been brought to book. The Executive Magistrate at Goa had recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the victim girl at 7:45p.m. on 02.11.2006. As the girl has died, the same has now become admissible evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Such statement has been recorded by the learned Magistrate after following due procedure. A reading of the statement makes it very clear that the deceased girl had suffered burn injuries owing to an accident in the hut, questioned about about her husband, she has stated that theirs was a love marriage and the husband was a very good man, who loved her very much and that what had happened was a case of mere accident. Learned Magistrate had taken due precautions and the questions had been put in Hindi, which had been interpreted in Tamil and the the answer given in Tamil again was interpreted in Hindi to the Magistrate. On finding that the persons named in the complaint of the petitioner, viz. Rasathi and others had taken away the victim girl in improper manner and committed other offences, due charge sheet had been filed. There was nothing to suspect any wrong doing on the part of the fourth respondent police to call for any interference or action by this Court.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. A reading of the charge sheet and the statement of the deceased girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would go to show that there is no room for any suspicion regarding the conduct of the fourth respondent. Major offences have been found to have been committed by the accused and the accused have been charged for such offences. List of witnesses filed along with charge sheet reveals that several persons have been examined towards ascertaining what has transpired in the case. It is seen that Muthulakshmi, who is the person, who originally informed the petitioner / complainant about the whereabouts of the girl, also stands examined. In the light of the clear statement of the victim that she had met with an accident and that her husband was fast asleep at the time thereof, no useful purpose would be served in ordering further investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Such investigation cannot be ordered, since the petitioner / complainant would want a case of murder to be made out against the present accused. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the final report reflects the commission of offences other than informed in the complaint and the accused have not been properly charged for offences committed by them.
8. Needless to state, Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. contains sufficient provisions, which enable the Court to alter charges against the accused in appropriate cases. For the above said reasons, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ar
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Villupuram (Dt.)
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kallakurichi, Villupuram (Dt.)
4. The Inspector of Police
Vada Ponparappi Police Station
Villupuram (Dt.)
5. The Inspector of Police
Ponda Police Station, Goa
6. The Director
Central Bureau of Investigation
Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
8. The Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
High Court,
Madras