IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30149 of 2010(P)
1. GOMATHI, W/O.GOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. DEPUTY SUPERINTNEDENT OF POLICE,
5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.U.R.HARSHAKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s son, Binu was found dead in a paddy field on
09.08.2010. The Manner police registered crime No.388 of 2010
and started investigation. Petitioner says that investigation is
nothing but and eye wash meant to save the real culprits. The first
formation statement was given by none other than the brother of a
suspected culprit and claiming himself to be related to the
deceased. Petitioner says that the first informant is not in any
way related to the deceased and that the attempt is to mislead
investigation and save the real culprits. Petitioner gave Exts.P2
and P3 to the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police
seeking proper investigation but that did not yield result and
hence this petition. Petitioner prayed that respondent Nos.1 and
2 may be directed to constitute a special team to investigate the
case or entrust the investigation to the State Crime Branch.
2. As directed by this Court respondent No.5, Circle
Inspector of Police has filed a statement where details of
investigation so far conducted is stated. It is stated that
W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010
-: 2 :-
witnesses related to the deceased apart from others also were
questioned and investigation conducted so far revealed that
deceased had illicit abkari business with certain persons and that
one Sabu had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased.
While so apprehending that the excise officials might apprehend
the deceased he had been to some other place and later
returned from that place. Thereafter deceased was found
missing. There was a search for the deceased and the search
team included the suspected persons as well. While so the body
of the deceased was found in the paddy filed. The body was
subjected to postmortem examination by the medical officer who
opined that there is no antimortem injuries on the body of the
deceased. Chemical examination (of the Viscera) indicated that
cause of death is drowning. It was further revealed that
pheonothiazenes derivatives were found in the viscera. On
further questing, the doctor who conducted postmortem
examination opined that if a person consumes drugs in sufficient
quantity to affect his body function, it is possible that the person
may die of drowning if he falls into water even if he is a swimmer.
Respondent No.5 has summed up his findings as a result of
investigation in page 5 of the statement and concluded that as
W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010
-: 3 :-
part of investigation the main suspects may be subjected for
polygraph and brain mapping tests.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the said
observations itself would reveal that involvement of the said
persons is suspected by the investigating officer but nothing
further has been done. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
that if body of the deceased was found in the paddy field, mud
particles must have been seen in the viscera. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that investigation has proceeded on the
correct line and as seen from the report, investigation is not
concluded, it is still on and at this stage there is no necessity to
change hands so far as investigation is concerned.
4. I have gone through the statement of respondent
No.5 and seen the steps taken by him in the course of
investigation. I am not persuaded to think that as matters now
stand that there should be a change of investigation. I must also
bear in mind that any investigation cannot be to the full
satisfaction of all concerned. Investigating Officer is concerned
with proving the crime and he has to take all steps necessary for
the purpose. Respondent No.5 states that polygraph or brain
mapping test of the suspect is required. If it is so, it is for him to
W.P(C) No.30149 of 2010
-: 4 :-
take appropriate steps in the matter as per law and he shall do
so.
5. I also make it clear that if any further direction or
monitoring of investigation is required it is open to the petitioner
to approach the appropriate court as and when circumstances
required that.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv