IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33829 of 2010(C)
1. MAJU K.M.,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR(LATE)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INSPECTOR, C.B.C.I.D.,KOZHIKODE
... Respondent
2. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
3. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
4. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------
WP(C).No.33829 OF 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s father, a noted public figure, was found dead in a
pond on 20.12.2008 near his residence. He was a political activist.
Exhibit P1 is the certificate of postmortem examination, which,
according to the petitioner revealed several serious antimortem
injuries on the body and chemical examination suggested absence of
water and other materials in the internal organs of deceased.
Petitioner thought that the investigation is not proceeding in the
correct line and that the real cause of death has not been unravelled
by the investigating officer. Various reasons are stated by the
petitioner for his thinking so. It is therefore prayed that investigation
may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short,
‘the CBI’).
2. In answer to the allegations made in the petition and
explaining the steps taken in the investigation and its present stage,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, HHW-III, Wayanad Sub
Unit, which is under the Superintendent of the said wing at Kozhikode
has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that a case was originally
registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at
WP(C).33829/10 2
Kozhilode Police Station on 20.12.2008 at about 09.00 hrs on the
strength of a statement given by one P.V.Somasekharan. Local police,
in the course of investigation, questioned 35 witnesses and seized
certain material objects as also collected sample water from the pond
for diatom test. The Director General of Police ordered transfer of
investigation to the Crime Branch CID vide order No.1171/2009/M (H,V
& T) dated 17.1.2009. As per order dated 16.2.2009 of Superintendent
of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode investigation was entrusted to
one P.M.Pradeep, Detective Inspector, Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode,
who took over investigation on 17.2.2009 and continued it till
4.4.2009. When that officer was transferred investigation was
entrusted to one P.T.Vasudevan, Detective Inspector, Crime Branch
CID, Kozhikode, on 5.4.2010. Now the Superintendent of Police, Crime
Branch CID HHW-III, Kozhilode has entrusted investigation to the
deponent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, HHW-III
wing. That officer has taken investigation after 6.8.2010. It is stated
that the body of the deceased was found in a pond after about 12
hours of his leaving his house at about 20.30 hrs on 19.12.2009. The
Senior Lecturer and Police Surgeon who conducted autopsy visited the
scene of crime on 22.12.2009 and when questioned stated that diatom
was detected in the bone marrow. He did not rule out possibility of dry
drowning. Possibility of facial injuries being sustained by the impact of
WP(C).33829/10 3
fall on the face on the irregular stones of steps near the site where
dead body was found could not be ruled out. There is also reference to
chemical examination of blood detected from the full sleeve shirt and
other materials. The Medical officer, who conducted postmortem
examination has stated in the certificate of postmortem examination
that postmortem findings are not inconsistent with the history of death
due to drowning. Even though the classical sign of wet drowning were
not seen, possibility of dry drowning could not be excluded. Details of
investigation conducted by the deponent are narrated in the counter
affidavit all of which are not required to be extracted. Deponent says
that there is no objection in handing over investigation to any other
agency while denying the allegations of inaction or improper
investigation.
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides and learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for CBI would contend
that since so many cases are entrusted to that agency for
investigation, there is a dearth of officers to cope up with the situation
and to cater to all the requirements.
5. On going through the report of the investigating officer
referred to above, presently I do not find it necessary to order
investigation by a different agency. But, I direct that the
WP(C).33829/10 4
Superintendent of the CBCID, HHW-III Wing, which is now investigating
the case shall monitor the investigation of the case.
With the above directions and without prejudice to right of
petitioner, if necessary, to approach this Court or the court of learned
Magistrate in the light of the decision reported in Sakiri Vasu v.
State of U.P (2008(1) KLT 724 (SC) ), this petition is closed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE
vgs