High Court Kerala High Court

M.N. Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.N. Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26828 of 2008(R)


1. M.N. RAJAN, MENONKUDIYAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. HOME SECRETARY,

3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JEEMON K.ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :17/07/2009

 O R D E R
             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
            --------------------------
             W.P.(C)No.26828 of 2008 R
            --------------------------

                     JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the father of

deceased Ranjith, whose dead body was found in a

well near to the property of the petitioner on

30.7.2006, under Article 226 of Constitution of

India for a writ of mandamus to constitute a

special investigation team to probe into the

unnatural death of his son Ranjith.

2. On the night of 29.7.2006, a feast was

arranged in the house of Balachandran, a neighbour,

in connection with naming of his grandchild.

According to the petitioner, Ranjith had gone there

to help preparation of feast. When, on the next day

morning, Ranjth did not return, petitioner made an

enquiry and wife of Balachandran disclosed that he

had returned to the house during early hours. As

Ranjith did not reach the house, a thorough search

was made. Finally, the dead body was found in the

WPC 26828/08 2

well, which was taken with the help of fire force.

Exhibit P1 postmortem certificate shows that

autopsy was conducted by the Forensic Professor,

Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, which would

reveal that death was due to the combined effect of

head injury and drowning. It is contended that he

gathered information that on the night of

29.7.2006, deceased Ranjith, along with his

friends, consumed liquor from the house of

Balachandran and thereafter there was a quarrel

between them and Ranjith was forcibly removed from

the house and expressing doubt on the death of

Ranjith, Exhibit P2 complaint was submitted to C.I.

of Police, Puthenkurisu. Later, Exhibit P4 petition

was filed before the Home Minister for a proper

investigation. Contending that no proper

investigation is being conducted in the case, this

petition is filed.

3. Fifth respondent filed a written statement

to the effect that investigation of the case was

WPC 26828/08 3

being conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police till

17.10.2006 and the viscera collected at the time of

autopsy were sent for examination to the Forensic

Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and it

revealed that alcohol percentage in the blood of

the deceased was 74.3%/100 ml. It was also

disclosed that iron rods were found in the well,

where the dead body was found and the investigation

revealed that deceased Ranjith, after consuming

much alcohol, took part in the preparation of feast

and thereafter left the house at about 3.30 a.m.

and on the way, he accidentally fee into the well

and as iron rods were there inside the well, he

sustained injuries on the head and cause of death

was the injuries and drowning and a final report

was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Muvattupuzha on 12.9.2007 itself.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that proper investigation was not

conducted and death cannot be an accidental one,

WPC 26828/08 4

but could only be homicide and if a proper

investigation was conducted, the culprits could

have been brought before law.

5. On hearing the learned counsel and going

through the materials produced, I find no reason to

direct an investigation as sought for. As a final

report, after registration of the case under

Section 174 of Code of criminal Procedure, was

submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the

proper remedy of the petitioner is to file a

private complaint before the concerned Magistrate.

If so advised, petitioner is entitled to file a

private complaint.

Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a

private complaint.

17th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv