IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 468 of 2008(E)
1. N.SASEEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008 E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the father of a 13 year old boy, who
died on 26.9.2007 under very unfortunate circumstances. The
petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer for invoking the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct a proper
investigation to be conducted.
2. The sequence of events can be summarized as follows.
The petitioner’s child, a 13 year old boy, was a student of the
local school. On 26.9.2007 he had gone to the school as usual.
Till 3 p.m. he was available in the school. His personal
belongings like school bag, etc. continued to be available in the
school. Later on that afternoon some children had indulged in
throwing stones at a lemon tree near the school. While the
children threw stones, one stone unfortunately went and hit on
the headlight of a car, which was parked there. The car belonged
to a local trader, who was running the same as a taxi. Children
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008
2
naturally got panicky and they ran helter skelter. The Peon of the
school allegedly conveyed information to the driver of the car, who
came to the scene of the crime. He gathered information that the stone
in question which caused the damage to his car was thrown by the son
of the petitioner. He went to the petitioner and said that the son was
not traceable and made complaint to the father. The father came back
to the school. The child was missing. The teachers and other students
also searched for the child. But he was found missing. His
belongings were in the school. No one could get any clue about the
disappearance of the child. It was assumed that the child was out of
fear and feeling of guilt hiding without coming into the open.
3. But later in the night the child did not return to the petitioner.
The petitioner and the members of the family became panicky. They
made enquiries, but the child could not be traced. An F.I.R. was
registered under the caption ‘man missing’ as Crime No. 536 of 2007 at
the local police station on 27.9.2007, the next day. In the F.I.R. no
allegations were raised against any one. In the course of investigation
of that crime the body of the deceased child was recovered from the
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008
3
river on 28.9.2007. Careful examination of the premises of the school
led to an inference that the child must have slipped and fallen into the
river from the side of the school property. Investigation continued.
The police is gravitating to the conclusion that death must have
occurred accidentally when the child ran away in fear and with a sense
of guilt after the stone thrown by him hit the car in question. The other
children had also run away. The petitioner’s son who also ran away
may have accidentally fallen into the river. This appears to be the
conclusion which the police is coming to in the course of investigation.
Final report has not been filed yet.
4. The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that the
police is not conducting a proper investigation. The petitioner
entertains an apprehension that the driver of the car must have
threatened, intimidated and chased his son, who fell into the river. The
driver, who knew that the child had fallen, must have deliberately
suppressed the information and his omission to render timely
assistance to the child is now proved to be fatal. He did not inform the
school authorities or the petitioner or make any attempt to save the
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008
4
child. In these circumstances it is alleged that doubts which have
arisen about the contumacious involvement of the driver of the car is
not removed by a proper investigation. The petitioner prays that a
proper investigation may be directed to be conducted.
5. The learned Prosecutor submits that the investigators have left
no stone unturned to unravel the truth behind the disappearance and
death of the petitioner’s child. All the children have been questioned.
The teachers and the Headmaster have been questioned. The peon of
the school, who conveyed information about the breaking of the
headlight of the car by stone thrown by the children to the car driver,
has also been examined. The car driver as well as his relatives have
also been examined. The petitioner was also examined. The learned
Prosecutor submits that even after conducting a bonafide and efficient
investigation nothing has been discovered to infer that the driver of the
car had any contumacious responsibility for the unfortunate
disappearance of the child or his eventual death. The case diary reveals
that the probable spot from which the child fell into the river has been
identified by taking note of the damage suffered by the plants,
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008
5
vegetation etc. in that part of the school compound abutting the river.
The learned Prosecutor submits that the investigation conducted has
not revealed the complicity of the driver of the car or any other person.
Though the petitioner who did not make any such allegation earlier,
now makes an allegation that the driver of the car had chased the child
and had made him run in the direction from where the child could have
fallen into the river, no such allegations are earlier raised. No
indications appear to be available to conclude that when the driver after
getting information about the damage suffered by his car came to the
car and the school the child was available for the driver to talk to him
to intimidate or threaten him.
6. The final report has not been filed. I shall at this early stage
not express any final opinion. Suffice it to say, after having considered
the averments in the writ petition and the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor and after perusing
the case diary in this case, I am not persuaded to agree that any
specific direction can or need be issued regarding the conduct of
investigation in this case. The Investigator must be permitted to
W.P(C).No. 468 of 2008
6
complete the investigation and file the final report without any further
or specific directions except that the Investigator must conduct and
complete an exhaustive investigation and report his conclusions to
the authorities concerned who must consider the same and pass
appropriate orders.
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm