IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8895 of 2007(H)
1. BR.DAVIS, S/O S.P.GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. RURAL POLICE SUPERINTENDENT,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/05/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 2007 H
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the defacto complainant/injured victim in a
prosecution, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w. 149 I.P.C. In the
complaint/F.I. statement before the police, five persons are named
specifically. Overt acts were also alleged. It is the grievance of the
petitioner that a proper investigation is not conducted and hastily the
first accused has been dropped from the array of accused. The first
accused was identified as one of the miscreants in the F.I. statement.
But even without further interrogating the complainant, on the very
first day of investigation a decision has been taken that the first
accused is not guilty and has been dropped from the array of parties.
2. Totally dissatisfied with the quality of investigation, this
Court directed the Investigating Officer to appear in person and
explain the course followed by him. It is conceded that though the
first accused is named in the F.I. statement and in the wound
certificate, he was dropped from the array of parties even without
further interrogating the complainant on the short ground that some
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 200
2
other eye witnesses did not specifically refer to him. Final report has
already been filed. The short prayer of the petitioner now is that a further
investigation may be ordered to be conducted by a competent superior
police official.
3. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the quality of investigation. But
I take note of the submissions made by the Investigating Officer, who
appeared before court personally as also the learned Prosecutor that it is
only inexperience and no malafides is involved in the nature of the
investigation conducted. I shall not embark on a more detailed
consideration on that aspect. I agree with the learned counsel for the
petitioner – and that course is not opposed by the learned Prosecutor – that
a further investigation can be directed to be held in the matter under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C.
4. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The 2nd respondent
(Rural Police Superintendent, Alwaye) shall get further investigation
conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by a competent superior police
official, not below the rank of a Dy.S.P. Necessary orders to this effect
shall be issued by the second respondent with copy to the petitioner herein
within a period of one month from this date.
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 200
3
5. Hand over copy of the judgment to the learned Prosecutor today
itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm
R. BASANT, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 200
4
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 2007 H
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2007
O R D E R
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Prosecutor. The case diary has been made available for my perusal. I must
say that I am totally dissatisfied with the quality of investigation conducted
in the matter. I am satisfied that the Investigating Officer, who conducted
initial investigation, must be given an opportunity to explain the
investigation conducted by him as I do think that certain observations
against the quality of investigation conducted by such officer is absolutely
necessary in this case and it will be abdication of jurisdiction not to refer to
such inferior quality of investigation.
2. The learned Prosecutor shall direct the officer, who conducted
the initial investigation, to appear in person and file a statement explaining
the acts done by him in the investigation of the crime. How was the first
accused deleted from the array of parties as early as on 18.11.06 without
and before further questioning the complainant or the doctor, who had
examined the complainant or even without verifying the identity of the
miscreants by some of the witnesses, who were not able to name the
W.P.C.No. 8895 of 200
5
assailants.
3. The Officer shall file such statement and appear in person before
this Court on 13.4.2007.
4. Hand over copy to the learned Prosecutor.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm