IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28315 of 2006(U)
1. SHAHZAD KHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DIRECTOR,
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
7. SRI.MURALEEDHARAN,
8. SRI.JOHN,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/02/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 28315 OF 2006-U
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is that no effective
investigation is being conducted into the crime registered in
respect of a road traffic accident. The petitioner was the rider
of a motor cycle and a friend/employee of his was the pillion
driver. There was an accident involving a K.S.R.T.C. bus and
the motor cycle which the petitioner was riding. The
petitioner suffered serious injuries and one of his legs had to
be amputated. The pillion rider succumbed to his injuries.
Crime was registered under Section 304A I.P.C. It was
registered not on the basis of any complaint by any one, but
on receipt of intimation of death in a road traffic accident
from the hospital. Investigation was conducted. The
petitioner is deeply dissatisfied with the investigation that was
conducted.
2. By order dated 14/11/2006 this Court directed that
the Assistant Commissioner of Police under the supervision of
W.P.(C) NO. 28315 OF 2006-U -: 2 :-
the Commissioner of Police must conduct the investigation. A
report was filed by the Commissioner of Police about the
investigation that was conducted. The Case Diary was placed
before me for my perusal.
3. In the course of initial investigation, the first
Investigating Officer appears to have gravitated to the
conclusion that the accident occurred when the two wheeler
which the petitioner was riding attempted to over take the
K.S.R.T.C. bus along the left hand side of the bus and tried to
swerve on seeing a cyclist coming in the opposite direction. The
said conclusion on the face of it does not appear to be inspiring
as the accident is shown to have been taken place almost on the
western half of the road lying north – south when both vehicles
proceeding from south towards north. Later, in the course of
investigation, the Investigators appear to have changed their
stand and they put forward the suggestion that the petitioner
was attempting to over take the K.S.R.T.C. bus along the right
hand side of the bus and then the motocycle which the petitioner
was riding had fallen on its left on seeing the bicycle coming in
the opposite direction. The petitioner appears to have
advanced a version that he was proceeding in front and the bus
had come and hit on the rear of the vehicle in which he and the
W.P.(C) NO. 28315 OF 2006-U -: 3 :-
pillion rider were travelling. The cyclist has not been
ascertained and identified yet. The report of the Motor Vehicle
Inspector suggests that there was no hard impact between the
K.S.R.T.C. bus and the two wheeler which the petitioner was
riding.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who under the
supervision of the Commissioner of Police, conducted the
investigation also appeared to endorse the conclusion that the
negligent riding of the petitioner was responsible for the
accident. The petitioner has no access to the C.D.; but he
through his counsel urged that the conclusions were not reached
properly and after exhaustive investigation by the Investigators.
This Court, as requested by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, has gone through the C.D. in detail.
5. The C.D. has been subjected to close and anxious
scrutiny by me. I come across a specific statement by the police
officials who reached the scene immediately after the
occurrence recorded in page 141 of the C.D. that there were
tyre marks of the K.S.R.T.C. vehicle involved in the case lying in
the north – south and east – west direction at the scene of the
crime. Quite surprisingly these tyre marks are not noted in the
scene mahazar. Most intriguingly, none of the Investigators
W.P.(C) NO. 28315 OF 2006-U -: 4 :-
appear to have worked on this clue at all. The information
available in page 141 of the C.D. has not been tapped by any of
the Investigators.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the
perusal of the entire C.D. does not reveal that this clue – the
presence of the tyre marks has been pursued by any of the
Investigators.
7. To sum up, I am totally dissatisfied with the
investigation conducted. I am shocked to note that in spite of
specific directions issued by this Court this is the quality of
investigation rendered in this case. I am perfectly convinced
that it will be dangerous to permit the City Traffic Wing to
continue with the investigation. I am satisfied that a more
competent, careful, cautious and forensic and skillful
investigation has to be conducted. The petitioner was
hospitalised for a long period of time and he could not promptly
point out all the relevant details to the Investigators. A true,
correct and proper investigation is the right of every individual
involved in the crime and notwithstanding the fact that the
present Investigators appear to be sailing to a conclusion that
the petitioner is guilty, I am satisfied that the investigation
deserves to be handed over to another competent agency.
W.P.(C) NO. 28315 OF 2006-U -: 5 :-
Directions to that effect have to be issued in this petition though
the proceedings are initiated by the prospective accused
identified by the present Investigators.
8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The
investigation into the crime shall be continued and completed by
the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. The matter
shall be investigated into in detail by the Superintendent of
Police, CB C.I.D. and final report shall be filed as expeditiously
as possible – at any rate, within a period of six months from this
date. Necessary orders to this effect shall be issued by the 2nd
respondent forthwith. Report of the action taken shall be filed
before this Court within a period of 30 days with copy to the
petitioner’s counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor shall
convey this direction to the 2nd respondent forthwith.
8. Issue a copy of this judgment to the learned Public
Prosecutor.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/