IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9059 of 2010(Q)
1. SADANANDA JITH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. SIVARAJ, FORMER SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. THUSHAR, AGED 31 YEARS,
7. DILEEP @ KANNAN,
8. K.K.MAHESHAN,
9. ANIL, AGED 30 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :16/06/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.9059 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who retired from the Kerala Police as
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and now engaged in the
activities of S.N.D.P Yogam is alleged to have sustained a
fracture on his right leg and other injuries allegedly on an
attack made by respondents 6 and 7 (accused numbers 1
and 2) in the presence of the 9th respondent (A4) and at the
instigation of the 8th respondent (A3). The Mararikulam
police registered a case against the accused persons as
Crime No.81/2006 under Sections 109,341,326 and 308
read with 34 IPC. According to the petitioner it was the 5th
respondent Sri.P.K.Sivaraj who was the Sub Inspector of
Police who recorded the 154 statement of the petitioner and
the petitioner had given a detailed narration of the incident
to the Police. It is the case of the petitioner that he was
under the impression that the statement given by him to the
W.P.(c).No.9059 of 2010
2
5th respondent was truly and faithfully recorded by the
Station House Officer without omitting any details and that
all the persons mentioned by the petitioner were arrayed as
accused. But the petitioner subsequently came to know
that his statement was not truly recorded by the 5th
respondent, who had substituted the First Information
Statement of the petitioner after forging his signature in the
first information report filed by the 5th respondent. He had
charge-sheeted only respondents 6 and 7 as accused Nos.1
and 2 and respondents 8 and 9 were deleted from the array
of accused. The petitioner immediately filed a complaint
before the official superiors of the 5th respondent and a
further investigation was ordered after removing the 5th
respondent from the investigation. The further
investigation was conducted by the 3rd respondent, Sub
Inspector of Police, Mararikulam. According to the
petitioner, the 3rd respondent also conducted the
investigation in such a manner as to protect the 5th
respondent. The 3rd respondent has also filed a final report
W.P.(c).No.9059 of 2010
3
on 22.1.2010 before the J.F.C.M -II, Alappuzha to the effect
that respondents 6 and 7 are the only culprits. The 3rd
respondent has also deleted respondents 8 and 9 from the
array of accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance
of the said case and registered the case as
C.C.No.1203/2006. It is at this stage that the petitioner has
approached this Court with this writ petition seeking a
direction to the 1st respondent to order a thorough
investigation with regard to the allegations made by the
petitioner against the 5th respondent and to order a further
investigation of Crime No.81/2006 of Mararikulam Police
Station.
2. Eventhough on 18.3.2010 and subsequently on
30.4.2010, this Court repeatedly directed the filing of a
statement, so far no statement has been filed traversing the
allegations of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner
is that, it was without even conducting any scientific
investigation regarding the allegations of the petitioner that
his First Information Statement was substituted after
W.P.(c).No.9059 of 2010
4
forging his signature that the 3rd respondent came to the
conclusion that the F.I.Statement had not been substituted
nor the signature forged. To say whether the signature of a
person is a forged one or not the investigating Officer
cannot take upon himself the role of an expert. The
specimen signatures of the petitioner should have been
taken and forwarded to the handwriting expert along with
the substituted signature (questioned signature) for
comparison and opinion. That has not been done. The
failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the 3rd
respondent is stated to be the explanation for not
questioning the petitioner. The petitioner, however, has got
a contention that when he was summoned by the 3rd
respondent, the petitioner was at KVM Hospital and the 3rd
respondent was duly informed about the petitioner’s
inability to appear before the 3rd respondent and had asked
for further time but no time was granted.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
narrated above, it is necessary that the case is to be
W.P.(c).No.9059 of 2010
5
investigated by an officer not below the rank of a Dy.S.P.
Accordingly, as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor
on the request by this Court, the investigation of Crime
No.81/2006 of Mararikulam Police Station shall be taken
over by Sri.Bernad Dev, Dy.S.P., Crime Detachment,
Alappuzha, who shall investigate the case impartially,
without fear or favour and file a final report before the
Magistrate concerned. The aforesaid Dy.S.P. shall also go
into the question as to whether the First Information
Statement allegedly given by the petitioner to the 5th
respondent herein earlier had been substituted by another
statement after forging his signature. The investigation file
shall be handed over to Sri.Bernad Dev by the 3rd
respondent immediately.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj